Android Ethics

[Hee_Zen]

A human is any organism with human DNA, human parents, with an eternal soul, made in the image and likeness of God.

1. There is no such thing as human DNA. There is a wide range of chromosomes we **declare **to be human DNA, but the limits are arbitrary. Some mutants would be excluded under this definition.
2. A clone (without parents) would not qualify.
3. Prove that there is an “eternal” soul, and there is a God.

 

[PRmerger]

1. There is no such thing as human DNA.

True. I wasn’t asserting that there is such a thing as DNA which is only assigned to humans.

I was merely positing that if an organism has DNA that is consonant with DNA that is found in all other humans (including trisomys et al), then it is human DNA. But not exclusively so.

1. A clone (without parents) would not qualify.

It is indeed a difficult case.

1. Prove that there is an “eternal” soul,

Is your position that there is no eternal soul?

and there is a God.

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

 

[edwest2]

Devices that look like people are not people. I question where the money is coming from to pay designers to build android robots. Clearly, the differences between androids and humans are great. I would never deal with a device in a store setting as a real person. It would only be a machine. Always.

youtube.com/watch?v=hlHrvQ7D5OU

The most efficient use of such androids would be military. Guards, soldiers, surveillance. All this is closer to the movie Terminator 2 than “we need these machines to be accepted as part of our lives.” An android that was hit by a car would just be a piece of scrap that would be considered repairable or not.

Ed

 

[MPat]

I accept this as a starting point. But you need to exercise caution, because by that standard a fetus under 10 weeks, which does not even have a brain, or a Terri Schiavo-like brain-damaged “empty hull” would not qualify as a human. I have no problem with that, but you might. (In my mind, they are proto-human or ex-human, respectively.)

That “rational animal” presupposes much of Thomism. Essences, substances, forms… All that does seem to be a bit “offtopic” here (if you’re interested, you might wish to start from, let’s say, edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-is-soul.html), but things are not as bad, as you think.

Fine. Would a space alien qualify? How would you know if it is a biologically “alive” being? Maybe its internal structure is not even carbon-molecule based. Even biologists have problem what separates “living” and “inanimate” material. There is only one definition of “life” which is pretty vague: “a system, which reacts to complex stimuli with complex responses”. And that has nothing to do with biology.

1. Prove that there is an “eternal” soul, and there is a God.

So, why shouldn’t you prove that “space aliens” exist before asking such questions…?

You mean to step back and perform a Turing test, or some equivalent of it? I like that.

No, I am pretty sure one of the steps would consist of looking around to check if all that was not a joke of someone next to me… And that is not “Turing-test compatible”.

Come on… be serious.

I am serious enough. Before getting anywhere else, your reasoning must be able to get through some extreme examples. Like that wallpaper with “Please don’t kill me!”. I have to note that you didn’t actually explain how you would deal with this case.

And it would be interesting to see how you would deal with it, as it does seem to give some trouble for your key assumption:

And since the internal process of the being is a “black box”, all we can do is see if that being conforms to what we would expect from a self-aware being.

Well, is it certain that we are dealing with a “black box”? You haven’t given an argument to support this assumption. And yet, should it prove to be wrong, your whole position collapses.

And the case of wallpaper with “Please don’t kill it!” does seem to be a counterexample. If the process was to be considered a “black box”, computer’s behaviour would seem to correspond to your expectations of “what we would expect from a self-aware being”. But you have an additional piece of information that would make it much closer to “white box”: the fact that you have put that wallpaper there yourself.

So, what is your solution? Should you take that additional information into account?

As of today, for sure. But those industrial robots extremely primitive gadgets. The OP was offering to investigate a much more advanced scenario, where that “someone” cannot be distinguished from a human being. Besides, there are military robots, “whose” task is mine-sniffing and detonating to protect the soldiers. This is a very simple, even primitive approximation of the First Law - protecting human lives. Yes, they are programmed to do so, but the interesting thing is the attitude of the soldiers. They develop a strong emotional bond with these “robot-dogs”, even give them names. When the robots get damaged, the soldiers are adamant to repair them as long as possible, and when they become impossible to repair, some units actually bury them as if it were a fallen comrade.

People also form emotional bonds with Teddy bears. What would that prove?

Anyway, I’ll use this as an excuse to link to a webcomic “Freefall” (freefall.purrsia.com/ffdex.htm) that does show some scenarios where those “Laws of robotics” do not work that well…

 

[PRmerger]

So, why shouldn’t you prove that “space aliens” exist before asking such questions…?

 

[Hee_Zen]

That “rational animal” presupposes much of Thomism. Essences, substances, forms… All that does seem to be a bit “offtopic” here (if you’re interested, you might wish to start from, let’s say, edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/03/what-is-soul.html), but things are not as bad, as you think.

I know Thomism, and reject it. When I asked what is the “essence” of a dog, I never received an answer.

No, I am pretty sure one of the steps would consist of looking around to check if all that was not a joke of someone next to me… And that is not “Turing-test compatible”.

It would be a first step, for sure… and when you are satisfied that you are not the victim of some practical joke or some hallucination, then what? Start with the assumption that you were communicated a plea by some bug-look-alike.

I am serious enough. Before getting anywhere else, your reasoning must be able to get through some extreme examples. Like that wallpaper with “Please don’t kill me!”. I have to note that you didn’t actually explain how you would deal with this case.

Again, the Turing-test (or some variant of it) comes to the rescue. The unchanging wallpaper is NOT a sign of complex behavior, therefore it cannot be attributed to some “sentient” being. But even if it changed periodically, it would be too simplistic to be taken as a sign of self-awareness. This is why the test does not specify the duration. What are you going to do, if after a suitably long time (and you are the judge, what is suitable) you cannot decide if you talk to a “real” human, or very convincing emulation of one?

Well, is it certain that we are dealing with a “black box”? You haven’t given an argument to support this assumption. And yet, should it prove to be wrong, your whole position collapses.

Can you investigate the internal processes of a human? You use the “duck principle” - as always. The internal workings of the android and/or robot are just as hidden from you as the thought processes of a human.

And the case of wallpaper with “Please don’t kill it!” does seem to be a counterexample.

No, because it is too simplistic. Can you come up with something better? According to question of the OP, there is NO way to tell that being apart from a real human.

People also form emotional bonds with Teddy bears. What would that prove?

It proves that some people are willing to take the next step, and if a true “human-look-alike” would ever be created, they would be willing to take them as fellow humans.

 

[Hee_Zen]

<IMG]

https://imgur.com/jFi4HM3

And the posting of the idiotic gifs continue - without any informational value. Reflects on the intelligence level of the sender.

 

[Hee_Zen]

True. I wasn’t asserting that there is such a thing as DNA which is only assigned to humans.

I was merely positing that if an organism has DNA that is consonant with DNA that is found in all other humans (including trisomys et al), then it is human DNA. But not exclusively so.

What use is it if all you have is a loose correlation between the two?

It is indeed a difficult case.

No kidding. I would say that it makes your suggested definition useless. The whole point of contemplating the possible existence of non-human intelligence is to show that the concept of a “soul” is useless. What is the case with identical twins? There is just one fertilized egg - therefore there is only one “soul” - in the beginning. Then the egg splits. What happens to the “soul” then? Does it split? Will one of the twins receive a fresh soul? Or will it be a “soulless” monster?

Is your position that there is no eternal soul?

I have never seen a coherent definition of the “soul”. Sometimes it is an “animating principle” (whatever that might be), other times it is the “form” of the body… yet other times it is a supernatural “something”. It might be nice if the apologists could come to some agreement.

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

Ouch. Kreeft is even worse than Aquinas.

<IMG]

https://imgur.com/jFi4HM3

You just can’t kick the habit of posting these idiotic GIF’s, can you?

 

[PRmerger]

You just can’t kick the habit of posting these idiotic GIF’s, can you?

I will stop, however, (at least in response to your posts) using these delightfully droll GIFs when you respond to each and every one of my questions to you.

How 'bout that deal?

 

[PRmerger]

I have never seen a coherent definition of the “soul”. Sometimes it is an “animating principle” (whatever that might be), other times it is the “form” of the body… yet other times it is a supernatural “something”. It might be nice if the apologists could come to some agreement.

Why? Atheists can’t even come to an agreement on the definition of atheism. Is it an actual claim about reality? Yes, or no?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But Unit J-03 is a machine. Sure it may look like a man, walk like a man, talk like a man, think like a man, feel like a man but is is not a man. It is not alive. It has no soul. It’s human-like characteristics are all just programmable code. You can slice off its arm and it might scream as though in pain, but it’s not really “in pain.” It could beg for its life, but it’s not alive to begin with so it can’t really die. It might desire to be free from servitude to humans if it is pretty much human to begin with, but it’s just a robot made of wires and metal, not a human.

Does an artificial intelligence that is practically already human but really isn’t and could never be human deserve ethical treatment? Can it even get unethical treatment if it’s objections are just programming?

This makes me think of my college AI book (“Artificial Intelligence, a Modern Approach”, Russell, Norvig) in which a related question was explored in trying to determine if an AI agent was really an intelligence. Some approaches concern themselves with thought process. Others concern themselves with behaviour because of what may seem to be a problem from solipsism; we don’t have access to the minds of other life forms that one might consider (naturally) intelligent.

One of the views the books mentioned was that of Descarte’s and how he applied dualism to animals; seeing animals as without soul he thought it was fine to treat them as machines. Some people see AI agents the same way. As long as they are not backed by a soul they are only acting as though they have human qualities, but don’t actually have them.

After a lot more reading about empiricism, induction, observation sentences, and confirmation theory the book talked about the other perspective which I would summarize that as long as an agent acts like a rational agent then it’s justifiable to treat it as such (not something I would suggest applying to humans, especially since humans can temporarily or permanently progress to a state of having no sentience well before death).

But academics aside, one thing I find interesting is that humans will sometimes react socially to non-humanoid robots that appear to express emotion. My suggestion should you ever find yourself dealing with a unity J-13 is that assuming that no one’s well being is endangered not to do anything that you would otherwise find cruel or damaging. That may help avoid a number of ethically questionable scenarios.

 

[MPat]

I know Thomism, and reject it. When I asked what is the “essence” of a dog, I never received an answer.

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?

Anyway, why talk about dogs here? We are dealing with humans. Now Thomism can tell you a definition of a human. Your views, on the other hand, lead to conclusion that no definition exists. I don’t think that failure to answer a question “What is the essence of a human?” (by the way, I guess that would be the “human blueprint” that God has) should count against Thomism, when your own answer is, effectively, “Humans do not exist.”.

It would be a first step, for sure… and when you are satisfied that you are not the victim of some practical joke or some hallucination, then what? Start with the assumption that you were communicated a plea by some bug-look-alike.

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…

Again, the Turing-test (or some variant of it) comes to the rescue. The unchanging wallpaper is NOT a sign of complex behavior, therefore it cannot be attributed to some “sentient” being. But even if it changed periodically, it would be too simplistic to be taken as a sign of self-awareness. This is why the test does not specify the duration. What are you going to do, if after a suitably long time (and you are the judge, what is suitable) you cannot decide if you talk to a “real” human, or very convincing emulation of one?

So, you think that the piece of information about you putting the wallpaper there yourself must be ignored? Yes or no? For, well, you didn’t actually answer that question.

Also, if computer doesn’t know when you are reaching for “Turn off” button, why should it change the message? Also, you can update the wallpaper. If the fact that you are updating the wallpaper yourself is not allowed to count, that should let the computer pass the Turing test.

Can you investigate the internal processes of a human? You use the “duck principle” - as always. The internal workings of the android and/or robot are just as hidden from you as the thought processes of a human.

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

Now it is true that all that only let us reach something like a “dark grey box”, but your reasoning demands a completely “black box”. If we can get any other information, then insistence on doing a Turing test and ignoring everything else stops looking like a good idea (just as anything else that demands us to ignore some information for no good reason).

No, because it is too simplistic.

That’s the point. “Unit tests” must be simple. And your position didn’t pass this one yet.

According to question of the OP, there is NO way to tell that being apart from a real human.

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

It proves that some people are willing to take the next step, and if a true “human-look-alike” would ever be created, they would be willing to take them as fellow humans.

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

Anyway, I don’t see what this conclusion gives you. That’s just about emotions. But morality is based on “cold” reason, not on emotions.

 

[Hee_Zen]

How 'bout that deal?

Nope. No deal. I am willing to answer questions, but if you include those idiotic GIFs, I will not even read your posts. This was my last answer to any post with those GIF’s. The point is that they do nor carry any informational value, and I only care about information. The choice is yours.

Why? Atheists can’t even come to an agreement on the definition of atheism.

Of course they can. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any “god” or “gods”, where the word “god” denotes something beyond the scope of the Universe.

Is it an actual claim about reality? Yes, or no?

The answer is “no”. It is **not **a claim about reality, it is a claim about one’s belief system. Unfortunately there is “temporary” ban on atheism (what? close to 5 years of “temporary” ban?) so we are not allowed to discuss it any deeper. Maybe it will be allowed to say that atheism is a fully negative stance - designating the lack of a particular belief. Some atheists might go beyond that scope, but that is their business.

The point is that believers cannot agree on the concept of a “soul”, and yet they have a positive claim that an “immortal soul” exists. As such the onus of proof is on them. Of course any proof should be prepended by a coherent definition.

 

[PRmerger]

Nope. No deal.

I will continue to respond to your posts as I see the need to correct whatever misinformation/errors you may be attempting parlaying. At least the lurkers may benefit.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course they can. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any “god” or “gods”, where the word “god” denotes something beyond the scope of the Universe.

As there is no source for this assertion that there is agreement on the definition of atheism, it seems to be a point that is made out of faith. Not evidence-based.

Here is the definition of the soul:

In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person.230 But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him,231 that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.

And here is my source:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p6.htm#367

If anyone wishes to know what the Catholic Church teaches, the sure norm for this is to look in the Catechism.

 

[PRmerger]

The answer is “no”. It is **not **a claim about reality, it is a claim about one’s belief system.

The atheist is making a claim when this question is posed:

Is atheism true?

The atheist says yes.

That is a claim.

QED.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Is it an actual claim about reality? Yes, or no?

Is atheism true?

The atheist says yes.

That is a claim.

Hey R & H.

Pointing out that these are slightly different question. There are situations in which the question of “is this a claim” has a different answer than “is this a claim about reality.” Though any statement one makes about their beliefs could be said to be a claim about their beliefs. They could even be difficult to evaluate since we don’t have access to each other’s minds.

Now you could make a classification in which claims about beliefs are a subset of claims about reality (since one’s beliefs occur within reality). You might be able to apply some other classification system to get something closer to a dichotomy (if that’s your intent).

Best of luck in the both of you achieving semantic agreement!

 

[PRmerger]

Hey R & H.

Pointing out that these are slightly different question. There are situations in which the question of “is this a claim” has a different answer than “is this a claim about reality.”

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.

 

[Hee_Zen]

The atheist is making a claim when this question is posed:

Is atheism true?

The atheist says yes.

That is a claim.

QED.

No. The answer is: “I believe so”. That is NOT a claim. For one more (and last time), atheism does not claim that there are no “gods”. It claims that the atheist DOES NOT BELIEVE in the existence of gods. If you don’t understand the difference, that is your personal problem.

It is boring to talk to people like you, who cannot comprehend the not-so-subtle difference of these two propositions.

 

[PRmerger]

No. The answer is: “I believe so”. That is NOT a claim.

LOL!