Robotics and Artificial Intelligence

[Bagheera]

Mostly I agree with what you wrote… except…

LeafByNiggle:

There is no moral debt incurred toward a machine just because it mimics human intelligence.

How do you differentiate between an imitation and the “real thing”? There can be a fully human looking being, “which” also behaves like a human does (could be a vat-grown android for all you know). Then there can be a seriously injured human, “who” has a lot of artificial prostheses and looks like a robot (could be a cyborg, but you don’t know about the human brain in the “middle). You cannot “examine” either one of them. You can only make a decision based upon your observation. What will you do?

The only logical and sensible way to approach the question is the “duck principle”. Both of them act like humans (the artificial prosthesis cannot be the decisive factor, many people have false teeth and other prostheses), therefore we should accept both of them as fellow humans. Can you tell if a seemingly grieving person is “really” grieving, or is only an excellent actor?

 

[vz71]

The only logical and sensible way to approach the question is the “duck principle”. Both of them act like humans (the artificial prosthesis cannot be the decisive factor, many people have false teeth and other prostheses), therefore we should accept both of them as fellow humans. Can you tell if a seemingly grieving person is “really” grieving, or is only an excellent actor.

Would that people used that logic.
Terri Schiavo would be alive.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Mostly I agree with what you wrote… except…

How do you differentiate between an imitation and the “real thing”? There can be a fully human looking being, “which” also behaves like a human does (could be a vat-grown android for all you know). Then there can be a seriously injured human, “who” has a lot of artificial prostheses and looks like a robot (could be a cyborg, but you don’t know about the human brain in the “middle). You cannot “examine” either one of them. You can only make a decision based upon your observation. What will you do?

The only logical and sensible way to approach the question is the “duck principle”. Both of them act like humans (the artificial prosthesis cannot be the decisive factor, many people have false teeth and other prostheses), therefore we should accept both of them as fellow humans. Can you tell if a seemingly grieving person is “really” grieving, or is only an excellent actor?

The “duck principle” may be a temporary necessity in making a provisionary decision, but I disagree that it is the only logical and sensible way to approach the moral question.

There are many times when a decision has to be made based on insufficient information. For example, suppose I am a policeman and I have just arrived on the scene of a bank robbery in progress. The apparent bank robber is holding a gun on a hostage. I do not know if the gun is real. It might be a fake. But I cannot take that chance. I assume the gun is real, and shoot the robber when an opportunity presents itself. The robber dies, and then I discover the weapon was actually a fake. The moral principle is that lethal force should not be used against an unarmed criminal. There is also a moral principle that I must defend innocent life in danger. But at the time I had to make a decision, I had to weigh the probabilities, the risks to hostage, and the risks to the robber. The use of lethal force could be justified in that case even though it violates the general principle of using non-lethal force when possible.

So in the case of your cyborg or human with prostheses, I suppose I would have to play it safe and assume it was human. Then when I find out later on that it was just a machine, I can have a good chuckle at myself for being wrong, and then pull the plug on the machine if necessary. The fact that I could not tell which was which at a particular moment in time does not bind me forever to that judgement. Once I do find out for sure I can act accordingly. If I never find out, then so be it. I am fooled. But the moral principle remains just the same.

 

[Bagheera]

LeafByNiggle:

The “duck principle” may be a temporary necessity in making a provisionary decision, but I disagree that it is the only logical and sensible way to approach the moral question.

There are many times when a decision has to be made based on insufficient information. For example, suppose I am a policeman and I have just arrived on the scene of a bank robbery in progress. The apparent bank robber is holding a gun on a hostage. I do not know if the gun is real. It might be a fake. But I cannot take that chance. I assume the gun is real, and shoot the robber when an opportunity presents itself. The robber dies, and then I discover the weapon was actually a fake. The moral principle is that lethal force should not be used against an unarmed criminal. There is also a moral principle that I must defend innocent life in danger. But at the time I had to make a decision, I had to weigh the probabilities, the risks to hostage, and the risks to the robber. The use of lethal force could be justified in that case even though it violates the general principle of using non-lethal force when possible.

Good example indicating the correct use of the “duck principle”. Since you are not in the position to examine the gun, you must act on the “appearance”. Also your usage of “justifiable” action was excellent. If there is no other way to stop the robber, then the premeditated, intentional killing of the robber was justified.

LeafByNiggle:

So in the case of your cyborg or human with prostheses, I suppose I would have to play it safe and assume it was human. Then when I find out later on that it was just a machine, I can have a good chuckle at myself for being wrong, and then pull the plug on the machine if necessary.

The point is that you never find it out. What about the “android”, a biologically alive, but artificially grown being who acts just like a “natural” human would act? And in that case “pulling the plug” can only be achieved by “pulling the trigger”? The point is that the “artificial, but biological being” and the “artificial, but electronic being” both act like authentic human beings. The electronic one might be covered by a human-like skin, but that is a superficial difference. Just like the basic “hardware” is a superficial difference. Human is as human does – or to be more precise: “sentient is as sentient does”.

LeafByNiggle:

If I never find out, then so be it. I am fooled.

This is the point. Why do you think you are “fooled”? Why is pulling the plug on an “electronic” being acceptable, when pulling the trigger on a “biological” being is not? I can offer a solution: “because the electronic being’s power supply can be reinserted, and the similar process for the biological being is not reversible”. And if “pulling the plug” on that electronic being would actually destroy that being, and there would be no way to re-activate it… would that be “robot-slaughter”? All that means that the “morality” of the action is dependent upon the technology; if the biological being could be “resurrected”, then it would be only a misdemeanor to “temporarily deactivate it”.

You did not reflect on the “red” sentence. If there is no way to find out if you face an “emulation” or a “real thing” then even the question: “is it an emulation or not?” is useless question.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The point is that you never find it out. What about the “android”, a biologically alive, but artificially grown being who acts just like a “natural” human would act? And in that case “pulling the plug” can only be achieved by “pulling the trigger”? The point is that the “artificial, but biological being” and the “artificial, but electronic being” both act like authentic human beings. The electronic one might be covered by a human-like skin, but that is a superficial difference. Just like the basic “hardware” is a superficial difference. Human is as human does – or to be more precise: “sentient is as sentient does”.

So what? Speculating on how hard it might be to tell robots from humans at some indeterminate point in the future does not say anything about what objectively is.

This is the point. Why do you think you are “fooled”?

Because there is an reality of which I was not aware, but possibly became aware later on. And if not, so what? You’re not going to drag out Schrödinger’s cat, are you? I wasn’t convinced by that one either.

Why is pulling the plug on an “electronic” being acceptable, when pulling the trigger on a “biological” being is not?

Because that is exactly what the moral principle says. It is an Axiom that we respect human life. Not because it is smart, or useful, but because it is human.

You did not reflect on the “red” sentence. If there is no way to find out if you face an “emulation” or a “real thing” then even the question: “is it an emulation or not?” is useless question.

Yes I did read the red sentence. I even responded to it directly. I stated that inability to distinguish a thing at a certain point in time does not invalidate the distinction. Even if I can’t tell right now, perhaps in a day or so I will be able to tell. Objective reality does not depend on our ability to detect that reality - unless that is your philosophy, in which case, it does.

 

[vz71]

Why is pulling the plug on an “electronic” being acceptable, when pulling the trigger on a “biological” being is not?

Because human life has a value and dignity given it as a creation of God.
The “electronic” being is nothing more than a creation of man.

We are provided inalienable rights by our creator.
The creator is free to withdraw those rights at any time.

 

[Bagheera]

LeafByNiggle:

Because that is exactly what the moral principle says. It is an Axiom that we respect human life. Not because it is smart, or useful, but because it is human.

That is not a good answer. What is the definition of a “human”? Is it just a DNA? The DNA would not be a precise definition. There is a wide “tolerance” limit among the existing human population. What if a new mutant falls outside those limits? That is why referring to “biological humans” is unacceptable. The concept of biological “species” is a somewhat useful, but arbitrary categorization.

My basic principle (not an axiom, since the word “axiom” is usually reserved for abstract, axiomatically defined systems) is that “sentient beings should be respected”. That would include all sorts of beings, humans (as a biological species); other, biologically alive sentient beings – which could be mutant animals or maybe space aliens, and also artificially grown androids, cyborgs and even fully electronic, but sentient beings. I do not wish to hurt you, but I see your attitude as “human-chauvinistic”.

LeafByNiggle:

Because there is a reality of which I was not aware, but possibly became aware later on. Objective reality does not depend on our ability to detect that reality - unless that is your philosophy, in which case, it does.

Ah, this brings up the “Matrix” problem. If there is no way to detect the “true” nature of reality, then we must accept that reality is what we observe. Your previous answers all assumed that “eventually” we can see behind the “veil” of “deception” – even though I explicitly stated that we have a WYSIWYG environment. What you see is what you get. Before another misunderstanding pops up, “see” is not to be taken literally. Whatever all our senses and their extensions report to us: IS the reality. It is possible that there are other things, which are forever “outside” the scope of our detection (direct or indirect) but that is irrelevant. If it cannot be detected, then whether it exists or not is an irrelevant question.

 

[vz71]

That is not a good answer. What is the definition of a “human”?..
My basic principle (not an axiom, since the word “axiom” is usually reserved for abstract, axiomatically defined systems) is that “sentient beings should be respected”.

So you want us to stop using a word that is well defined “human” in favor of a word that is not well defined “sentient”…

Odd.

Seems to me to be an effort to muddy the waters rather then make an argument clear.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That is not a good answer. What is the definition of a “human”?..“sentient beings should be respected”

As vz71 pointed out, the definition of “sentient” is not substantially clearer than the definition of “human”. Why you object one definition and embrace the other is a mystery to me. And why should sentience, of all the various characteristics of humans, be singled out as the characteristic that is most deserving of respect and representative of what we call human? It seems quite arbitrary as well as ill-defined. What are you going to do? Propose an “intelligence test” for all beings (human or otherwise) to pass before they should be afforded respect? Or will you make the threshold so low that even a horse could pass it? And what about humans born with mental deficiencies? Are they to be denied respect because they can’t pass your test? It seems the Nazis tried something like that. No, I don’t like your philosophy one bit.

Ah, this brings up the “Matrix” problem. If there is no way to detect the “true” nature of reality, then we must accept that reality is what we observe. Your previous answers all assumed that “eventually” we can see behind the “veil” of “deception” – even though I explicitly stated that we have a WYSIWYG environment.

That is not a given. It is a philosophical choice that you have made. I disagree with it.

Whatever all our senses and their extensions report to us: IS the reality. It is possible that there are other things, which are forever “outside” the scope of our detection (direct or indirect) but that is irrelevant. If it cannot be detected, then whether it exists or not is an irrelevant question.

Let me suggest an experiment that should refute that statement. Consider Schrödinger’s cat, but instead of the cat, let’s put Schrödinger’s wife in the box. Then remove the box forever from Schrödinger’s ability to detect what is going on in the box. Then ask Schrödinger’s if it is irrelevant to him whether the poison has been released in the box with his wife. Even if he could never see his wife again, I think he would still care and wonder whether she was still alive.

 

[Bagheera]

LeafByNiggle:

As vz71 pointed out, the definition of “sentient” is not substantially clearer than the definition of “human”. Why you object one definition and embrace the other is a mystery to me.

Sentience is very well and clearly defined. Its synonyms are: ”aware”, “cognizant”, “conscious”, “mindful”… etc. Human is loosely defined to have a certain type of DNA. But you are wrong if you think that I prefer one definition over the other. These are not synonyms, they describe two different sets of beings, where the set of sentient beings includes the humans as a subset. I value humans but I also value other sentient beings – and I value them equally.

LeafByNiggle:

And why should sentience, of all the various characteristics of humans, be singled out as the characteristic that is most deserving of respect and representative of what we call human?

Because that is the ONLY qualitative difference between us and the lower animals.

LeafByNiggle:

It seems quite arbitrary as well as ill-defined. What are you going to do? Propose an “intelligence test” for all beings (human or otherwise) to pass before they should be afforded respect?

You confuse intelligence with sentience. And this is a very serious mistake.

LeafByNiggle:

Or will you make the threshold so low that even a horse could pass it? And what about humans born with mental deficiencies? Are they to be denied respect because they can’t pass your test? It seems the Nazis tried something like that. No, I don’t like your philosophy one bit.

Sure looks like that you don’t have the foggiest idea what I propose. Either you really are unaware of what my stance is, in which case you would be too dumb, or you understand it, but prefer to distort it (by dragging the Nazis in – Godwin’s law!) and in that case you are hypocrite.

LeafByNiggle:

That is not a given. It is a philosophical choice that you have made. I disagree with it.

Cop out! It is the “Matrix-problem” which shows that the “real” reality (whatever it might be) is irrelevant, if it cannot be detected.

LeafByNiggle:

Let me suggest an experiment that should refute that statement. Consider Schrödinger’s cat, but instead of the cat, let’s put Schrödinger’s wife in the box. Then remove the box forever from Schrödinger’s ability to detect what is going on in the box. Then ask Schrödinger’s if it is irrelevant to him whether the poison has been released in the box with his wife. Even if he could never see his wife again, I think he would still care and wonder whether she was still alive.

Incorrect experiment. “Schrödinger’s wife” is already known to “Schrödinger”. Her fate is (probably) not unimportant to him. I am talking about the “Matrix-world”. Your only information is what your senses “report” to you. If there is a giant artificial world (a computer) which feeds the information to your senses, you can never know that.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

These [human and senient] are not synonyms, they describe two different sets of beings, where the set of sentient beings includes the humans as a subset…

On what basis do you say all humans are sentient? It would be hard to prove that someone in a coma is sentient. But then I value humanity, whether or not it exhibits sentience, so this is not problem for me. However it is a problem for you who has stated that sentience is the basis on which you grant respect.

You confuse intelligence with sentience. And this is a very serious mistake.

You cannot test for sentience without implicitly testing for intelligence. So while these concepts are philosophically distinct, they are equivalent for purposes of testability.

Sure looks like that you don’t have the foggiest idea what I propose. Either you really are unaware of what my stance is, in which case you would be too dumb, or you understand it, but prefer to distort it (by dragging the Nazis in – Godwin’s law!) and in that case you are hypocrite.

I can understand why you want to run away from the consequences of your philosophy, but I stand by my claim. If you are going to base your determination of what entities deserve respect on whether or not they can pass your test of sentience, then in addition to** including** sentient machines you will have to exclude real humans who, for various reasons, are unable to pass that test.

Cop out! It is the “Matrix-problem” which shows that the “real” reality (whatever it might be) is irrelevant, if it cannot be detected.

How is my disagreeing with your philosophy a cop out? You say reality is only what is detected by the senses, I say reality is more than that. It is a simple difference in philosophy.

Incorrect experiment. “Schrödinger’s wife” is already known to “Schrödinger”. Her fate is (probably) not unimportant to him. I am talking about the “Matrix-world”. Your only information is what your senses “report” to you. If there is a giant artificial world (a computer) which feeds the information to your senses, you can never know that.

Even in that movie, Neo eventually finds out that there was in fact a reality beyond his previous sensory experience. It seems the Matrix movie is more supportive of my philosophy than of yours.

 

[Bagheera]

LeafByNiggle:

On what basis do you say all humans are sentient? It would be hard to prove that someone in a coma is sentient. But then I value humanity, whether or not it exhibits sentience, so this is not problem for me. However it is a problem for you who has stated that sentience is the basis on which you grant respect.

Someone, whose brain / mind has deteriorated into a persistent vegetative state is not sentient any more. “IT” is only a has-been, just like a corpse. And deserves no more “respect” than a corpse.

LeafByNiggle:

You cannot test for sentience without implicitly testing for intelligence. So while these concepts are philosophically distinct, they are equivalent for purposes of testability.

Nonsense. A newborn cannot pass any explicit test. But it has feelings, it has a very low level of awareness. It can recognize its mother. Of course, an animal has similar abilities. And one should “respect” the animals to the extent of not torturing it. The same applies to a newborn.

LeafByNiggle:

I can understand why you want to run away from the consequences of your philosophy, but I stand by my claim. If you are going to base your determination of what entities deserve respect on whether or not they can pass your test of sentience, then in addition to including sentient machines you will have to exclude real humans who, for various reasons, are unable to pass that test.

Why is that a problem? A non-sentient cell, a sperm, an egg, or the combination of them (a zygote) deserves no “respect”.

LeafByNiggle:

How is my disagreeing with your philosophy a cop out? You say reality is only what is detected by the senses, I say reality is more than that.

How are you going to prove it? I am all ears.

LeafByNiggle:

It is a simple difference in philosophy.

No, that is incorrect. The “reality” may be different from our perception, BUT, if we are unable to perceive that “different reality”, then it is irrational to even contemplate it. Suppose that I would assert that the actual reality includes some beings, who live in a parallel universe, who cannot be contacted, who are unable to contact us. There cannot be any kind of interaction between “us” and “them”. Why would such a hypothesis be entertained at all?

LeafByNiggle:

Even in that movie, Neo eventually finds out that there was in fact a reality beyond his previous sensory experience. It seems the Matrix movie is more supportive of my philosophy than of yours.

I don’t care about the incorrect ending of the movie. I am talking about a fully artificial “universe” (brains in vats), where all the sensory (name removed by moderator)uts are artificially imposed on the inhabitants.

These last few posts have nothing to do with AI. Get back to the topic, please.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Someone, whose brain / mind has deteriorated into a persistent vegetative state is not sentient any more. “IT” is only a has-been, just like a corpse. And deserves no more “respect” than a corpse.

Please address the situation where someone is in a coma, not a persistent vegetative state, where they are obviously not sentient, but they were once sentient, and they have a possibility of becoming so again. Will you accord such a person the same respect that you give to your healthy neighbor? Your principle of according respect based on sentience would have to say no - unless you are going to extend your principle to give respect based on the future possibility of sentience. But then I have to ask why you would not accord that same respect to a zygote that is also very likely to become sentient?

Nonsense. A newborn cannot pass any explicit test. But it has feelings, it has a very low level of awareness. It can recognize its mother. Of course, an animal has similar abilities. And one should “respect” the animals to the extent of not torturing it. The same applies to a newborn.

Only that? You should respect a newborn human only to the extent that you would respect a newly-hatched chicken? Well, newly-hatched chickens can morally be used by experimental scientists, even if the known outcome of the experiment was the death of the chicken (provided certain minimal standards of animal testing ethics are observed, i.e. no unnecessary torture). If you are going to accord a newborn human only the respect due to a chicken, then I suppose you would have no problem with using newborn humans in similar experiments that resulted in the death of the baby, as long as the baby was not tortured in the process.

Why is that a problem? A non-sentient cell, a sperm, an egg, or the combination of them (a zygote) deserves no “respect”.

See above.

How are you going to prove it? I am all ears.

How am I going to prove my philosophy of who deserves respect is “correct”? I don’t need to prove it. I am merely stating that I hold this philosophy, just like you are stating you hold a contrary philosophy. You didn’t prove your philosophy was “correct” either. You just stated it as a belief (“I respect all sentience”) and then called me a cop out when I stated a contrary belief.

No, that is incorrect. The “reality” may be different from our perception, BUT, if we are unable to perceive that “different reality”, then it is irrational to even contemplate it. Suppose that I would assert that the actual reality includes some beings, who live in a parallel universe, who cannot be contacted, who are unable to contact us. There cannot be any kind of interaction between “us” and “them”. Why would such a hypothesis be entertained at all?

I am not talking about that kind of “other reality”. I am talking about a reality that I am unable to perceive, not because of some immutable law of nature, but because of a simple deficiency on my part - a deficiency that may some day be rectified. We were talking about this subject only to the extent that it had a bearing on the question of identifying a human versus a machine. You can’t use a parallel universe scenario to claim that there is no reality behind the curtain, just because I haven’t yet drawn the curtain aside. In the case of an artificial intelligence, you would have to produce, not only an intelligent machine that was extremely difficult to tell from a human, but one that was,** in principle**, impossible to tell (as in your parallel universe scenario). There is an important difference between something being very hard and something being impossible in principle.

These last few posts have nothing to do with AI. Get back to the topic, please.

As you see, I did. The only reason I brought in the humans with questionable sentience is to show that your principle of according respect based only on sentience has some serious holes in it.

 

[edwest2]

Humans are not devices. No word play required. An AI is something humans construct. There is a big difference between a collection of electronic parts and a human. The first you can throw in the trash. The second, you can’t. At least if you are a human who understands why there is a difference.

Peace,
Ed

 

[vz71]

Someone, whose brain / mind has deteriorated into a persistent vegetative state is not sentient any more. “IT” is only a has-been, just like a corpse. And deserves no more “respect” than a corpse.

Except there is no clear cut definition for this term you use to decide humans are worthless.
About the only thing that can be said is that those that recover obviously were not in a persistent vegetative state.
Hardly terms any civilized society should use to determine the worth of a human.
Charity demands that ones worth is based on their humanity, not how they act.

Nonsense. A newborn cannot pass any explicit test. But it has feelings, it has a very low level of awareness. It can recognize its mother. Of course, an animal has similar abilities. And one should “respect” the animals to the extent of not torturing it. The same applies to a newborn.

What a horrible philosophy it is that determines a human infant worth no respect other then not to torture it. What about the worth due it for the humanity it represents?
What about the image of God?

Why is that a problem? A non-sentient cell, a sperm, an egg, or the combination of them (a zygote) deserves no “respect”.

They do if they are human.

No, that is incorrect. The “reality” may be different from our perception, BUT, if we are unable to perceive that “different reality”, then it is irrational to even contemplate it.

Nonsense. This irrational thought of what is not conceived has driven scientific progress through most of history.

Suppose that I would assert that the actual reality includes some beings, who live in a parallel universe, who cannot be contacted, who are unable to contact us. There cannot be any kind of interaction between “us” and “them”. Why would such a hypothesis be entertained at all?

God interacts with his creation.
The Communion of Saints likewise.
And the Angels.
No one is talking about some alternate reality that does not interact with us.

I don’t care about the incorrect ending of the movie. I am talking about a fully artificial “universe” (brains in vats), where all the sensory (name removed by moderator)uts are artificially imposed on the inhabitants.

Incorrect ending?
Unless you were the author, you haven’t the say in how it should have ended.

These last few posts have nothing to do with AI. Get back to the topic, please.

It is difficult to discuss AI without knowing what it is that separates us from it.

 

[vz71]

Humans are not devices. No word play required. An AI is something humans construct. There is a big difference between a collection of electronic parts and a human. The first you can throw in the trash. The second, you can’t. At least if you are a human who understands why there is a difference.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Bagheera]

LeafByNiggle:

Please address the situation where someone is in a coma, not a persistent vegetative state, where they are obviously not sentient, but they were once sentient, and they have a possibility of becoming so again. Will you accord such a person the same respect that you give to your healthy neighbor? Your principle of according respect based on sentience would have to say no - unless you are going to extend your principle to give respect based on the future possibility of sentience. But then I have to ask why you would not accord that same respect to a zygote that is also very likely to become sentient?

Your comparison is incorrect. A person in a coma “has been sentient”, and “may become sentient” again. The zygote has never been sentient, and does not have the “equipment” to become sentient (adequately grown nervous system), but may become sentient, if a whole lot of conditions are met. The respect cannot be based ONLY upon “what MAY become sentient”. Furthermore, if we know that the coma has changed into a persistent vegetative state, then – as you seemed to acknowledge – the respect is gone.

LeafByNiggle:

Only that? You should respect a newborn human only to the extent that you would respect a newly-hatched chicken? Well, newly-hatched chickens can morally be used by experimental scientists, even if the known outcome of the experiment was the death of the chicken (provided certain minimal standards of animal testing ethics are observed, i.e. no unnecessary torture). If you are going to accord a newborn human only the respect due to a chicken, then I suppose you would have no problem with using newborn humans in similar experiments that resulted in the death of the baby, as long as the baby was not tortured in the process.

That is emotionalism. We can afford respect to a newborn because it already has a rudimentary level of sentience. It is funny, however, that you try to argue against sentience by bringing up either non-sentient (zygote) or barely sentient (newborn) entities. I will risk your further disapproval, but I “value” a grown up person much more than a newborn, and I value a newborn much more than a zygote (which I do not value at all). And to make things even “worse”, if there would be a compelling reason (for example the survival of the whole human species were at stake), then I would have no problems with such experiments.

LeafByNiggle:

How am I going to prove my philosophy of who deserves respect is “correct”? I don’t need to prove it. I am merely stating that I hold this philosophy, just like you are stating you hold a contrary philosophy. You didn’t prove your philosophy was “correct” either. You just stated it as a belief (“I respect all sentience”) and then called me a cop out when I stated a contrary belief.

No, that was not the question. (Please go back and read the exchange.) You stated that reality is more than what we perceive. And I asked, how are you going to prove that assertion? You made a metaphysical statement. I am asking about the epistemology behind it.

LeafByNiggle:

I am not talking about that kind of “other reality”. I am talking about a reality that I am unable to perceive, not because of some immutable law of nature, but because of a simple deficiency on my part - a deficiency that may some day be rectified.

In which case we are talking past each other. How do you know if something will be available to the senses (or their extensions) in some nebulous future? If there is some basis for the belief that it will happen, then you deal with a scientific hypothesis, which can be verified, or discarded. If there is no basis, other than “well, it may happen sometime”, then you have nothing, not even a hypothesis.

I see that so far you did not explicitly address the question of “androids”, or artificially grown “humanoids”, which are “manufactured”, yet cannot be distinguished – in principle – from “natural born” humans. I see that some posters have no problem with throwing an electronic being into the trash – just because they are manufactured. What about a biological, yet “manufactured” being? The point is that “sentience” is much broader term, and according to the topic of thread all the different kinds need to be addressed.

The problematic entities are:

1. biologically human where the DNA is within the tolerance of the so far examined humans.
2. biologically human looking mutant, where the DNA is outside the known limits.
3. artificially grown human-like androids, whose DNA is close to the human DNA to the extent that they can “interbreed”.
4. artificially grown human like androids, whose DNA is incompatible with human DNA.
5. animals, which became sentient due to some natural, random mutation.
6. animals, which became sentient due to some artificially induced mutation.
7. animals, which are naturally sentient (space aliens).
8. hybrid beings, partially containing human tissue and partially composed of electronic equipment (cyborgs).
9. fully electronic sentient beings.

As far as I am concerned, all these belong to the class of “sentient” beings, and all should be treated just like sentient humans should be treated.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Your comparison is incorrect. A person in a coma “has been sentient”, and “may become sentient” again. The zygote has never been sentient, and does not have the “equipment” to become sentient (adequately grown nervous system), but may become sentient, if a whole lot of conditions are met. The respect cannot be based ONLY upon “what MAY become sentient”.

So, let me see if I understand your principle of granting respect. A person in a coma is worthy of respect because he once was sentient, but a person in a persistent vegetative state is not worthy of respect, despite the fact that he once was sentient. So the “once was sentient” criteria is being applied irregularly. And the zygote is not worthy of respect because his sentience equipment is not yet fully developed. But the person in a coma is worthy of respect, despite the fact the his sentience equipment is currently not functioning fully. So apparently you respect temporarily non-functioning equipment more than temporarily underdeveloped equipment. Seems to be a fine distinction on which to base such a weighty determination. But at least we know where you stand there.

We can afford respect to a newborn because it already has a rudimentary level of sentience. It is funny, however, that you try to argue against sentience by bringing up either non-sentient (zygote) or barely sentient (newborn) entities. I will risk your further disapproval, but I “value” a grown up person much more than a newborn,…

So I guess if you were in charge of the lifeboats of the Titanic, you would have been shouting “Able-bodied men and women first - children and babies only if there is room.”

And to make things even “worse”, if there would be a compelling reason (for example the survival of the whole human species were at stake), then I would have no problems with such experiments.

Why are you raising the stakes so high for baby experimentation? Newly-hatched chickens can be used for much less weighty things, like testing the effect of cosmetics. Since these chickens have about as much sentience as a newborn baby, would you consider using newborn babies for testing cosmetics? What I’m trying to get you to realize is that despite your protestations to the contrary, you do value human life based on something other than its ability to exhibit sentience.

I see that so far you did not explicitly address the question of “androids”, or artificially grown “humanoids”, which are “manufactured”, yet cannot be distinguished – in principle – from “natural born” humans.

If they have been manufactured by someone, that someone could offer testimony that it was manufactured. Or there might be a video record of them being manufactured. If circumstances prevent me from interviewing that person (because, for instance, he has died) or seeing those records, then I might be unable to tell the android was human. But my inability would be due to circumstances, not “in principle”. This is no different than when, several hundred years ago, people came from Europe to America to start a new life. Their loved ones that they left back in Europe surely wondered what became of them. They were unable, due to circumstances, to determine how these travelers were faring. Try convincing them that their reality no longer included their loved ones. Talk to them about parallel universes and such, and see if you get anywhere.

 

[Bagheera]

LeafByNiggle:

So, let me see if I understand your principle of granting respect.

You did not.

LeafByNiggle:

So I guess if you were in charge of the lifeboats of the Titanic, you would have been shouting “Able-bodied men and women first - children and babies only if there is room.”

Recall the airline warning in case of a cabin pressure drop. Use the oxygen mask on yourself first.

LeafByNiggle:

Why are you raising the stakes so high for baby experimentation? Newly-hatched chickens can be used for much less weighty things, like testing the effect of cosmetics. Since these chickens have about as much sentience as a newborn baby, would you consider using newborn babies for testing cosmetics?

As a matter of fact, I am against using animals for testing cosmetics. And a newborn human has a higher level of sentience than newly hatched chicken.

LeafByNiggle:

What I’m trying to get you to realize is that despite your protestations to the contrary, you do value human life based on something other than its ability to exhibit sentience.

Nope. When we talk about full and not underdeveloped sentience, then I do not value humans over the other types of sentient beings. Of course, being a member of the species I am also “plagued” by irrational sentiments toward the small ones. This is a biological imperative and has nothing to do with AI’s and related subjects.

LeafByNiggle:

If they have been manufactured by someone, that someone could offer testimony that it was manufactured. Or there might be a video record of them being manufactured. If circumstances prevent me from interviewing that person (because, for instance, he has died) or seeing those records, then I might be unable to tell the android was human.

That is the point. You are confronted by a “someone” or a “something” and all the tests you can perform on it indicate that it is a human – when in reality it was manufactured. Would it make a difference if you had access to the information of its origin?

It might be more productive to concentrate on the 9 possible scenarios.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Recall the airline warning in case of a cabin pressure drop. Use the oxygen mask on yourself first.

That’s not because you are more worthy of respect than the little one under your care. It is because you may not be able to effectively help anyone else if you yourself are about to pass out due to lack of oxygen.

As a matter of fact, I am against using animals for testing cosmetics. And a newborn human has a higher level of sentience than newly hatched chicken.

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?

That is the point. You are confronted by a “someone” or a “something” and all the tests you can perform on it indicate that it is a human – when in reality it was manufactured. Would it make a difference if you had access to the information of its origin?

As I said before, I would have to treat the thing as if it were human because I would not know any better. That does not mean there isn’t a “better” to know. It just means I am currently unable to know it. You keep stressing the “unknowability” of the difference between a man and a machine, yet at the same time you do acknowledge a difference based on some knowledge the person faced with the decision does not have. You even admitted it was a reality by saying “in reality, it was manufactured”. The mere fact that you (or someone) has this information proves that the information is not unkowabke in principle, it is just unknowable based on circumstance. You have not demonstrated that this kind of unknowability is any different from the more common unknowability, such as a family member not knowing if his relative who travelled to another country is still alive.