Artificail Inteligence and Human Rights

[tonyrey]

It would have been an interesting thread, but the starting parameters were not established.

One: what is life? Answer: “complex responses to complex stimuli”. It says nothing about being “biologically active”.

The urge to survive does not exist in inanimate objects - which also lack the plasticity of a living cell…

Two: what is AI? Answer: any being which can pass the Turing test.
Three: Is there a difference between a sufficiently good emulation and the “real McCoy”? Answer: there is none. If one cannot tell apart the simulation from reality, then the difference (if any!) is irrelevant.
Concusion: if there ever will be true AI, which will pass the Turing test, then the only ethical behavior is to accept that entity as equivalent to humans.

Ignorance is an unsound basis for a rational conclusion! It’s more akin to concussion (with apologies for using your typo.

Ps: to all who have no idea about the “programming” of self-modifying (learning) algorithms: the starting algorithm was indeed due to programming, but the end result is not something that was determined by this programming. Just like the human brain comes with a minimum “hard-wired” abilities, but the final product is not determined by the starting state of affairs.

Your conclusion is based on the assumption that mind = brain activity…

 

[tonyrey]

We have so many questions with no answers.
How is the AI going to answer this very question regarding us?

No doubt it is expected to be omniscient as well as infallible - in spite of being invented by homo sapiens.

 

[Tyrion]

The urge to survive does not exist in inanimate objects - which also lack the plasticity of a living cell…

How would you know that? The complex response to complex stimuli would incorporate the ability to maintain one’s homeostasis in a changing environment. The building blocks are not relevant, they could be carbon based or silicon based, or whatever… the revelant part is the pattern.

Your conclusion is based on the assumption that mind = brain activity…

Obviously, since there is no evidence at all to any other hypothesis and there is overwhelming evidence for that starting point. As soon as the first silicon based AI will be constructed and it will pass the Turing test, that will be the final nail in the coffin of some immaterial soul. I can hardly wait. Of course it will be denied by many believers. As Billy Graham’s famous saying went: “My mind is made up! Don’t confuse me with facts!”. How sad and how typical…

 

[Linux]

Obviously, since there is no evidence at all to any other hypothesis and there is overwhelming evidence for that starting point. As soon as the first silicon based AI will be constructed and it will pass the Turing test, that will be the final nail in the coffin of some immaterial soul. I can hardly wait. Of course it will be denied by many believers. As Billy Graham’s famous saying went: “My mind is made up! Don’t confuse me with facts!”. How sad and how typical…

I don’t understand. How would AI be proof against the existence of a soul? Science does not produce metaphysical interpretations. It simply describes the physical effects of physical events or objects. It does not and cannot discuss the soul because it is not physical and therefore not measurable in that respect anymore than moral values. It really is a circular argument to say that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of non-physical objects because in the first place the scientific method is intrinsically limited to physical events and therefore not a valid basis for judging the existence or non-existence of a soul.

You appear to be a victim pseudo-science or scientism, which are not true sciences. Their underlying epistemology is internally flawed and circular. You are saying without any demonstrable evidence that only the scientific method can validate the inference of any possibly existing nature, but that in itself is a matter of philosophical opinion or assumption (not science) that there is no kind evidence at all for the existence of non-physical attributes outside of the framework of science.

If AI existed, that would only mean that sentience can exist in correlation to physical patterns formed by Silicon as well as Carbon. Any further interpretation as to the nature of consciousness (sentience) is purely philosophical in nature and has nothing to do with the scientific method.

If you want to make a philosophical argument for the non-existence of the soul i am all ears. But i reject your pseudo-science.

 

[Tyrion]

I don’t understand. How would AI be proof against the existence of a soul?

You did not read precisely what I said. I did not say that the soul would be “disproven”, it will merely become a totally superfluous and uselss hypothesis. Obviously one cannot disprove an ill-defined, non-physical concept. I will give you a very pertinent analogy. There is this stage magician, Uri Geller, who insists that his sleight-of-hand trickery is actually performed by some paranormal powers. Now, regular magicians can perform the very same tricks. and they do not apply nor insinuate “paranormal” powers. Does this “disprove” the existence of the paranormal? Of course not… it simply throws the hypothesis of the paranormal into the intellectual garbage heap… where it belongs. Occam’s razor is an excellent epistemologial tool. One should not make unnecessary assumptions, like the “soul”.

Science does not produce metaphysical interpretations.

True, and not true… Science itself does not care about metaphysics, that is true. But science CAN make certain metaphysical assumptions useless. Another example. The hypothesis of “ether” was rendered useless by the Michaelson-Morley experiment. Let’s be blunt: “if a metaphyical concept coincides with physical reality, it is not necessary. If the metaphysical concept is contradicted by physical reality, it is garbage.”

It does not and cannot discuss the soul because it is not physical and therefore not measurable in that respect anymore than moral values.

Again, not true. Since the “soul” is supposed to interact with the physical reality, there is the “interface problem”. If any non-physical entity allegedly interacts with the physical reality, it can be detected at the interface. If such an interaction cannot be detected, then the nn-physical entity becomes a useless hypothesis.

You are saying without any demonstrable evidence that only the scientific method can validate the inference of any possibly existing nature, but that in itself is a matter of philosophical opinion or assumption (not science) that there is no kind evidence at all for the existence of non-physical attributes outside of the framework of science.

You are mistaken in assuming what I say. Science is the only tool to describe the objective physical reality. It does not say anything about subjective opinions, like justice, beauty, etc.

 

[tonyrey]

The urge to survive does not exist in inanimate objects - which also lack the plasticity of a living cell…

How would you know that? The complex response to complex stimuli would incorporate the ability to maintain one’s homeostasis in a changing environment. The building blocks are not relevant, they could be carbon based or silicon based, or whatever… the revelant part is the pattern.

You need to produce specific evidence that homeostasis became an urge to survive, reproduce and preserve itself with a plasticity which does not exist in inorganic compounds.

Your conclusion is based on the assumption that mind = brain activity…

Obviously, since there is no evidence at all to any other hypothesis and there is overwhelming evidence for that starting point.

All evidence exists primarily in thoughts, feelings and perceptions not in the material world which is inferred by reasoning. The brain is merely a lump of tissue inside the cranium that doesn’t even know it exists!

As soon as the first silicon based AI will be constructed and it will pass the Turing test, that will be the final nail in the coffin of some immaterial soul. I can hardly wait. Of course it will be denied by many believers. As Billy Graham’s famous saying went: “My mind is made up! Don’t confuse me with facts!”. How sad and how typical…

Blind faith in the power of matter to produce minds overlooks the fact that knowledge is intangible. The evidence of the senses has to be interpreted by a rational being. It is putting the cart before the horse to begin with what is seen, heard, smelt, tasted and touched…

 

[JohnAlexander]

If a true AI could be created by humans then they should have rights.

Man was created in God’s image. We are just following in God’s image if we create an AI.

However I don’t think we will ever create a true AI. We are no closer to creating an AI than we were 50,000 years ago. People don’t seem to understand how computers work. You can’t even get a computer to pick a random number much less think up something new.

 

[kotlomoy]

All evidence exists primarily in thoughts, feelings and perceptions not in the material world which is inferred by reasoning. Blind faith in the power of matter to produce minds overlooks the fact that knowledge is intangible.

Why do you say thoughts, feelings, perceptions and knowledge are intangible? It is not fact.

 

[tonyrey]

Why do you say thoughts, feelings, perceptions and knowledge are intangible? It is not fact.

Can you hear, see, smell, taste or touch your mental experiences?

What does a thought or fact look like?

 

[TimeEntrance]

If AI become a reality, should human rights apply to them? Yes or no and why?

It would have been an interesting thread, but the starting parameters were not established.

One: what is life? Answer: “complex responses to complex stimuli”. It says nothing about being “biologically active”.

The OP quote above yours shows the original question assumed a taxonomical question, and given the taxonomy, one logically contingent on biological processes.

I’m not a scientist by any measure. But this is one thing I have grasped from all my biology and anthropology classes: humans: Homo sapiens: are something specific. Not just anything one can phrase with an abstract philosophical question or answer of “complex responses to complex stimuli.”

So, no, AI would not be human. One has to comprehend the “human genome” is something of a misnomer in the sense their is a genome of life and given that, you’ll find varying degrees of genetic similarity between humans and Chimpanzees and humans and bananas. A computer made of inorganic material has the no genetic similarity with humans.

Furthermore, Cell Theory, proposes all life on earth shares the same cellular mother at the genesis of life on earth.

That is life according to biologists and life sciences: one or more cells. Life is not really the domain of chemistry, physics, or computer science.

I may be reading this wrong, but it seems to confirm my position. Brain activity is detected before the subject is aware of making a decision (I have seen documentaries that place the delay significantly higher than half a second, incidentally). It is possible to induce the sensation of making a decision by artifical stimulus. That doesn’t imply the existence of free will to me.

I was interpreting it differently. That the physical brain activity will cause–precede–the thought the person has.

Maybe I’m interpreting that article incorrectly. At any rate, I really got the information about “thoughts” so to speak, traveling down certain neuro pathways from two sources. One, a book I read written by that young Jewish student (unfortunately I can’t remember the title or author’s name). Two, a conversation I had with a former social worker of mine that was bright, young woman that had to take a number of psychology courses in college.

Needless to say, I’m not a nueroscientist by any measure.

 

[TimeEntrance]

The urge to survive does not exist in inanimate objects - which also lack the plasticity of a living cell…

You are correct.

Furthermore, if I can draw from my past intro philosophy of biology class, biological evolution proposes no need of an Intelligent Designer, that random chance through algorithmic processes is sufficient–when coupled with genomics–to explain that cause of life and the great diversity of life on earth.

Humans creating AI that some regard as equals of humans does back the proposition of the theory of evolution not needing an Intelligent Designer (God). What it backs philosophically is the origins of life being traced back to an Intelligent Designer (Humans).

AI should need no humans to create it. AI should spontaneously burst forth as life out of no where through chemical interactions through algorithmic processes.

Philosophically the philosophy of biology explains that process as imagining a an enormous library of books with letter just thrown on pages. Eventually, through mathematical odds, the three letters O and G and D will combine to form the word: DOG

And evolution requires variation and selective pressures. Computers need to be under the threat of death and individual computers need to be choosing mates for better survival traits and discriminating against those computers that have traits associated with less survival capabilities.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Obviously, since there is no evidence at all to any other hypothesis and there is overwhelming evidence for that starting point. As soon as the first silicon based AI will be constructed and it will pass the Turing test, that will be the final nail in the coffin of some immaterial soul. I can hardly wait. Of course it will be denied by many believers. As Billy Graham’s famous saying went: “My mind is made up! Don’t confuse me with facts!”. How sad and how typical…

Unlike computers no adult human has the same brain or tissue he or she had from birth or childhood. In other words adult humans have an entirely new body.

There are some cells in the human body that are at G subscript 0 (no cell division) for longer periods of life. But when I asked my TA about this she said very few human cells in the body are at G subscript 0. Most are in some stage of mitosis (process of cellular division).

Contra the science of biology religions like Christianity propose “life” is more than biological processes (e.g., existence in purgatory and heaven after purification of the body, or if not purification, than at least anaerobic cellular respiration ceasing).

My point here is that for any atheist or agnostic to suggest life is not contingent on biological, cellular processes, then they are opposing modern science on this issue.

 

[wanstronian]

I was interpreting it differently. That the physical brain activity will cause–precede–the thought the person has.

Yes, I agree. The physical brain activity causes the thought. The brain is a physical entity and therefore is affected by physical (name removed by moderator)uts. Therefore deterministic, therefore no free will. Or remotely possibly, with some quantum-induced randomness, which still exclude the existence of free will.

Unless, of course, someone can describe a plausible and testable means by which an immaterial, undetectable, unlocatable soul overrules the laws of physics that robustly underpin our understanding of the universe in every other context.

Maybe I’m interpreting that article incorrectly. At any rate, I really got the information about “thoughts” so to speak, traveling down certain neuro pathways from two sources. One, a book I read written by that young Jewish student (unfortunately I can’t remember the title or author’s name). Two, a conversation I had with a former social worker of mine that was bright, young woman that had to take a number of psychology courses in college.

Needless to say, I’m not a nueroscientist by any measure.

Nor me!

 

[tonyrey]

You are correct.

Furthermore, if I can draw from my past intro philosophy of biology class, biological evolution proposes no need of an Intelligent Designer, that random chance through algorithmic processes is sufficient–when coupled with genomics–to explain that cause of life and the great diversity of life on earth.

Humans creating AI that some regard as equals of humans does back the proposition of the theory of evolution not needing an Intelligent Designer (God). What it backs philosophically is the origins of life being traced back to an Intelligent Designer (Humans).

AI should need no humans to create it. AI should spontaneously burst forth as life out of no where through chemical interactions through algorithmic processes.

Philosophically the philosophy of biology explains that process as imagining a an enormous library of books with letter just thrown on pages. Eventually, through mathematical odds, the three letters O and G and D will combine to form the word: DOG

And evolution requires variation and selective pressures. Computers need to be under the threat of death and individual computers need to be choosing mates for better survival traits and discriminating against those computers that have traits associated with less survival capabilities.

In other words the Chance hypothesis is a fantasy which amounts to a deification of purposeless events in a futile attempt to evade the implications of the power of reason…

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

True, and not true… Science itself does not care about metaphysics, that is true. But science CAN make certain metaphysical assumptions useless. Another example. The hypothesis of “ether” was rendered useless by the Michaelson-Morley experiment. Let’s be blunt: “if a metaphyical concept coincides with physical reality, it is not necessary. If the metaphysical concept is contradicted by physical reality, it is garbage.”

Hold up a second here! The aether was not a metaphysical claim, but a physical one! Please give a real example of science rendering an actual metaphysical claim useless.

 

[kotlomoy]

Can you hear, see, smell, taste or touch your mental experiences?

What does a thought or fact look like?

Your conception of materiality is not complete. What does radiation looks like? Can you taste or touch it? Can you see it? Human have not sensoriums to feel radiation. But it doesn’t mean that radiation is not material.
My mental experience is material because it is combination of cellular and electric activity. Can I see this activity? Yes I can. For example, I can record encephalogram. But there are better ways of course: io9.com/5980811/scientists-record-the-first-video-of-thoughts-forming-in-the-brain
"Japanese researchers have recorded a real-time video of thoughts forming in the brain of a live animal as it stalks its prey. The breakthrough was made possible by using zebrafish — a species with a translucent head — and a fluorescent protein that lights up when single neurons are activated. And this study may give rise to an entirely new way to study and track brain patterns in living creatures. "

 

[Tyrion]

Hold up a second here! The aether was not a metaphysical claim, but a physical one! Please give a real example of science rendering an actual metaphysical claim useless.

Nope, there was a metaphysical assumption that “waves” cannot be transmitted in vacuum, they needed a material to “carry” them, and that hypothetical material was called “ether”. The Michaelson-Morley experiment disproved that metaphisical assumption.

 

[Tyrion]

My point here is that for any atheist or agnostic to suggest life is not contingent on biological, cellular processes, then they are opposing modern science on this issue.

No way, Jose! Biologists have no consensus about the dividing line between “living” and “inanimate” material - and rightfully so. How much complexity constitutes “life” is just a subjective definition. Are viruses alive?

 

[Tyrion]

Your conception of materiality is not complete.

You got that one right. The “non-materialists” take the concept of “non-visible” verbatim, as if everything material would be directly detectible by our five senses. They love to forget (or they never understood) that the material world is detectable either by the senses, or their extensions.

 

[TimeEntrance]

No way, Jose! Biologists have no consensus about the dividing line between “living” and “inanimate” material - and rightfully so. How much complexity constitutes “life” is just a subjective definition. Are viruses alive?

Yes biologist do, Tyrion.

A virus exhibits many of the attributes of life accept it can not reproduce but needs to infect a cell and use a cell to reproduce, and if I recall correctly this is why biologist usually don’t include viruses as living.

But I’ll do a quick Wikipedia search on the attributes of life given by biologists. And post the link below.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Life (cf. biota) is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.[3][4] Biology is the science concerned with the study of life.

Any contiguous living system is called an organism. Organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. More complex living organisms can communicate through various means.[1][5] A diverse array of living organisms can be found in the biosphere of Earth, and the properties common to these organisms—plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria—are a carbon- and water-based cellular form with complex organization and heritable genetic information.

Biology

Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following:[25][27]

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.

Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.

Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.

Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism’s heredity, diet, and external factors.

Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.

Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

A science attempts accuracy and there for if the science of biology claims to study life it can not be satisfied with vagueness as to what life is.

While biology draws upon the sciences of chemistry and physics the inanimate world is more the domain of the physical sciences of chemistry and physics.