Non-biological "life"? Here on Earth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hee_Zen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hee_Zen said:
Really? The so-called human DNA is not a precise value, it is a very vague interval, and we don’t even know the boundaries of it. How will you classify a seriously mutant person?
Click to expand...
Err on the side of caution?
 
Peter_Plato said:
As far as I know, Christian values only consider two classes of entity in terms of who is owed as “ethical” treatment - God and humans. It does not offer anything along the lines of a physical test to determine whether some particular individual is owed ethical treatment prior to living out that obligation.

You, yourself, admitted that p-zombies could exist, in human form, such that we couldn’t know whether they were human or not. However, the ethical treatment of other humans does not depend upon this determination. Such treatment is not accorded to other humans based upon whether they pass some test or other. It is simply accorded based upon the presumption of their being human.

Demons ostensibly have souls, and perhaps of a higher order than humans, but their having a soul is not what determines the treatment owed to them

In other words, Christian values do not accord worth because of some test for a soul, but rather on the humanity of the person. Christianity, in terms of revealed teachings, is entirely mute on the question of according worth to other hypothetical beings. Now that may be because the revealed teachings are based upon certainty that such entities do not exist, but for sure, Christianity does not advocate testing to determine human status before endowing worth. It isn’t approached in those terms at all.

It is when we begin to use such presumptions that we get into trouble and, for example, end up killing millions upon millions of humans precisely because such claims are being made that we cannot know for certain that some particular humans (the unborn) have souls and because of this essentially misconceived notion that soul determination is within our prerogative that they don’t pass our arbitrary criteria for “personhood” and, therefore, we are in a position to deny them rights to life. This is completely off the rails, as far as Christianity is concerned and entirely beyond our pay grade.

As far as Christianity is concerned, there are two classes of beings that are morally relevant and that relevancy creates obligations on every individual human - God and other humans. All humans are presumed to be human and, in fact, we have a moral obligation to act on that presumption.

Angels are quite capable of looking after themselves and, no doubt, consequences will be forthcoming if the level of respect shown them is not appropriate, but no where is there a set of moral principles regarding what is our obligation towards them or any other class of being.

Treat other human beings as we would treat ourselves and render to God our entire will, mind and heart - that is all we need to know. There are no moral obligations with regard to any other being - although pragmatic determinations are always possible.
Click to expand...
I didn’t intend to imply p-zombies could exist, to me they are purely a hypothetical invention to help understand the issues, hence the title of philosophical zombie.

Otherwise I agree with most of what you say: there is no test for having a soul, largely because of the moral issue, that personhood has in the past been ascribed on the basis of skin color or whatever. None of us now, hopefully, would say that even someone in a persistent vegetative state has no soul.

So, given that the bible doesn’t tell us how to behave towards space aliens, we have a choice. One option is to claim that as the bible only speaks of humans, then only humans are to be accorded personhood. But the bible doesn’t tell us how to decide who is and isn’t human, so white supremacists argued for some test or another: only white skins are human, or Jews are not human, or these days perhaps that only a certain DNA match counts, and so on. These all carry the same moral baggage.

The alternative to requiring a pass mark on a test is to turn it round. If space aliens have human-like traits then we treat them as persons to avoid the white-supremacist type of trap. Morally, the lesser of two evils is better to treat a machine as a person and perhaps be wrong than treat a person as an object and get it wrong.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Philosophy isn’t about consensus, it is about truth. So sorry you don’t appreciate my contributions, we can’t all be perfect. At least I’m certain where I stand, " What say you? "
Click to expand...
You’ve only made personal remarks so far, and you’re right, I didn’t appreciate them, no I did not, don’t look at me like that, look up ad hominem.

All those with eyes can see you’re far from perfect, but that doesn’t mean you can’t improve. 😃
 
inocente said:
You’ve only made personal remarks so far, and you’re right, I didn’t appreciate them, no I did not, don’t look at me like that, look up ad hominem.

All those with eyes can see you’re far from perfect, but that doesn’t mean you can’t improve. 😃
Click to expand...
We are all imperfect, that is not an ad hominem. And speaking of ad hominems, whow, what did you just do? Oh well, I’m used to it…" sticks and stones…"

Linus2nd
 
Peter_Plato said:
Err on the side of caution?
Click to expand...
That would be a good, pragmatic approach, but it does solve the problem. You still have no grounds to differentiate between an ordinary human and a mutant, even if you decide to treat them equally. What would be the “classification” of a cyborg, “which” or “who” (?) contains 95% artificial prostheses and 5% human tissue? Is that “being” still “essentially” a human, or just an artificial concoction, which has some human tissue embedded in it?
 
inocente said:
Morally, the lesser of two evils is better to treat a machine as a person and perhaps be wrong than treat a person as an object and get it wrong.
Click to expand...
Exactly, the age-old problem of the “type 1” and “type 2” errors is statistics. There was this dilemma: “it is better to have a thousand guilty ones to go unpunished, rather than to have one innocent to get punished” - and its reverse form: “it is better to have a thousand innocents to be punished, rather than to have one guilty to go unpunished”. Both were used as fundamental principles at some time in some societies.
 
Hee_Zen said:
That would be a good, pragmatic approach, but it does solve the problem. You still have no grounds to differentiate between an ordinary human and a mutant, even if you decide to treat them equally. What would be the “classification” of a cyborg, “which” or “who” (?) contains 95% artificial prostheses and 5% human tissue? Is that “being” still “essentially” a human, or just an artificial concoction, which has some human tissue embedded in it?
Click to expand...
I think you are suggesting that it “does not” solve the problem. I disagree.

Having “grounds” is not an either-or kind of thing. I may have some grounds and, in fact, sufficient grounds to proceed in a practical sense without, thereby, making metaphysical or moral commitments.

It is not clear that my decision on how to treat a cyborg relies completely upon moral or metaphysical certainty as to whether it is human or not. As the p-zombies example demonstrates, I cannot be entirely certain that the people walking around me are human, either, but that need not stop me from treating them as if they were until it becomes absolutely clear.

I could withhold any absolute judgement and simply treat cyborgs AS IF they were human without thereby conceding that they are. Just because you stand beside me chomping at the bit to obtain that “confession” from me, does not mean I am compelled to prematurely accede to your demands, in your timeframe - or even in your lifetime.
 
Peter_Plato said:
I think you are suggesting that it “does not” solve the problem. I disagree.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Sorry for the typo.
Peter_Plato said:
Having “grounds” is not an either-or kind of thing. I may have some grounds and, in fact, sufficient grounds to proceed in a practical sense without, thereby, making metaphysical or moral commitments.
Click to expand...
Which means to me, that you can change your mind any time.
Peter_Plato said:
It is not clear that my decision on how to treat a cyborg relies completely upon moral or metaphysical certainty as to whether it is human or not. As the p-zombies example demonstrates, I cannot be entirely certain that the people walking around me are human, either, but that need not stop me from treating them as if they were until it becomes absolutely clear.
Click to expand...
As such your behavior toward there “beings” is subject to change whenever it pleases you. At any given time, you can re-classify these beings into p-zombies, and treat them as such. You could vivisect them, perform experiments on them, since there is reason why you should not.
 
Peter_Plato said:
I could withhold any absolute judgement and simply treat cyborgs AS IF they were human without thereby conceding that they are. Just because you stand beside me chomping at the bit to obtain that “confession” from me, does not mean I am compelled to prematurely accede to your demands, in your timeframe - or even in your lifetime.
Click to expand...
Your name is Peter Plato, and I would like to emphasize Peter, as in rock.

Is the rock alive?

The rock example simply points out the difficulty of defining what life is. I never asserted that Peter is alive. I only asked the question: “how do you know that Peter is not alive?”

Maybe Peter does not reach a decision about whether or not cyborgs are human during one Hee_Zen lifetime. However, is it not possible that Peter has all of the activity of life, and that the activity is too slow for Hee_Zen to recognize it?
 
Hee_Zen said:
Many people will wonder: “what on Earth does this guy talk about”? Non-carbon based “life”? Well, it depends on how life is “defined”. Biologists define life with some important attributes, namely maintaining their homeostasis in a changing environment, and responding to complex stimuli with complex responses. Sometimes they mention “growth”, “metabolism” and “reproduction”, too. But they are quick to point out that not all of these attributes are necessary to classify an organism as “living”.

Almost all so-called living organisms are DNA based - but not all. There are simple organisms which are RNA based, and they exhibit the necessary attributes for calling them “alive”. Viruses have almost no DNA, yet they are “alive”. They reproduce, they react to outside stimuli, they evolve, they change their internal structure according the needs dictated by the environment. So they are alive.

Well, maybe you just suppressed a big yawn and say, sure, but this is ancient news. What is the big deal? The “big deal” is this: not for nothing are the computer viruses called “viruses”. They exhibit the same behavior as their biological counterparts do: "they stay alive in a hostile environment, they evolve (change) when necessary, they replicate themselves and “infest” new hosts. Sometimes they even “kill” their hosts. So they qualify as “living entities” just like the biological viruses do.

Some people will try to argue, but what if the infested computer is “turned off”? To that the answer is easy: “what if the infested living body is “turned off”?” We all live in a very specific environment, and if the environment changes we all die.

So the conclusion is simple; non-biological life is HERE and it is here to stay. It is able to evolve, to change, to replicate itself it is able to do everything that “life” is supposed to do. So all you naysayers, who assert the impossibility of non-biological life, take notice: “you are wrong”! And this life has no “soul”, needs no “soul”. The concept of “soul” as animating principle is gone, dead and buried.
Click to expand...
I think you should write a science fiction book.
 
Hee_Zen said:
As such your behavior toward there “beings” is subject to change whenever it pleases you. At any given time, you can re-classify these beings into p-zombies,
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with what “pleases” me.

That may be the ground you have for changing your mind, but that is not mine.

In fact, bringing up cyborgs and robots as examples of entities that place in doubt your view of what it means to be human implies that your concept of what means is quite tenuous and arbitrary.

You would be much more susceptible to re-classifying these beings since you are hinged to very tenuous descriptions rather than have anything substantive to base your “classification” upon to begin with.
 
Peter_Plato said:
It has nothing to do with what “pleases” me.
Click to expand...
Whatever. If you do not consider these beings as a “branch” of humanity, then you can change your mind about how to treat them.
Peter_Plato said:
In fact, bringing up cyborgs and robots as examples of entities that place in doubt your view of what it means to be human implies that your concept of what means is quite tenuous and arbitrary.
Click to expand...
Not so. I simply consider humans as a sub-class of the wider category of intelligent (sentient) beings. The actual “makeup” of those beings is irrelevant. There is nothing tenuous or arbitrary about this definition. Any being who falls into the “intelligent (or sentient) being” category is entitled to the same ethical treatment, be if a human, a cyborg, an android, a robot, a mutant dolphin, a space alien, or even God (if he existed) - as long as they all subscribe to the same ethical standard as we do (namely the golden rule and its variants). If they turn out to be hostile, then the rules change, since everyone is entitled to self-defense.
 
Hee_Zen said:
Whatever. If you do not consider these beings as a “branch” of humanity, then you can change your mind about how to treat them.

Not so. I simply consider humans as a sub-class of the wider category of intelligent (sentient) beings. The actual “makeup” of those beings is irrelevant. There is nothing tenuous or arbitrary about this definition. Any being who falls into the “intelligent (or sentient) being” category is entitled to the same ethical treatment, be if a human, a cyborg, an android, a robot, a mutant dolphin, a space alien, or even God (if he existed) - as long as they all subscribe to the same ethical standard as we do (namely the golden rule and its variants). If they turn out to be hostile, then the rules change, since everyone is entitled to self-defense.
Click to expand...
Why intelligence, in particular?

What have trees, for example, done to deserve being cut down and turned to lumber? As far as I can tell, trees do subscribe to the golden rule - they never are hostile to others. They are perfect examples of your “live and let live” prescription.

So, again, why intelligence?

It seems arbitrary merely because you possess it. You are according “special treatment” to your class of beings, no? Who made you or your class of beings the dictators of moral rules able to define which creatures count and which do not? By what authority do you determine that you are the source and arbiter of morality?
 
Hee_Zen said:
But nobody is pleased by what I write. 🙂
Click to expand...
Pleasing people definitely isn’t a requirement for science fiction writing. The best science fiction writers are rather disturbing and shake people up.😉
 
Hee_Zen said:
Many people will wonder: “what on Earth does this guy talk about”? Non-carbon based “life”? Well, it depends on how life is “defined”. Biologists define life with some important attributes, namely maintaining their homeostasis in a changing environment, and responding to complex stimuli with complex responses. Sometimes they mention “growth”, “metabolism” and “reproduction”, too. But they are quick to point out that not all of these attributes are necessary to classify an organism as “living”.

Almost all so-called living organisms are DNA based - but not all. There are simple organisms which are RNA based, and they exhibit the necessary attributes for calling them “alive”. Viruses have almost no DNA, yet they are “alive”. They reproduce, they react to outside stimuli, they evolve, they change their internal structure according the needs dictated by the environment. So they are alive.

Well, maybe you just suppressed a big yawn and say, sure, but this is ancient news. What is the big deal? The “big deal” is this: not for nothing are the computer viruses called “viruses”. They exhibit the same behavior as their biological counterparts do: "they stay alive in a hostile environment, they evolve (change) when necessary, they replicate themselves and “infest” new hosts. Sometimes they even “kill” their hosts. So they qualify as “living entities” just like the biological viruses do.

Some people will try to argue, but what if the infested computer is “turned off”? To that the answer is easy: “what if the infested living body is “turned off”?” We all live in a very specific environment, and if the environment changes we all die.

So the conclusion is simple; non-biological life is HERE and it is here to stay. It is able to evolve, to change, to replicate itself it is able to do everything that “life” is supposed to do. So all you naysayers, who assert the impossibility of non-biological life, take notice: “you are wrong”! And this life has no “soul”, needs no “soul”. The concept of “soul” as animating principle is gone, dead and buried.
Click to expand...
The problem with your analysis is the misuse of the term " animating principle." Machines, by definition, have no animating principle, therefore they cannot be regarded as life forms. Machines are artifacts, a jumble of inorganic artifacts organized according to the designs of living men to achieve specific purposes, beyond the bounds of which they cannot pass and they depend on the steady supply of manmade energies for their operation. Life is limited to organic substances which have an animating principle, the soul, which governs every aspect ot the life form for the overall good of the life form. So the soul as the animating principle of life is not dead. It is alive and well.

Linus2nd

Linus2nd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top