Should A.I. ever be granted rights?

[fosio]

It’s not a matter of labeling a higher order process and a lower order process as being mental and physical. My position is distinct from physicalism in that I claim a thought or volition contains both a material and immaterial aspect. I don’t think a physicalist would say this. At most he would do the labeling game and say there is a mental aspect that is ontologically physical. I wouldn’t

To clarify: if all the things which we attribute to mental states are ultimately reducible to physical properties, then the zombie argument would fail because it would be impossible to say “the zombie is physically identical yet lacks a mental life” since the physical facts logically entail the mental facts. But since my argument claims that mental properties are not reducible to physical properties and thus are non-physical, it is metaphysically possible that we could have a physically identical structure which lacks the non-physical mental life. Now my argument is that zombies do not exist. Mental life is not a logical consequence of physical properties - it is a contingent one.

I want to say that a brain without consciousness would be inconceivable if mental properties were reducible to physical properties. But I don’t think this can be done. Though, many philosophers do take the stance that it’s not possible right now but in the future science should be able to reduce the mental to the physical entirely. If you wish to take that position, so be it. I don’t see it as a refutation but an “I owe you”.

I don’t take issue with the idea that mental life is not a logical consequence of physical life. My claim is that the zombies are metaphysically impossible, not that they are logically impossible (I also happen to think that they are logically impossible, but I don’t have any deep theological or philosophical objection on this point).

How a physical system can have qualia I explained in the other thread. What particular physical system is being used to experience qualia in human beings is not necessary to know just as it is not necessary to know what exact neural correlate there is to qualia to know that a neural correlate exists.

Your view (understanding it as metaphysical, not merely logical) is abhorrent to me b/c it violates the organic unity of man. If our mental life is metaphysical contingent on our physical life than the organic unity of man is compromised. We become tin men who happened by fate to be granted a heart and not the living being that is man, the supreme sign in creation of the living mystery that is God.

 

[Bluegoat]

If we could create real AI, or something with a soul (that is, alive), or something that can feel pain, then I think we would certainly have to grant it some kind of protection.

The idea of rights exists because we are fallen, and we don’t grant other beings the dignity that God has given them. We refuse to recognize their natures when it serves our purpose not to. Rights always correspond to the responsibilities we have as human beings - if a person has the right to life, then we are not allowed to kill them. If they have the right to pursue truth, then we cannot forcibly convert them. It is a sign of how bad our state is that we even need to grant rights to animals or we abuse them.

I think it is very difficult for many people to imagine “building” something that could be considered real AI. It might be easier to imagine growing it somehow. If we could do either, I think we would be morally obliged to consider what the appropriate way to treat it would be - what rights it would have. That could very much depend on what kind of thing it was.

I’m not sure that we would easily be able to tell if such a thing had a soul, or could imagine God, or have a moral sense. There might be indicators, but it would be difficult. I try to imagine how we would recognize these things in aliens, and I suspect we would flub it up and eat them. We don’t recognize them inevitably in other human beings who look different or don’t speak our language.

That being the case, it would require being very very careful. Not long ago people performed live vivisection on animals, and open-heart surgery on babies, because they “can’t feel pain.” Which seems obviously foolish and horrible to us now, but there were good philosophical arguments to support the position.

As much as I am a rationalist, I think we need to be humble in recognizing where we tend to go wrong. Historically, it’s not usually by granting rights that we shouldn’t, or respecting dignity too much.

 

[Anthony_A]

I don’t take issue with the idea that mental life is not a logical consequence of physical life. My claim is that the zombies are metaphysically impossible, not that they are logically impossible (I also happen to think that they are logically impossible, but I don’t have any deep theological or philosophical objection on this point).

But here’s the issue. If mental life is not a logical consequence of physical life, then mental life can’t be physical. Suppose that mental life is a logical consequence of the physical. Then, by supervenience, there would be absolutely no way that the physical composition which makes up me in this world and the composition that makes up me in the zombie world (remember, a physically identical world) could differ mentally. But if mental life isn’t a logical necessity from the physical, then the zombies would be possible.

How a physical system can have qualia I explained in the other thread. What particular physical system is being used to experience qualia in human beings is not necessary to know just as it is not necessary to know what exact neural correlate there is to qualia to know that a neural correlate exists.

This is my point exactly. Humans could be experiencing qualia through mechanical devices or organic devices, it makes no difference. The only thing that matters is that they are experiencing the qualia. I’ve never denied that neural correlates exist. I have always been behind the fact that c-fiber stimulation is the neural correlate of pain in humans. I just think that if an electronic component functions just like a c-fiber within a system that functions just like a human then we should believe the A.I. when it says “my hand hurts”.

Your view (understanding it as metaphysical, not merely logical) is abhorrent to me b/c it violates the organic unity of man. If our mental life is metaphysical contingent on our physical life than the organic unity of man is compromised. We become tin men who happened by fate to be granted a heart and not the living being that is man, the supreme sign in creation of the living mystery that is God.

I’m not sure what you mean by that spiffy phrase “organic unity of man”. We have people walking around with prosthetic limbs - has that destroyed the “organic unity of man”?

Also, if true “Hard A.I.” became real, it would still be a fact that we created them. We would still be superior. Remember that when I started this thread I wanted only to give A.I. a set of basic rights. It would still be a fact of the world (a contingent but no matter) that organic human beings evolved from nature as the superior being. It would also be a fact that The Son became a human being and died for all other human beings. This is significant and the presence of A.I. would not diminish the importance that God has placed on on humans.

 

[fosio]

But here’s the issue. If mental life is not a logical consequence of physical life, then mental life can’t be physical. Suppose that mental life is a logical consequence of the physical. Then, by supervenience, there would be absolutely no way that the physical composition which makes up me in this world and the composition that makes up me in the zombie world (remember, a physically identical world) could differ mentally. But if mental life isn’t a logical necessity from the physical, then the zombies would be possible.

I don’t think you understood what I meant by “metaphysically imposssible.” Metaphysically impossible does not mean nomologically impossible.

I just think that if an electronic component functions just like a c-fiber within a system that functions just like a human then we should believe the A.I. when it says “my hand hurts”.

I wouldn’t frame it in terms of “function” but I would have a similar view. But as I said current computers don’t operate like that. They merely manipulate symbols.

We have people walking around with prosthetic limbs - has that destroyed the “organic unity of man”?

It hasn’t destroyed it but if someone replaces his natural limb with a prosthetic one (suppose as an elective surgery), then I do think that would be disrupting his organic unity. It is more perfect and more human to have a natural limb than a prosthetic one. If someone has lost a limb, he has already thereby lost some of his organic unity and I don’t think adding a prosthetic limb would change that.

f true “Hard A.I.” became real, it would still be a fact that we created them. We would still be superior.

I’m not sure that we would be superior. What basis do you have for saying that?

still be a fact of the world (a contingent but no matter) that organic human beings evolved from nature as the superior being.

It seems you are saying we would probably still be superior but one day robots may be created or evolve or be created by other robots a la the “Singularity” hypothesis that could be superior to us.

My poetry on man was not about man being superior to robots – my poetry there was taking issue with your zombies, not your hypothetical robots. I have no problem with your hypothetical robots though I think more than “function” would be necessary for them to be conscious.

 

[Anthony_A]

I don’t think you understood what I meant by “metaphysically imposssible.” Metaphysically impossible does not mean nomologically impossible.

I see. We’ve been using the term metaphysically possible in two different ways. The way you use I just always termed actually possible. Seems to avoid a lot of confusion versus sticking with jargon. Either way, I agree that zombies are not possible in this actual world we live in.

I wouldn’t frame it in terms of “function” but I would have a similar view. But as I said current computers don’t operate like that. They merely manipulate symbols.

And I agree. At this point computers are not at the functional level of being deemed “conscious” or “intelligent”. My defense of A.I. throughout this thread has always been in principle. I have no idea how long it will take to get to true A.I. or if we ever will. I just think in principle, or theoretically, A.I. is possible.

It hasn’t destroyed it but if someone replaces his natural limb with a prosthetic one (suppose as an elective surgery), then I do think that would be disrupting his organic unity. It is more perfect and more human to have a natural limb than a prosthetic one. If someone has lost a limb, he has already thereby lost some of his organic unity and I don’t think adding a prosthetic limb would change that.

I suppose you’re right, but I just don’t see the downside in that situation. True, I would rather live my life without the need for any prosthetics, but in the situation where I do need one, or several, prosthetic limbs I wouldn’t be losing any sleep because my organic unity had been disrupted.

I’m not sure that we would be superior. What basis do you have for saying that?

We would be superior in the respect that we created them. A.I. may, and probably will, be superior to us in all physiological and computational respects, but it will always be the fact that humans made them. So I think in that way humans would still be much higher in the scale of superiority.

 

[kk23wong]

I am not sure how your position is coherently distinct from physicalism. You acknowledge that only physical things exist but simply categorize some of the properties of physical things as “physical properties” and others as “mental properties.”

In my opinions, “mental properties” have to be related to “physical properties”. Brains are used for thinking.

I can likewise acknowledge that only physical things exist but categorize some of the properties of physical things as “unary relations” and others as “superunary relations.”

Levels of “life/lives/live”, I suspose.

I suspect that if humans were blind and then one day through technological suddenly humans began to see that the visual properties of object-subject systems would seem so wondrous and not something we would associate with the physical that we may even after comprehending their physical processes place them in some special category. I suspect that is what is going on with your dual-property theory. We don’t expect physical things to exhibit properties such as conciousness so we place them in a special category.

Conciousness refers to the power of thinking. You can create a model of “thinking”, but the creativity comes from you. You can create many things, but not a machine that it can think itself. It is thinking according to formula (0,1,0,0,1,0). It is not a way that you are thinking with. They can be caculated under a speific formula and equations. I am not going to predict what your are thinking of because you are not a machine. (0,1,0,1,0,1) This equatoin is in a telegram like structure. Nobody is going to think in such way. The concept of living things has its limit, it can be widened. However, it shoud come under a series of specific criteria. Prove it if you think it is. Thank you.

God is not only omnipresent but also reveals himself in everything. I think that trying to emphasize the specialness of certain properties prevents us from seeing how everything, from pebbles to supernovas are special and are not just revelatory of God but are God’s presence, our communing with him if we listen.

Listen to the sound of “silent”. Listen to your heart. God will be with you all the time. We are born with “good” and “evil”. They are not contrary. They are different, but they are one.

Thank you very much for your sharing. God Bless.​

Philosophy, I must say.

*“The lyrics are my words.”, I said.
“The lyrics are her words.”, she said.
“The lyrics are our words.”, they said.

I am not you.
I am not her.
I am not him.

He is the one to close the gate.
She is the one to open the door.
He is the one to leave the peace.

I said, “Peace will be with you, if you open the gate.”
“Never.”, he sealed his sword.
“Your sword is old, I must say.”, I smiled.
“I am giving you a peace.”
He was calm. “You are not, as long as I am inside the war.”
“Cowards.”, they said.
“By the will of the God, I am declaring peace on you and your fellow.”
I continued, “I will make you in history.”
“Not with my blood!”, he is going mad.
“You are a master of yourself. And this is a battle of the knights.”
He said, “I don’t need your head.”
“Me neither.”, I replied with calm.

The poetry has been ended. It is another for the dead.
“One on one, you-and-me!”*

 

[fosio]

We would be superior in the respect that we created them. A.I. may, and probably will, be superior to us in all physiological and computational respects, but it will always be the fact that humans made them. So I think in that way humans would still be much higher in the scale of superiority.

I was created by my parents but that does not make then superior to me. Even if being their creator would make us stand in a relation of special dignity to them, that would be an issue of extrinsic properties and in terms of intrinsic properties, the AI may still be superior.

You mentioned earlier the issue of someone in the same neural-physiological state experiencing red as green. I don’t think that is possible but let’s suppose it is. That does not prove your case for zombies. All it would do is establish that the specific variety of experience in the case of color is a contingent fact of the world. So, there may be in other possible worlds humans who experience red as green even though they have the same cones in their eyes and so forth, but that does not show that there may be in other possible worlds humans who do not have any experience when seeing, i.e. your zombies.

Let me show why it is not possible however. The colors we see we apprehend as being in some association or relationship with emotions. So red may evoke a sense of passion. I would argue that part of this evokation is due to the intrinsic nature of the sensation of redness and not solely what things in the world happen to be red (blood, roses, etc.). On this view, then, it is not possible to have the same physical state in two persons with the two not experiencing the same intrinsic sensation of red. If it were possible, then one person, despite experiencing it as green, would have that greeness evoke passion in the same way that it is for the person experiencing it as red. It may evoke passion in some way, but not in the same way since part of the evokation is due to the intrinsic sensation of redness. So, to the extent you emphasize the intrinsic sensation aspect of these qualia, is the extent you make yourself vulnerable to this objection.

The book I recommended to you Explaining Consciousness includes two papers by Chalmers. I propose that the way to formulate your own view is not to read a one-sided book by a single author, but to read all sides as is represented in the aforementioned book.

 

[fosio]

Another thought occurred to me. Your argument that colors could be perceived radically differently seems as plausible as the idea that musical notes could be perceived radically differently and yet the systems be functionally identical. Such is not possible obviously. Someone who perceives the C major scale as a D major scale (so everything is shifted by the same amount), would be an impaired musician (not as in tune with the audience – a piece designed for C does not work just as well in another key – they will have different emotional, aesthetic effects, as can be seen from the fact that one key will make the piece more high pitched than the other) Likewise someone who perceives red as green would be an impaired artist. Thus they could not be functionally identical to their counterparts.

 

[Benadam]

The manipulation of matter doesn’t add to the substance of creation.

To manipulate matter in a way that it becomes conscious would be a creation of being. :twocents:

 

[kk23wong]

The manipulation of matter doesn’t add to the substance of creation.

To manipulate matter in a way that it becomes conscious would be a creation of being. :twocents:

If the substance of creation is concious.
Manipulation unequals to Slavery.

Love, Truth and Hope.
It is our future.

God be with you.

 

[edwest2]

An artificial intelligence should never be granted rights. Its identity is totally created by whoever programmed it. Even if it could engage in abstract thought or learning, it is simply a device, nothing more. It would not need a body. Theoretically, it could carried in a briefcase. It would have no motivations or tendencies except those programmed into it. If it could completely mimic a human being, that does not make it human. It certainly is not alive.

Peace,
Ed