Android Ethics

[PRmerger]

For one more (and last time), atheism does not claim that there are no “gods”.

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/facepalm/grand/disappointed_gif_44556.gif

When asked to prove atheism is true, many atheists say that they don’t have to prove anything. They say atheism is not “belief there is no God” but merely “no belief in a God.” Atheism is defined in this context as a “lack of belief” in God, and if Catholics can’t prove God exists, then a person is justified in being an atheist. But the problem with defining atheism as simply “the lack of belief in God” is that there are already another group of people who fall under that definition: agnostics.
strangenotions.com/is-atheism-a-belief/

 

[Hee_Zen]

And that is the whole reason? You asked one question on the Internet, did not get an answer and then you concluded that Thomism is wrong? That doesn’t look very reasonable… Did you at least learn something about Thomism?

No, my reasons go far beyond that, but that is not the topic of this thread. Suffice it to say that I do not accept Thomism as a good philosophy.

Anyway, why talk about dogs here? We are dealing with humans.

Dogs are much simpler. If there is such a valid category called “essence” then one expects to see a coherent definition for the “essence” of a dog, or even a human. Is there one? If you wish, you can p(name removed by moderator)oint the “essence” of a chair… or the “essence” of a dump of excrement you deposit in your toilet bowl every morning - hopefully.

Your views, on the other hand, lead to conclusion that no definition exists.

Not so. My definition is that humans are a subset of sentient / self-aware beings, having a vaguely established DNA structure - which is not important. The only definition one needs is the “working definition” based upon the phrase of Forrest Gump: “human is as human does” - and we have a huge sample of humans we can use as a reference material.

All kinds of movies tell us that the right next “question” is “You can talk?”.

So, can you find us some movie (although even a “fanfic” will do) where the protagonist moves on to assembling a panel of judges and performing a Turing test?

I do suspect that it would be a comedy, for that does not sound like a very smart thing to do…

These Turing tests are being performed in real life. For the time being, the other parties can easily be “unmasked” as being non-humans - since they are much too simplistic.

Also, if computer doesn’t know when you are reaching for “Turn off” button, why should it change the message?

And if it knows? The computer can have visual and auditory (name removed by moderator)ut. to recognize your attempt.

Sure, we can investigate internal processes of a human. That’s what EEG, functional MRI and other techniques are for.

None of those are sophisticated enough to detect the actual thoughts.

Of course there is some way. If there was no way, we wouldn’t know we are dealing with an android.

What is it? Hacking the other party to pieces with a chain-saw would be classified as “murder” if it would turn out to be a biological human.

Wouldn’t it be easier to give yourself as an example of such human?

But you would only rely on my word… and maybe I am a very sophisticated AI, who merely pretends to be a “human”. This is the gist of the problem. All you have is the (name removed by moderator)ut of a long conversation, nothing else. And you need to decide if the other party is a human or an “impostor”.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The question is: does atheism make a claim about reality?

Yes or no?

Of course it does.

Thus, it has the burden of proof to support its claim that atheism is true.

Okay, if you say so. Out of curiosity what’s the claim?

 

[PRmerger]

Okay, if you say so. Out of curiosity what’s the claim?

The atheist makes the claim, “Atheism is true”.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The atheist makes the claim, “Atheism is true”.

I’m guessing the people you hear say it are strong atheist. The stance of an agnostic atheist or one of the other forms (ignostic atheist, apatheist, non-theisticallly religious so on…) doesn’t seem like one for which such an assertion would be made. Nor would the term “atheism” be applicable to anything beyond the personal belief stance of the other types of atheist. Depending on which group you encounter you may be encountering some one making a truth claim or encountering some one not making a truth claim.

If ever in doubt ask someone to explain his or her claim.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m guessing the people you hear say it are strong atheist. The stance of an agnostic atheist or one of the other forms (ignostic atheist, apatheist, non-theisticallly religious so on…) doesn’t seem like one for which such an assertion would be made. Nor would the term “atheism” be applicable to anything beyond the personal belief stance of the other types of atheist. Depending on which group you encounter you may be encountering some one making a truth claim or encountering some one not making a truth claim.

If ever in doubt ask someone to explain his or her claim.

Anyone who has “agnostic” attached to his views is saying he’s not sure, and therefore must be open to evaluating the arguments for God’s existence. And needs to present reasons for his rejection of these arguments.

Anyone who is an “atheist”, whether strong, weak or tepid, is making a claim. Thus, he needs to present proof that his view is consonant with reality.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Anyone who has “agnostic” attached to his views is saying he’s not sure, and therefore must be open to evaluating the arguments for God’s existence. And needs to present reasons for his rejection of these arguments. Anyone who is an “atheist”, whether strong, weak or tepid, is making a claim. Thus, he needs to present proof that his view is consonant with reality.

Atheism is a banned subject. But etymology of the words is not - hopefully. The word “theism” means the **belief **in some supernatural. The word “a-theism” is the negation of this stance - and as such it means the lack of such belief. All atheists share this lack of belief. That is what is common among them. Different people have different reasons for that lack of belief.

But this is **NOT **the topic of this thread. Kindly stop this derailing tactics and concentrate on the problem at hand.

 

[PRmerger]

Atheism is a banned subject. But etymology of the words is not - hopefully. The word “theism” means the **belief **in some supernatural. The word “a-theism” is the negation of this stance - and as such it means the lack of such belief. All atheists share this lack of belief. That is what is common among them. Different people have different reasons for that lack of belief.

The atheist needs to answer this question: is atheism true?

If the answer is yes, he needs to offer some proofs for his beliefs.

(BTW, if the answer is “I believe so” that’s the same as “yes”. For example, if you ask your wife, “Are we going out tonight?” and she says, “I believe so” is her answer “No”? “I don’t know”? Or…“yes” )

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Anyone who has “agnostic” attached to his views is saying he’s not sure, and therefore must be open to evaluating the arguments for God’s existence. And needs to present reasons for his rejection of these arguments.

My view on one’s obligation to share the reason for her stance probably differs from the popular view here. It contributes to me not having total agreement with what you’ve said above. But that’s another discussion.

Anyone who is an “atheist”, whether strong, weak or tepid, is making a claim. Thus, he needs to present proof that his view is consonant with reality.

Some people use the word “literally” to mean “actually.” Some others also use the word to mean “metaphorically.” The actualist disagree that the metaphorist are using the word properly. The metaphorist say otherwise. Both groups can find dictionaries to justify their stance. Both groups can find writings going back over a 250 years from authors that have shared their usage rules. There’s been many exchanges to try to persuade one group to adopt the semantics of the others without success. The discussion continues.

There’s another word, “atheism.” Some groups use it to represent a claim. Some groups use it to represent a stance…well, you see where this is going.

Ammon Shea could have a field day with this word.

 

[PRmerger]

My view on one’s obligation to share the reason for her stance probably differs from the popular view here.

Not sure why you think your view on one’s obligation to share the reason for your stance differs from mine.

I completely agree with what you posted in your link.

Some people use the word “literally” to mean “actually.” Some others also use the word to mean “metaphorically.” The actualist disagree that the metaphorist are using the word properly. The metaphorist say otherwise. Both groups can find dictionaries to justify their stance. Both groups can find writings going back over a 250 years from authors that have shared their usage rules. There’s been many exchanges to try to persuade one group to adopt the semantics of the others without success. The discussion continues.

There’s another word, “atheism.” Some groups use it to represent a claim. Some groups use it to represent a stance…well, you see where this is going.

Ammon Shea could have a field day with this word.

Point: if atheism is true, atheists need to offer arguments which support it.

Doesn’t that sound reasonable, TS?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Point: if atheism is true, atheists need to offer arguments which support it.

Doesn’t that sound reasonable, TS?

I think that some one wanting to convince another person is motivation to provide something that may be convincing (which was expressed in the link). Arguments both logical and non-logical (not to be confused with illogical) are two such tools of convincing. If there is no desire to change the stance of another then there may be no motivation to provide something convincing.

 

[PRmerger]

I think that some one wanting to convince another person is motivation to provide something that may be convincing (which was expressed in the link). Arguments both logical and non-logical (not to be confused with illogical) are two such tools of convincing. If there is no desire to change the stance of another then there may be no motivation to provide something convincing.

We are talking about folks who are in dialogue about the existence of God. (Although, I think that it’s really not asking too much to ask any atheist to provide for *herself * apologia for her atheism.)

If someone comes to a forum and identifies herself as an atheist, she needs to offer some reasoned defenses for her atheism.

I don’t think that’s unreasonable.

I’m not really talking about attempts to “convince” others.

Offering apologia for one’s atheism is simply required in order to demonstrate to us that the atheist is a reasonable person.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

We are talking about folks who are in dialogue about the existence of God.

Two people can dialogue about the existence of God without needing to introduce what their actual stance is. Mary can share an argument with Bill about the existence of God and Bill can give constructive criticism of areas where the argument may be weak, not clear, or not convincing. Bill may or may not hold a belief of a God himself.

(Although, I think that it’s really not asking too much to ask any atheist to provide for *herself * apologia for her atheism.)
If someone comes to a forum and identifies herself as an atheist, she needs to offer some reasoned defenses for her atheism.

No she doesn’t. But if she finds motivation to do so that is something that is probably better done in a different forums (forum rules and all). Sharing thoughts on why one’s specific argument for their god-concept isn’t convincing is fine and within the boundaries of the forum rules. But presenting an argument supporting the interpretation of “Atheism” that I think you have is expressly not allowed.

If you disagree you could try starting a thread asking for such a reasoned defense and then see whether or not the thread is allowed to persist. I only say that as a hypothetical. Don’t literally do it.

I don’t think that’s unreasonable.

It may be incompatible with the forum rules. At best I think you can present an argument for God and ask someone to share their thoughts about it.

Offering apologia for one’s atheism is simply required in order to demonstrate to us that the atheist is a reasonable person.

I don’t think it is. Try engaging a person as though she is reasonable and from her responses make a decision on whether or not further engagement seems futile.

On another topic…

How about those rules of robotics? Has any one ever noticed that the robots being manufactured don’t all seem to follow them? The iRobot Roombas seem to have done a good job of not killing any one but some of the iRobots with treads have mounts on which some one can put a gun…or a camera…or a gun. So much for not injuring another human being.

 

[PRmerger]

Two people can dialogue about the existence of God without needing to introduce what their actual stance is. Mary can share an argument with Bill about the existence of God and Bill can give constructive criticism of areas where the argument may be weak, not clear, or not convincing. Bill may or may not hold a belief of a God himself.

No doubt.

But when someone identifies as an atheist, it’s not unreasonable, is it, to ask the atheist to offer apologia for her position?

Surely you can understand the cognitive dissonance we Believers are having with any atheist who comes to offer a defense for her position.

Surely you can see that…yes?

“I am an atheist. But I don’t have any reasons for being an atheist”…that’s just ga-ga, la-la nonsensical, no?

 

[PRmerger]

It may be incompatible with the forum rules. At best I think you can present an argument for God and ask someone to share their thoughts about it.

In general, IRL, when one is having a discussion about the existence of God, and a person identifies as an atheist, it is NOT UNREASONABLE to ask the atheist for some apologia for her position.

I am simply mystified that any reasonable person would find anything even remotely objectionable to the above position.

“I am an atheist but I don’t have to offer any reasons for why I don’t believe in God” = wait,* what*?

 

[PRmerger]

How about those rules of robotics? Has any one ever noticed that the robots being manufactured don’t all seem to follow them? The iRobot Roombas seem to have done a good job of not killing any one but some of the iRobots with treads have mounts on which some one can put a gun…or a camera…or a gun. So much for not injuring another human being.

Can we agree that these robots are not moral agents, even when they injure another human being? That is–they are not responsible for any action they do per their programming?

And if human beings have no free will, they are also not moral agents?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

And if human beings have no free will, they are also not moral agents?

For that question you might want to first clear up which type of “free will” you have in mind.

 

[PRmerger]

For that question you might want to first clear up which type of “free will” you have in mind.

Well, in this context any freedom we have to make decision which would make us responsible agents for these decisions.

Do you believe androids have this?

Do you believe we have this?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

any freedom we have to make decision

It’s hard to say. While some use freedom to represent “the power to act, speak, or think as one wants to” it seems to only bury the answer to the question of what freedoms we have. How does one arrive at those wants? What factors were involved in those wants forming?

Do you believe androids have this?

Do you believe we have this?

The humanoid robots that I’ve encountered thus far have been procedural and primarily composed of servos and little processing ability and easily modeled as finite state automatons. As for humans I find it to be a useful theory.

 

[PRmerger]

The humanoid robots that I’ve encountered thus far have been procedural and primarily composed of servos and little processing ability and easily modeled as finite state automatons.

So if they kill a human person we wouldn’t assign them blame any more than we would blame a bolt of lightning that killed a persson, yes?

As for humans I find it to be a useful theory.

I find it otiose to believe in something just because it’s “useful”. It’s “useful” to believe in Santa Claus, for it makes people good and happy.

But since it’s not true, it’s not a very good idea to believe in Santa.

So as far as human beings being free…do you believe we are able to make moral choices that we are responsible for?