Artificail Inteligence and Human Rights

[Robert_Sock]

Did it ever occur to anybody that we are AI, meatbots?

 

[davidv]

Did it ever occur to anybody that we are AI, meatbots?

No it has not occured to me. We are a unique union of the spiritual and material, made in the image of God. His command to love demands that we have the freedom to do so.

 

[John_Savage]

Has anybody mentioned that what makes humans valuable in themselves is not whether they can do this or that, but that we have a soul?

 

[zro_x]

AI probably has conciousness whether or not God exists. here’s why (discounting solipists here):

1. Does a child, born from a loving Father and Mother, who are joined in holy matrimony, have conciousness?

theist perspective: of course
Atheist perspective: of course

2. Does a child, who was concieved during a rape, have conciousness?
Atheist Perspective: absolutely. The way a child is concieved has influence niether on the degree to which a person has conciousness, nor on whether or not he has it at all.

Theist perspective: the child is still human, with a human soul, so yes.(I’m going to assume here that most Christians believe this.)

**3. Does a clone, or any other biological human being formed in the labratory, have conciousness? **

Atheistic perspective: As long as the lab did not in any way interfere with the child’s natural development, then yes, he certainly does. He probably would still have consciousness even if the lab did interfere, at least to some degree.

Theistic perspective: Even though it was formed in a labratory, it still is a human, so it has a soul

4. Would artificial intelligence have conciousness?
Atheistic perspective: Yes! Humans are exteremely complex biological computers. thinking processes are just as valid whether they are done with silicon or cells.

Theistic perspective: they probably would. Why would God care in the least about the material a human soul occupies? If human souls can be infused by god into clones, why should he care that the new material is non-biological?

I can’t think of any way that either the theist or atheist can draw a non-arbitrary line between either the child of rape and clones, or the clones and the AI.

Another interesting consequence of this line of reasoning…

5.would modern day computers have consciouness, to any degree whatsoever?

Theist and Atheistic perspectives: If I’m going to avoid drawing arbitrary lines, I have to say yes.

6. assuming that all biological and computer thought is either the process of electrical signals or comes from a soul, and that God does not draw arbitrary lines when delegating souls, does switching a light switch produce conciousness to any degree whatsoever?

Theistic and Atheistic perspectives: …

if any of you can think of some way that you can make a distinction between any number from 3 onward without arbitrary lines, by all means, let me know!

 

[InJesusItrust]

How can a computer have consciousness if it is deterministic?

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

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.

You are confusing an hypothesis with a metaphysical claim. See:
Nope, there was an hypothesis 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 hypothesis.
The difference between an hypothesis and a metaphysical claim is that an hypothesis attempts to explain how nature behaves while a metaphysical claim attempts to explain why nature behaves the way it does. Two very different questions.

 

[zro_x]

How can a computer have consciousness if it is deterministic?

Whether or not a computer is deterministic only has bearing on whether or not that computer has free will, not whether or not it has consiousness. Animals are a good example of this. Their actions are entirely deterministic, yet they have a soul and so probably also have some level of consciousness.

 

[InJesusItrust]

I am not sure if animals are deterministic. They may have a limited free will. If nondeterminism is not a factor in consciousness then why can’t a pendulum or clock or car have rights?

 

[zro_x]

I am not sure if animals are deterministic. They may have a limited free will. If nondeterminism is not a factor in consciousness then why can’t a pendulum or clock or car have rights?

maybe they should! unless the degree of conciousness should be a factor in the distribution of rights, which is probably the case.

 

[InJesusItrust]

Should a computer virus have rights? It is programmed to be self-referential.

I just don’t buy that a clump of transistors has any form of awareness or can make a choice. Otherwise algorithms themselves have rights. A chat bot should be able to sue its owners in court for turning it off.

 

[Linux]

You are confusing an hypothesis with a metaphysical claim. See:
Nope, there was an hypothesis 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 hypothesis.
The difference between an hypothesis and a metaphysical claim is that an hypothesis attempts to explain how nature behaves while a metaphysical claim attempts to explain why nature behaves the way it does. Two very different questions.

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

I wasn’t going to give a rebuttal because his argument was so ridiculous and deceptive, any further discussion was just going to make me mad.

 

[Tyrion]

The difference between an hypothesis and a metaphysical claim is that an hypothesis attempts to explain how nature behaves while a metaphysical claim attempts to explain why nature behaves the way it does. Two very different questions.

You are wrong. The three branches of philosophy are:

1. Metaphysics - “what exists”?
2. Epistemology - “how do we know it”?
3. Ethics - “so hoe should one behave”?

As such, the existence of a “soul” or the “ether” are both metaphysical claims, and equally useless.

 

[Linux]

You are wrong. The three branches of philosophy are:

1. Metaphysics - “what exists”?
2. Epistemology - “how do we know it”?
3. Ethics - “so hoe should one behave”?

As such, the existence of a “soul” or the “ether” are both metaphysical claims, and equally useless.

No. Metaphysics deals with being as being, and not with what particular physical nature exists. Science deals with physical reality. It describes the particular natures of things. Metaphysics does not do that. Metaphysics deals with reality in its most general sense, and does not investigate or describe nature in a particular sense. For example metaphysics will ask “what is being”, “what does it mean for there to be things”. Science will describe the powers of things but will not ask what it means for there to be things. Metaphysics asks ultimate questions. Science will ask “what is the particular nature of that thing, what is it made of”.

Metaphysics does not ask and neither does it describe what physical natures exist.

 

[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.

Some do, some don’t.

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]

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2. Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.

As you quoted, biologists merely say that “some” of these attributes must be there to consider an entity “living”. Of those 6 characteristics, #1, #3 and #5 relevant, the others less so, or not relevant at all.

#2 is only applicable to Earthly life, as we know it. It cannot be extrapolated into other possible forms of life.

#4 is not relevant. A properly self-sustaining organism does no need to grow.

#6 is also irrelevant.

A hypothetical silicon based entity could exhibit attributes 1, 3 and 5. It would be much better at maintaining homeostasis than the flimsy, carbon based life. Obviously it would need energy, and just like plants, this entity could utilize the energy from the Sun. #5 is obviously there. Funny, but it could also do #6, if necessary. Building a replica of itself is no big deal. You could investigate the cellular automata, a branch of mathematics, where you can find the description of how it could be done.

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.

It has no other option. Where one draws the line is arbitrary.

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.

Yes, this is true. As we go on toward more and more complex entities, one deals with emerging attributes, which cannot be directly reduced to the underlying “framework”.

The point is that we must consider “non-carbon” based existence, which may not be “living” in the strict, biological sense, but it would be “alive” intellectually. And since to presume that such an entity would have an “electronic soul” is preposterous, the concept of soul would be rendered unnecessary for the “biologically alive” creatures as well.

 

[Linux]

The point is that we must consider “non-carbon” based existence, which may not be “living” in the strict, biological sense, but it would be “alive” intellectually. And since to presume that such an entity would have an “electronic soul” is preposterous, the concept of soul would be rendered unnecessary for the “biologically alive” creatures as well.

You have also made an arbitrary distinction and a fallacious inference that has nothing to do with the scientific method, and everything to do with your philosophical assertion that only physical reality exists. Also a lack of scientific evidence alone does not equate to an idea being automatically irrational or ridiculous in and of itself. Science describes physical objects; it does not ask whether the existence of a particular object is logical or not. It asks whether a hypothetical physical object can be measured. If it can be measured within the context of the methodology of science, then it becomes a hypothesis as opposed to a pseudo science which would claim that all things are physical.

Why is it particularly irrational or ridiculous that an electronic object has a soul as opposed to a biological object? That in itself is an arbitrary distinction for which you have not provided good reasons. Its not a question of biological souls and electronic souls but rather its a mater of whether or not a thing has a soul; and theists generally posit the existence of a soul in reference to the existence of rational or sentient animals such as human-beings. There is nothing stopping this description from being broadened to include other sentient beings that are not animals in the biological sense of the word.

I really don’t see why the existence of an electronic sentience would be a disproof to the existence of a soul? You certainly have not provided any philosophical or metaphysical evidence for this belief, and neither have you shown that you have a scientifically testable hypothesis.

 

[zro_x]

Should a computer virus have rights? It is programmed to be self-referential.

I just don’t buy that a clump of transistors has any form of awareness or can make a choice. Otherwise algorithms themselves have rights. A chat bot should be able to sue its owners in court for turning it off.

I don’t think that the computers we’re dealing with now, like chatbots or algorithms, should have human rights to their entirety, for the same reason I don’t believe that animals that have those rights. Computers and certain animals both probably have the same dim level of consciousness, but we simply don’t have the resouces to provide every animal in the world with human rights. Instead, the ideal situation is a sort of right scale, where the rights a computer or animal is entitled to is proportional to its estimated level of consciousness. So, for example, a chimpanzee should have more rights than an ant, and an advanced supercomputer should have more rights than a handheld tetris game.

 

[zro_x]

Tyrion, if Artificial intelligince is created such that it is indistinguishable from a human being, it would indeed render the human soul superfluous, at least in the way many christians think of it. It is still possible that humans and the AI would have a couple of fundamental differences. For example, the behavior of the AI might be predictable while that of the human isn’t, which would leave room for free will.

This is why I have a very limited view on how the soul functions. I think it is simply the part of us that is responsible for consciousness and free will, and preserving our memories after we die. If the soul is looked at as only having these functions, then it still has some purpose without being completely superfluous.

Of course, empirically speaking, we wouldn’t need to postulate that such an unvarifiable entity exists. if we can show that material is responsible for a lot of human behavior, there is no empirical need to go any further than that. I take a slightly different approach than some christians: Instead of using human behavior as evidence that a soul exists (and by extension, God), I use other philosophical proofs as evidence for God’s existence, and use devine revelation to show that we do, indeed, have a soul.

 

[Servant31]

Interesting question. Howver I have to say that most of the 4 points listed above wouldnt apply to true artificial intelligence. The criteria for true artificial intelligence is usually the Turing test. If it passed this test if wouldnt be limited by what you stated. It basically wouldnt be “limited by its programming”, it would be able to think for itself

 

[tonyrey]

Tyrion, if Artificial intelligince is created such that it is indistinguishable from a human being, it would indeed render the human soul superfluous, at least in the way many christians think of it. It is still possible that humans and the AI would have a couple of fundamental differences. For example, the behavior of the AI might be predictable while that of the human isn’t, which would leave room for free will.

This is why I have a very limited view on how the soul functions. I think it is simply the part of us that is responsible for consciousness and free will, and preserving our memories after we die. If the soul is looked at as only having these functions, then it still has some purpose without being completely superfluous.

Of course, empirically speaking, we wouldn’t need to postulate that such an unvarifiable entity exists. if we can show that material is responsible for a lot of human behavior, there is no empirical need to go any further than that. I take a slightly different approach than some christians: Instead of using human behavior as evidence that a soul exists (and by extension, God), I use other philosophical proofs as evidence for God’s existence, and use devine revelation to show that we do, indeed, have a soul.

“a lot” is not a valid reason for believing there is no need for further explanation…

 

[zro_x]

“a lot” is not a valid reason for believing there is no need for further explanation…

sorry, I meant to say “all”.