Artificail Inteligence and Human Rights

[InJesusItrust]

No evidence? Do you want to talk about evolution?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm
“The evolution usually starts from a population of randomly generated individuals and happens in generations.” So, at the beginning you have chaos. But generation after generation self-organization occurs.
As example, pile of details can self-organize to clock:
youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
You can find hundreds similar videos on Youtube. Search for “evolved virtual creatures”, for example.
Enough evidence?

Err, computer scientists wrote the algorithms, and machines execute them dumbly.It is like praising the intelligence of a clock for knowing what time it is.

 

[Linux]

Also true, but you’ll notice I never made the claim that the existence of AI indistinguishable from humans would prove conclusively that souls do not exist, only that there would be no empirical need for a soul.

Empiricism has nothing to do with it. Its irrelevant that there is no empirical need for a soul since the scientific method only describes physical interactions in the first place. You seem to be under the expression that producing a physical object in which sentience happens to become actual is the same-thing as creating sentience with physical parts.

You can discover physical patterns which correlate with sentience, just like in organisms such as human beings. But that doesn’t mean that the nature of sentience is therefore explainable in physical terms alone. It just means that sentience exists in relation to particular physical constructs. This is in no way an absolute explanation of sentience. The mind body problem would still exist just like it exists in human beings. Its a philosophical problem that simply doesn’t make sense within a scientific framework alone.

 

[kotlomoy]

Err, computer scientists wrote the algorithms, and machines execute them dumbly.It is like praising the intelligence of a clock for knowing what time it is.

Err, I don’t know how is your statement related to our discussion. I didn’t understand statement as well. If you want to say something, say then.

To make it clear.

1. tonyrey said: “There is no evidence that purposeful self-organization occurs spontaneously, accidentally or from physical necessity.”
2. I gave such evidence. Random pile of details self-organized to working clock. Self-organization occured spontaneously, accidentally.

 

[tonyrey]

No evidence? Do you want to talk about evolution?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm
“The evolution usually starts from a population of randomly generated individuals and happens in generations.” So, at the beginning you have chaos. But generation after generation self-organization occurs.
As example, pile of details can self-organize to clock:
youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
You can find hundreds similar videos on Youtube. Search for “evolved virtual creatures”, for example.
Enough evidence?

No evidence whatsover! Evolution is a banned topic but that is no problem because you are assuming there was chaos before life even existed - which is obviously not true. The laws of nature didn’t suddenly emerge as if by magic! Random events occurred within a framework of order; otherwise development would never have occurred. The term “physical constants” alone is enough to explode the Chance hypothesis!

 

[tonyrey]

Err, I don’t know how is your statement related to our discussion. I didn’t understand statement as well. If you want to say something, say then.

To make it clear.

1. tonyrey said: “There is no evidence that purposeful self-organization occurs spontaneously, accidentally or from physical necessity.”
2. I gave such evidence. Random pile of details self-organized to working clock. Self-organization occured spontaneously, accidentally.

Do you believe your power of reason is an accident? If so it cannot be very trustworthy!

 

[tonyrey]

Empiricism has nothing to do with it. Its irrelevant that there is no empirical need for a soul since the scientific method only describes physical interactions in the first place. You seem to be under the expression that producing a physical object in which sentience happens to become actual is the same-thing as creating sentience with physical parts.

You can discover physical patterns which correlate with sentience, just like in organisms such as human beings. But that doesn’t mean that the nature of sentience is therefore explainable in physical terms alone. It just means that sentience exists in relation to particular physical constructs. This is in no way an absolute explanation of sentience. The mind body problem would still exist just like it exists in human beings. Its a philosophical problem that simply doesn’t make sense within a scientific framework alone.

A pellucid post!

 

[kotlomoy]

you are assuming there was chaos before life even existed - which is obviously not true.

Why?

The laws of nature didn’t suddenly emerge as if by magic!

We are talking about life. The laws of nature emerged way earlier. Suddenly indeed
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Do you want to talk about origin of Universe now?

Random events occurred within a framework of order; otherwise development would never have occurred.

I gave you video. What do you think about?

The term “physical constants” alone is enough to explode the Chance hypothesis!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
“The concept of other universes has been proposed to explain how our Universe appears to be fine-tuned for conscious life as we experience it. If there were a large (possibly infinite) number of universes, each with possibly different physical laws (or different fundamental physical constants), some of these universes, even if very few, would have the combination of laws and fundamental parameters that are suitable for the development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, stars, and planets that can exist long enough for life to emerge and evolve. The weak anthropic principle could then be applied to conclude that we (as conscious beings) would only exist in one of those few universes that happened to be finely tuned, permitting the existence of life with developed consciousness. Thus, while the probability might be extremely small that any particular universe would have the requisite conditions for life (as we understand life) to emerge and evolve, this does not require intelligent design per the teleological argument as the only explanation for the conditions in the Universe that promote our existence in it.”

Do you believe your power of reason is an accident? If so it cannot be very trustworthy!

My power of reason appeared according to laws of evolution. I gave you one example how it works.
If you still don’t understand how and why evolution works, watch explanation videos on youtube. There are tons of it.

 

[tonyrey]

You are assuming there was chaos before life even existed - which is obviously not true.

The laws of nature provided a framework of order which enabled development. Chaos never organises itself.

We are talking about life. The laws of nature emerged way earlier. Suddenly indeed
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
Do you want to talk about origin of Universe now?

Life depends on the laws of nature.

Random events occurred within a framework of order; otherwise development would never have occurred.

I gave you video. What do you think about?

You have evaded my statement:

Random events occurred within a framework of order; otherwise development would never have occurred.

The term “physical constants” alone is enough to explode the Chance hypothesis!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
“The concept of other universes has been proposed to explain how our Universe appears to be fine-tuned for conscious life as we experience it. If there were a large (possibly infinite) number of universes, each with possibly different physical laws (or different fundamental physical constants), some of these universes, even if very few, would have the combination of laws and fundamental parameters that are suitable for the development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, stars, and planets that can exist long enough for life to emerge and evolve. The weak anthropic principle could then be applied to conclude that we (as conscious beings) would only exist in one of those few universes that happened to be finely tuned, permitting the existence of life with developed consciousness. Thus, while the probability might be extremely small that any particular universe would have the requisite conditions for life (as we understand life) to emerge and evolve, this does not require intelligent design per the teleological argument as the only explanation for the conditions in the Universe that promote our existence in it.”

The existence of human beings is totally irrelevant to the immense improbability that the fine tuning of the universe was fortuitous. Do you rely on chance to make your decisions?

Do you believe your power of reason is an accident? If so it cannot be very trustworthy!

My power of reason appeared according to laws of evolution.

Were you an eye-witness? No one has ever witnessed a rational being emerging from irrational processes. It is a hopelessly inadequate hypothesis.

I gave you one example how it works.
If you still don’t understand how and why evolution works, watch explanation videos on youtube. There are tons of it.

Your faith in accidents is immense but it is not only unverifiable but self-refuting. If the power of reason is produced by **purposeless atomic particles it is a purposeless **fantasy like everything else! Inanimate objects have no goals, values or reasons whatsoever. Garbage in garbage out!

 

[eyesopening]

Given that it is a deep ethical issue, I wonder how much value will be gained by posing the question on a religious forum, the majority of whose frequenters conflate ethics with the dubious moral values of the bible.

Why are YOU on a religious forum if you feel this way?

 

[kotlomoy]

The laws of nature provided a framework of order which enabled development. Chaos never organises itself.
Random events occurred within a framework of order; otherwise development would never have occurred.

Ok, now I understand what your “framework of order” means - laws of nature. I agree, laws of nature is framework, that makes possible evolving organized structures from chaos.

The existence of human beings is totally irrelevant to the immense improbability that the fine tuning of the universe was fortuitous.

Forfuitous fine-tuning is hypothesis I prefer. You can prefer Intelligent Design or other hypothesis. Dispute is useless while we have no evidence.

Were you an eye-witness? No one has ever witnessed a rational being emerging from irrational processes. It is a hopelessly inadequate hypothesis.

You consider reasoning power like something special. But the only difference between humans and animals - humans have more complex brains. During evolution complexity of brain increased, and at one point quantity transformed into quality - reasoning power.
It is not hypothesis, it is theory of evolution, which has many evidences.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Your faith in accidents is immense but it is not only unverifiable but self-refuting. If the power of reason is produced by **purposeless atomic particles it is a purposeless **fantasy like everything else! Inanimate objects have no goals, values or reasons whatsoever. Garbage in garbage out!

Do you want to talk about origin of life?
Nobody knows how life appeared, there are hypotheses only. Dispute is useless.
One hypothesis - abiogenesis - indeed says that life appeared from inanimate objects:. How is it possible? Explanation:
youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

 

[zro_x]

Empiricism has nothing to do with it. Its irrelevant that there is no empirical need for a soul since the scientific method only describes physical interactions in the first place. You seem to be under the expression that producing a physical object in which sentience happens to become actual is the same-thing as creating sentience with physical parts.

You can discover physical patterns which correlate with sentience, just like in organisms such as human beings. But that doesn’t mean that the nature of sentience is therefore explainable in physical terms alone. It just means that sentience exists in relation to particular physical constructs. This is in no way an absolute explanation of sentience. The mind body problem would still exist just like it exists in human beings. Its a philosophical problem that simply doesn’t make sense within a scientific framework alone.

Heck, I can’t make sense of it in *any *framework! It doesn’t matter whether you’re a naturalist or a theist, the mind-body problem is equally difficult to solve either way.

The point I’m trying to make here is that if we make AI, Catholics can no longer use the fact that humans reason to justify the existence of a soul, because we will know that physical processes can account for human reason. To my knowledge, no one has come up with a satisfactory answer to the mind-body problem, so positing theism, and by extension, the soul, as the reason for sentience in human beings causes just as many problems as it solves.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that AI would disprove the existence of the soul or prove that God does not exist. As I’ve already mentioned, I think the existence of the soul can be justified by other means. The fact that humans reason would simply no longer be a valid proof for the existence of God.

 

[tonyrey]

Why are YOU on a religious forum if you feel this way?

 

[tonyrey]

The laws of nature provided a framework of order which enabled development. Chaos never organises itself.
Random events occurred within a framework of order; otherwise development would never have occurred.

Are the laws of nature necessary? Could they be different? Why do these particular laws exist?

The existence of human beings is totally irrelevant to the immense improbability that the fine tuning of the universe was fortuitous.

Forfuitous fine-tuning is hypothesis I prefer. You can prefer Intelligent Design or other hypothesis. Dispute is useless while we have no evidence.

There is certainly no evidence it is fortuitous. How would you prove it?

Were you an eye-witness? No one has ever witnessed a rational being emerging from irrational processes. It is a hopelessly inadequate hypothesis.

You consider reasoning power like something special. But the only difference between humans and animals - humans have more complex brains.

1. What about the achievements of the human race?
2. Does complexity explain everything?
3. How did complexity originate? By chance?
4. Do you live like an animal? And treat other persons like animals?

During evolution complexity of brain increased, and at one point quantity transformed into quality - reasoning power.
What made the brain capable of becoming more complex?
It is not hypothesis, it is theory of evolution, which has many evidences.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

Evolution by chance is not the only theory of evolution nor is it the most convincing.

Your faith in accidents is immense but it is not only unverifiable but self-refuting. If the power of reason is produced by purposeless atomic particles it is a purposeless fantasy like everything else! Inanimate objects have no goals, values or reasons whatsoever. Garbage in garbage out!

You haven’t explained how inanimate molecules acquire goals, values and reasons.

Do you want to talk about origin of life?
Nobody knows how life appeared, there are hypotheses only. Dispute is useless.
One hypothesis - abiogenesis - indeed says that life appeared from inanimate objects:. How is it possible? Explanation:
youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Youtube is not an authority!

 

[davidv]

Heck, I can’t make sense of it in *any *framework! It doesn’t matter whether you’re a naturalist or a theist, the mind-body problem is equally difficult to solve either way.

The point I’m trying to make here is that if we make AI, Catholics can no longer use the fact that humans reason to justify the existence of a soul, because we will know that physical processes can account for human reason. To my knowledge, no one has come up with a satisfactory answer to the mind-body problem, so positing theism, and by extension, the soul, as the reason for sentience in human beings causes just as many problems as it solves.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that AI would disprove the existence of the soul or prove that God does not exist. As I’ve already mentioned, I think the existence of the soul can be justified by other means. The fact that humans reason would simply no longer be a valid proof for the existence of God.

Your second paragraph certainly implies what you claim you are not suggesting.

It seems to me you are not logically justified in claiming the a human created AI would have a soul. The mind-body problem does nothing to discount the presence of the soul. So, not having an answer, the mind-body problem cannnot be relevant.

 

[Linux]

The point I’m trying to make here is that if we make AI, Catholics can no longer use the fact that humans reason to justify the existence of a soul, because we will know that physical processes can account for human reason.

Why would physical processes account for human reason if we make AI?

 

[zro_x]

Your second paragraph certainly implies what you claim you are not suggesting.

The existence of God and the soul would still be very well possible, and even probable, but AI would put an end to using human behavior and the fact that we reason to prove it.

It seems to me you are not logically justified in claiming the a human created AI would have a soul.

So where is the flaw in my logic?

The mind-body problem does nothing to discount the presence of the soul. So, not having an answer, the mind-body problem cannnot be relevant.

agreed. No one has an answer to the mind-body problem, so there is really not much point in including it in a conversation about human rights and AI.

 

[zro_x]

Why would physical processes account for human reason if we make AI?

Because physical processes would account for reason in AI, without the need for supernatural intervention (the soul). It would prove that reasoning and human behaviors, if not consciousness and free will, can be explained by entirely physical processes in AI, and that would mean reason can also be entirely physical in humans as well.

 

[Linux]

Because physical processes would account for reason in AI, without the need for supernatural intervention (the soul). It would prove that reasoning and human behaviors, if not consciousness and free will, can be explained by entirely physical processes in AI, and that would mean reason can also be entirely physical in humans as well.

How?

 

[zro_x]

How?

A modern computer can perform all sorts of calculations, so a modern computer can reason, at least to a limited degree. Yet this reason is entirely physical, or at least, it is generally assumed to be. AI is really just a very advanced computer.

I’m not talking about personal thought experiences that we associate with reason; these belong to consciousness, which is another subject. some speculate that when we reason, we are not really reasoning at all, but watching our computer-brains do calculations. Thinking that the consciousness is what reasons is just an illusion. AI would essentially make this idea a real possibility.

 

[Linux]

A modern computer can perform all sorts of calculations, so a modern computer can reason, at least to a limited degree. Yet this reason is entirely physical, or at least, it is generally assumed to be. AI is really just a very advanced computer.

That is not the same thing as reasoning. When people talk about reasoning, they are talking about a conscious self-knowing intellect that comprehends rational distinctions and on that bases willfully proceeds to make rational inferences. A calculator does no such thing and comprehends nothing.

If we are not talking about a self-knowing rational intellect, then we are not talking about a true AI sentience as i would understand it. Neither have you explained why or how the existence of an AI would disprove the existence of the soul.