Android Ethics

[edwest2]

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 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.

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.

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.

That’s right. Those robots on treads have had their weapons upgraded from a light machine-gun to a heavier machine-gun and grenade launchers. But not to worry. At present, they do not have an AI. They have a camera or two and are controlled by a soldier who maneuvers the robot and decides when to fire its weapons. Unfortunately, one design has limited “intelligence” and is deployed in Korea. Using shape recognition technology, it can ignore dogs or other moving animals but if it sees a human shape beyond a clearly defined perimeter, it will fire on it automatically. This will, of course, alert real human beings.

Ed

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Unfortunately, one design has limited “intelligence” and is deployed in Korea. Using shape recognition technology, it can ignore dogs or other moving animals but if it sees a human shape beyond a clearly defined perimeter, it will fire on it automatically. This will, of course, alert real human beings.

If that’s the system that I think it is, it’s the one based of off Microsoft Kinect. The neural network that was trained for the Kinect was only trained to recognize human shapes. It’s not so much that it ignore dogs as much as it doesn’t recognize them. The Kinect returns coordinates for one’s head and other limbs in the “Skeletal” data. While a dog would be visible in the depth, infrared, and color stream in the skeletal stream it doesn’t show up; and that’s the stream that some one would use to to figure out where a human target is located.

 

[edwest2]

Here’s a look at what the military is up to:

youtube.com/watch?v=-KWOjYFSvQs

Ed

 

[edwest2]

If that’s the system that I think it is, it’s the one based of off Microsoft Kinect. The neural network that was trained for the Kinect was only trained to recognize human shapes. It’s not so much that it ignore dogs as much as it doesn’t recognize them. The Kinect returns coordinates for one’s head and other limbs in the “Skeletal” data. While a dog would be visible in the depth, infrared, and color stream in the skeletal stream it doesn’t show up; and that’s the stream that some one would use to to figure out where a human target is located.

Some antiaircraft missiles are also fitted with shape recognition technology that is used against fighters flying in daylight. This is used to counter any electronic countermeasures the aircraft has. By having its shape in its memory, it could ‘get around’ the ECM and score a hit. You may have noticed a camouflage pattern on some fighters where a blue sky paint has been applied to the inside area of the wings which makes its shape confusing depending on the angle of view.

Ed

 

[ThinkingSapien]

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 [person], yes?

I’d expect people’s reactions to depend on their ability to emotionally connect to the android. If they are emotionally disconnected they will likely see it as a thing and work their way to some entity associated with the android to which they can assign blame.

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.

Likewise. Note that I’ve not labeled it as something that I “believe in” (a phrase that is often the conflation of many other stances) only that I find it useful. I also fin the Bohr model of the atom useful in chemistry despite having also been told that atoms are not really arranged like that. It’s an expression of utility, not an expression of belief.

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

I’m sure society will hold people responsible for the decisions that they are thought to make. As to our actual ability to make choices that’s contingent in part on the questions I raised in the earlier half of #58.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Here’s a look at what the military is up to:

youtube.com/watch?v=-KWOjYFSvQs

Interesting. That reminds me, the Google driver-less car project started off as a DARPA project. Google also purchased the company that made the quadraped that was walking around in that video (Boston Dynamics) earlier this year. At their developers conference in the middle of some one’s speech an audience member tried to have a one man protest about Google supporting the murder of people with these weapons (just before the one-woman protest about Google causing rent to go up in certain areas).

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Some antiaircraft missiles are also fitted with shape recognition technology that is used against fighters flying in daylight. This is used to counter any electronic countermeasures the aircraft has. By having its shape in its memory, it could ‘get around’ the ECM and score a hit. You may have noticed a camouflage pattern on some fighters where a blue sky paint has been applied to the inside area of the wings which makes its shape confusing depending on the angle of view.

There’s an open source project called OpenCV that is useful for people that want to make shape recognizers. If you can get enough pictures of what something looks like from different angles along with a large library of pictures that are not of the target the system can train itself to recognize the target. It’s used for a wide range of solutions from cheesy things that some one may do at home to show off to industrial solutions. But it takes forever to train.

There’s a nice $25,000 HP workstation in my office that almost no one uses. The last time I used OpenCV I ran the trainer on there. The machine could accomplish in a few days of processing what would have taken my regular computer several months. I’m sure as hardware gets cheaper and faster making cheap visual recognition solutions will become within reach of many more people.

 

[MPat]

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.

I guess the given “example” means that you are not really interested in the discussion… Well, as you wish…

 

[PRmerger]

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

I’m sure society will hold people responsible for the decisions that they are thought to make. As to our actual ability to make choices that’s contingent in part on the questions I raised in the earlier half of #58.

Do you personally feel we are able to make moral choices which we answer for?

 

[PRmerger]

Likewise. Note that I’ve not labeled it as something that I “believe in” (a phrase that is often the conflation of many other stances) only that I find it useful. I also fin the Bohr model of the atom useful in chemistry despite having also been told that atoms are not really arranged like that. It’s an expression of utility, not an expression of belief.

I am mainly interested in truth. In what is consonant with reality.

Not what is useful.

NB: I have no objection to models being “useful” for directing us to truth–see your Bohr model example.

But if it doesn’t lead us to what is actually true, it ought to be dismissed.

 

[Hee_Zen]

I guess the given “example” means that you are not really interested in the discussion… Well, as you wish…

Your guess is incorrect. I am simply pointing out that the concept of “essence” is too vaguely defined to be useful. As a matter of fact I gave a definition for a human being, which is ignored.

Not that it matters, really. The topic of the thread is "how should one treat humanoid beings, which MIGHT be of artificial origin. Just like you are not allowed to “take apart” a “real human” to examine its internal workings, you are not allowed to hack the “suspected android” to pieces. Your only recourse is to make an educated guess based upon that being’s behavior.

The derail attempts to refer to existing toy-robots or industrial robots are childish. We deal with a hypothetical scenario, not found in real life - as of now.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I am mainly interested in truth. In what is consonant with reality.

Many are. But our abilities to realize are limited. So in many areas at best we can only achieve provisional truth, not truth. What is provisionally true but also be actually true.

But if it doesn’t lead us to what is actually true, it ought to be dismissed.

Which sounds like a guideline for deciding whether or not to accept an epistemology. Though I’m not sure how actionable that is until one has some way for determining whether or not something has lead to factual/true conclusions. But if someone has such a method then why bother evaluating some other epistemology?

 

[PRmerger]

Many are. But our abilities to realize are limited. So in many areas at best we can only achieve provisional truth, not truth. What is provisionally true but also be actually true.

This sounds suspiciously like Scripture*.

Have you been reading our Book again?

And, it also sounds suspiciously like something from Fides et Ratio. Our abilities to reason are indeed limited.

That’s why it’s a very smart thing to not use reason alone.

Which sounds like a guideline for deciding whether or not to accept an epistemology.

Sure.

Though I’m not sure how actionable that is until one has some way for determining whether or not something has lead to factual/true conclusions. But if someone has such a method then why bother evaluating some other epistemology?

Because most “[fill in the blank] Alone” epistemologies are sorely lacking.

It’s like a bird trying to fly with only 1 wing.

Why use only one source when there are a multitude available for us to soar to the heights of truth?

IOW: why use the Bible Alone? Faith Alone? Science Alone? English Alone? Exercise Alone? Meat Alone? Ipads Alone? Catholic Answers Alone?

I can’t think of any reason to use any Alone epistemology except Christ Alone through His Church Alone.

*1 Cor 13:12

 

[ThinkingSapien]

This sounds suspiciously like Scripture*.

Have you been reading our Book again?

No time in recent years. Though I may soon for social reasons.

Seems that everything that we know we learned in part from some interaction with our sensory organs. I’m speaking with the premise that our senses are accurate at least some of the time; that they at least sometimes are giving us information about reality. (A radical skeptic might reject that premise, at least in theory. I’ve not encountered any radical skeptics in real life yet).

And, it also sounds suspiciously like something from Fides et Ratio. Our abilities to reason are indeed limited.

Will take your word on this for now. I’m not personally familiar with it.

 

[PRmerger]

No time in recent years. Though I may soon for social reasons.

I wouldn’t recommend reading it.

Not a good thing for an atheist to read without the lens of the Catholic Church, IMHO.

Seems that everything that we know we learned in part from some interaction with our sensory organs. I’m speaking with the premise that our senses are accurate at least some of the time; that they at least sometimes are giving us information about reality. (A radical skeptic might reject that premise, at least in theory. I’ve not encountered any radical skeptics in real life yet).

Yep.

Most of what you believe, you believe because you trust someone who told you.

No different, really, from people of Faith.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Most of what you believe, you believe because you trust someone who told you.

No different, really, from people of Faith.

The difference is enormous. And it is pretty astonishing that you don’t see it.

What you learned outside the church you can verify for yourself - if you put your mind (and effort and time) to it. In other words the acceptance of someone else word is merely an epistemological shortcut, not an epistemological method itself. On the other hand there is no way to verify what you hear in church. It is all based upon some “authority”, but unlike the authorities outside the church, these cannot substantiate what they say. Not even the pope can present an epistemological method to allow the rest of us to verify - for example - the existence of angels, demons, or this “immortal” soul.

I wonder if you understand the difference NOW between the two realms. I hope you do, but I will not hold my breath.

**And all these side-conversations have NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread. **

 

[PRmerger]

The difference is enormous. And it is pretty astonishing that you don’t see it.

What you learned outside the church you can verify for yourself - if you put your mind (and effort and time) to it.

Except that…

you don’t.

You have never been to Malta. But you will still declare that Valletta is its capital.
#faith.

You’ve never checked to see if the engineer who designed the bridge you drive over every day actually passed her classes. And even if she did, you would never know if she cheated on them.
#faith.

So you are, for all intents and purposes, just like me: a person of great faith.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I wouldn’t recommend reading it.

Not a good thing for an atheist to read without the lens of the Catholic Church, IMHO.

Think of is as an engagement in anthropology. If I visited a village and they welcomed me with a peace offering that I don’t really want I might accept it anyway; not doing so can have a negative impact on future interactions with the villagers. Some other group wants me to attend church with them at least once…

 

[PRmerger]

Think of is as an engagement in anthropology.

Bad idea.

Just sayin’…

Without the context provided by the Church, you’re going to be led down the wrong path to the wrong conclusion.

Some other group wants me to attend church with them at least once…

Now this ^, I definitely recommend. Going to Mass could be a life-changer for you.

 

[Ignatius]

Bad idea.

Just sayin’…

Without the context provided by the Church, you’re going to be led down the wrong path to the wrong conclusion.

Now this ^, I definitely recommend. Going to Mass could be a life-changer for you.

Yup, I tried for a very long time to use my own personal interpretations, then I realized that 10s of thousands of others were doing the same and coming to 10s of thousands of different understandings of the same Scripture and this could never lead to the True understanding. What did Jesus leave us, a book? No, He founded and left us The Church!