Robotics and Artificial Intelligence

[Bagheera]

LeafByNiggle:

You said you would be willing to see babies destructively tested if the survival of the whole human race was at stake. What about in-between cases? Are there any applications of destructive chicken testing that you would not sanction for destructive baby testing? And if you don’t think chickens are an adequate comparison for a newborn baby’s sentience, then how about a well-trained border collie?

Still not comparable and beside the point.

LeafByNiggle:

You even admitted it was a reality by saying “in reality, it was manufactured”.

Taking an axe or a chain-saw to a humanoid robot would reveal its internal structure. But that is not the usual way one approaches the question of who is a “human” and who is a “robot”, precisely because it could be a “human”. And even the axe “method” would not reveal the identity of an android. What then?

LeafByNiggle:

The mere fact that you (or someone) has this information proves that the information is not unknowable in principle, it is just unknowable based on circumstance.

The “Matrix”-problem cannot be solved with this method.

LeafByNiggle:

As I said before, I would have to treat the thing as if it were human because I would not know any better.

Yes, I remember it. But you did not answer the follow-up. Suppose you do get information about the other party being “just” an android, what would be your attitude then? Because that is the crux of the problem. The prior reply of edwest2 insinuated that he might use that chain-saw to “turn off” that android, and throw it in the trash can, after all it is just a “device”. What would be your attitude?

Let’s get back to the 9 cases, please, because those get to the heart of the problem.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Taking an axe or a chain-saw to a humanoid robot would reveal its internal structure. But that is not the usual way one approaches the question of who is a “human” and who is a “robot”, precisely because it could be a “human”. And even the axe “method” would not reveal the identity of an android. What then?

Then I might never know. And unless there was a compelling reason to find out, I would not resort to the chain saw method. But you have failed to give any reason why I should treat a machine intelligence with human-like respect once I do find out. The fact that I might never find out is not a reason.

The “Matrix”-problem cannot be solved with this method.

I refuse to address this silly movie scenario until you show why it is relevant. Remember, the subject of this thread is not about the difficulty of knowing reality. It is about what to do based on what you know. If what you know changes, then it is entirely reasonable that what you do might then change too.

But you did not answer the follow-up. Suppose you do get information about the other party being “just” an android, what would be your attitude then?

I would respect the machine just like I would respect an expensive sports car - maybe a little more, because such an android would probably cost even more to produce. But I would not sacrifice my life so that it might avoid destruction , whereas I might do that for a human.

 

[Bagheera]

LeafByNiggle:

Then I might never know. And unless there was a compelling reason to find out, I would not resort to the chain saw method. But you have failed to give any reason why I should treat a machine intelligence with human-like respect once I do find out.

It is up to you to figure that one out. I gave you those 9 possibilities, which would guide you to the correct answer. But you adamantly refuse to address them. I gave you several opportunities, but you are silent. This is the last opportunity. I am bored with trying to conduct a conversation, where the other side attempts to avoid the serious questions.

LeafByNiggle:

I refuse to address this silly movie scenario until you show why it is relevant. Remember, the subject of this thread is not about the difficulty of knowing reality.

You were the one who insisted that there is more to reality, than what we can perceive. I asked you several times: “how do you know”? So far, silence. And the topic also includes the difference between “the real McCoy” and the “emulation”.

LeafByNiggle:

I would respect the machine just like I would respect an expensive sports car - maybe a little more, because such an android would probably cost even more to produce.

Aha. So you consider an android a mere “machine”, even when that android exhibits ALL the traits of humanity, including the ability to procreate, to reason, to love, maybe even to worship, etc. There is no test of biology or psychology which would show that this being was “manufactured” in a vat, or born to a mother. And yet, as soon as you find it out, it becomes a “machine”. This tells a lot about you, but nothing about the android.

LeafByNiggle:

But I would not sacrifice my life so that it might avoid destruction, whereas I might do that for a human.

You might… that is real deep. Fortunately, in our everyday existence such “self-sacrifice” never pops up. How about sharing your food? Or treating its wounds? Or console it when it is sad? Or consider it as a friend?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It is up to you to figure that one out. I gave you those 9 possibilities, which would guide you to the correct answer. But you adamantly refuse to address them. I gave you several opportunities, but you are silent.

I am silent on that question because I fundamentally disagree that it necessary to consider your somewhat arbitrary nine cases when this thread has been about two cases - human and artificial. Furthermore it has not been about an exhaustive taxonomy of imaginary half-human half-machine entities. If you want that discussion then I suggest you try a science fiction forum.

You were the one who insisted that there is more to reality, than what we can perceive. I asked you several times: “how do you know”? So far, silence.

I gave you several examples of when reality is more than is perceived, including the case of an 18th century European whose son has travelled to America. The father would have to deal with his inability to know the fate of his son, perhaps forever. But the reality of his fate is nevertheless quite real. And the father knows that, even if he doesn’t know exactly what that fate is. So don’t ask me how I know there is more to reality than what is perceived until you explain why the answers I have already given are insufficient.

Aha. So you consider an android a mere “machine”, even when that android exhibits ALL the traits of humanity, including the ability to procreate, to reason, to love, maybe even to worship, etc. There is no test of biology or psychology which would show that this being was “manufactured” in a vat, or born to a mother. And yet, as soon as you find it out, it becomes a “machine”. This tells a lot about you, but nothing about the android.

Good. You understand me then.

You might… that is real deep. Fortunately, in our everyday existence such “self-sacrifice” never pops up.

No does an android that is indistinguishable from a human. But that did not stop you from bringing up that hypothetical. So why am I not allowed to bring up a hypothetical? I submit that in the history of humanity, my hypothetical has popped up more times than yours.

How about sharing your food?

Sure, I share food with my dog all the time. Why not a robot?

Or treating its wounds?

Of course. I used to work in a TV repair shop.

Or console it when it is sad?

Definitely. I like debugging software.

Or consider it as a friend?

I’ve heard of a fishing rod that was called the “fisherman’s friend”. So why not?

 

[HardRockGTR]

I believe someone, somewhere has probably already cloned a human, its only illegal in certain countries, so nothing stopping it in some places. Plus if such a law was created, then it must be possible.

what I question is what kind of being would it turn out. Obviously it would not have a soul

Obviously.

 

[vz71]

I am bored with trying to conduct a conversation, where the other side attempts to avoid the serious questions.

Serious answers have been provided and refused.

Do not blame the other side of the argument for your own stubborn refusal to see logic.

 

[Bagheera]

LeafByNiggle:

Good. You understand me then.

Yes, I understand you now. To summarize:

You are willing to consider another being as a fellow human, as long as you are under the perception that this being was born the natural way. As soon as it turns out that you were “fooled”, and this being was the result of a manufacturing process (By the way, is IVF a manufacturing process? No need to answer, just think.), that being is “downgraded” into a “device” or “machine”, and it can be “dismantled” (or killed or permanently deactivated), “tortured”, or sold into “slavery”, since it is just a “machine”. Never mind that there is no physical, biological or psychological test, which would reveal that the information about its origin was right or wrong (unsupported testimonial “evidence” is highly suspicious), you are willing to accept someone’s word on the subject and discard that “imitation” human into a trash can. Never mind that this being behaves exactly as a human, if it bleeds when you cut it, if it weeps under torture, if it begs you to stop.

Yes, indeed I understand it. And as I said, it tells a lot about you. Based upon the surrounding “answers”, you are not alone. The truth is that I am not really surprised, only disappointed a little. Being an incurable optimist, I keep hoping that eventually I will run into theist, who is willing to think rationally and not follow blindly (!) the testimonials. Of course such a person would probably not be a believer.

Thank you for your time and effort. As usual, I learned a little.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

(unsupported testimonial “evidence” is highly suspicious), you are willing to accept someone’s word on the subject and discard that “imitation” human into a trash can.

The usual rules of evaluating testimony apply. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. Claiming that an entity that appears human is actually an android certainly qualifies as an extraordinary claim. And why would I be in such a hurry to destroy the thing anyway? Given the risk of being wrong, there would have to be a pretty compelling reason. I don’t destroy every Porsche I see.

It is instructive that your argument relies on the difficulty of distinguishing between an android and a human, rather than relying on some inherent value of the intelligence itself. It shows that even you believe that humanity is the “gold standard” to which all beings worthy of respect must be compared. If you really believed that intelligence was worthy of that level of respect regardless of how it is expressed, you would be making the case that a “Hal-like” intelligence (from 2001) that is housed in an obvious rack of electronics is just as worthy of respect. But you have not done that. Instead you keep talking about blood and tears. Thank you for making my case.

 

[Bagheera]

LeafByNiggle:

The usual rules of evaluating testimony apply. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. Claiming that an entity that appears human is actually an android certainly qualifies as an extraordinary claim.

But I never advocated that principle. On the very contrary, I subscribe to the notion that every claim must be held to same standard – according to its nature. Claims about the external reality all need to be substantiated by actual evidence, claims in the abstract sciences need to be proven (reduced to the axioms), and claims about the unverifiable history need several, independent eye-witnesses, preferably with a differing “agenda” and with previously established “track record”. I do not hold the religious claims to a different standard.

In this case the dilemma of “human” vs. “android” refers to the external reality, so the question needs to be decided by checking the available evidence, which is physical, biological and psychological, and none of which indicate “artificial” origin.

LeafByNiggle:

And why would I be in such a hurry to destroy the thing anyway? Given the risk of being wrong, there would have to be a pretty compelling reason. I don’t destroy every Porsche I see.

But you would have no qualms about it, if your momentary “whim” would lead you this action. You know, if I would about to step on a cockroach, and it would cry out: “please do not hurt me”, I would accept it as an “honorary human”.

LeafByNiggle:

It is instructive that your argument relies on the difficulty of distinguishing between an android and a human, rather than relying on some inherent value of the intelligence itself. It shows that even you believe that humanity is the “gold standard” to which all beings worthy of respect must be compared. If you really believed that intelligence was worthy of that level of respect regardless of how it is expressed, you would be making the case that a “Hal-like” intelligence (from 2001) that is housed in an obvious rack of electronics is just as worthy of respect. But you have not done that. Instead you keep talking about blood and tears. Thank you for making my case.

Don’t gloat too soon. If only you would have taken the time to read my 9 different sentient beings, you would have seen that I included a fully electronic sentient device. Since you saw fit to bring up the example of “Hal”, the “deactivation == killing” of that being can be justified by the fact that its actions indicated a malfunction, and the “killing” was an act of self-defense (which is the only justifiable type of “killing”).

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But I never advocated that principle.

I know you didn’t. I only mentioned the extraordinary nature of the claim as a defense against your accusation that I was going to be too casual toward the destruction of a being that someone says is not human. That is all I meant by it.

On the very contrary, I subscribe to the notion that every claim must be held to same standard – according to its nature. Claims about the external reality all need to be substantiated by actual evidence, claims in the abstract sciences need to be proven (reduced to the axioms), and claims about the unverifiable history need several, independent eye-witnesses, preferably with a differing “agenda” and with previously established “track record”. I do not hold the religious claims to a different standard.

I agree.

If only you would have taken the time to read my 9 different sentient beings, you would have seen that I included a fully electronic sentient device.

Including electronic intelligence in your list of 9 types does not constitute making an argument for it’s recognition in the category of “things we respect as much as humans”. The only argument that you made for respecting all forms of intelligence applied only to forms that were indistinguishable from humans. If you think that all forms of apparent intelligence are worthy of the same kind of respect, then please present an argument that applies to all forms, not just to the ones that look like us.