Should I Have The Right To Destroy What I Create?

[Sparkythedog]

The question itself requires the false premise that consciousness is something that can be verified by experiment. Philosophically, the only consciousness any of us has direct knowledge and experience of is our own. All other consciousnesses, including those of our own family, are taken on faith. So even if a machine passes the Turing test perfectly, it is still a machine, and can be morally treated as such.

I take it you’ve read my revised premise for the thread. It outlines more of the machine’s (now called Andy) behavior. If you haven’t yet read it please do that first before continuing.

I agree with some of what you said. We cannot (with our current technology and medical knowledge) open someone’s head up, point to a part of the brain, and say, “Ah, here’s the ‘consciousness’.”. So we make assumptions based on evidence and intuition. I have thoughts and feelings that cause me to act in certain ways. So when I see other humans acting in the same way, I assume they have thoughts and feelings as well.

The Turing test doesn’t prove something is conscious. It just shows that its behavior is indistinguishable from other things that we assume to be conscious, namely humans. Andy, the machine that sits on my desk is most certainly not human. It doesn’t look like a human and is made of completely different materials. But it behaves like one. I tend to think that this sets it apart from other machines like cars and pumps and even desktop computers.

You’ve stated that you can morally treat Andy like any other machine. What do you mean by that?

As for the philosophical concept of creation, that is too big a claim for any human to make. We are unable to create anything in an absolute sense. The best we can do is to cooperate with God in His unfolding of creation. If we think we are doing things without the help of God, we are just fooling ourselves.

I want to get away from the discussion of whether someone can actually create anything. This is a whole discussion unto itself and I’m more concerned about other people’s thoughts on my actions towards this machine.

 

[Sparkythedog]

. Sparky
are you contemplating suicide?

No

you are listening and talking to a demon.
you have not invented the machine, it has.
you are holding a conversation with it.
please talk to a priest, you need an exorcism.
I have such knowledge on this topic.

please listen to what I said.

I see you’re fairly new to this forum. Please tell me you’re trolling?

Ok, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re being serious here. This scenario that I’ve described is what’s known as a thought experiment. It’s a made up story for the purpose of exploring ideas of morality. I haven’t actually created a thinking machine.

If you want to continue this conversation, this is the place you need to start from. The conversation is about morality - not “can Sparky actually invent a machine that thinks”.

I can’t believe this is the second time I’ve had to explain that this isn’t real. Nathan Poe is slowly shaking his head in despair right now.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I take it you’ve read my revised premise for the thread. It outlines more of the machine’s (now called Andy) behavior. If you haven’t yet read it please do that first before continuing.

If you give me the posting number so I don’t have to read through 9 pages of postings, guessing which one you mean, I will do that. But if it helps the argument, I can assume that the observed behavior is whatever you claim it is. I won’t contest a bit of it because it does not matter to my argument.

I agree with some of what you said. We cannot (with our current technology and medical knowledge) open someone’s head up, point to a part of the brain, and say, “Ah, here’s the ‘consciousness’.”

That’s nice, but that was not my argument.

Andy, the machine that sits on my desk is most certainly not human. It doesn’t look like a human and is made of completely different materials. But it behaves like one. I tend to think that this sets it apart from other machines like cars and pumps and even desktop computers.

If you feel that strongly about Andy, perhaps it is wrong for you to destroy it, for you would be acting against your own conscience. But don’t be surprised if others do not share that view. If you expect to make the case that others should adopt your respect for the moral rights of Andy, you will have to do it based on common ground with those you would like to convince.

You’ve stated that you can morally treat Andy like any other machine. What do you mean by that?

I mean that it does not have unto itself any moral rights. Others may have rights concerning the machine, but the machine itself is not due these rights.

I want to get away from the discussion of whether someone can actually create anything. This is a whole discussion unto itself and I’m more concerned about other people’s thoughts on my actions towards this machine.

Well, you made quite a point about “I created it. God didn’t.” But if you want to drop it that is fine with me.

 

[Sparkythedog]

If you give me the posting number so I don’t have to read through 9 pages of postings, guessing which one you mean, I will do that. But if it helps the argument, I can assume that the observed behavior is whatever you claim it is. I won’t contest a bit of it because it does not matter to my argument.

Sorry - It’s post #105

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Sorry - It’s post #105

OK, I did read that before, but now I know which scenario you mean.

The description is all very objectively observational, except for one statement: “Andy expresses emotion”. If you are saying Andy actually has emotion and that emotion is producing the observed results, I would have to say you are claiming more than can be known through observation and interaction. But if you mean that Andy behaves the same as you would expect someone to behave who is expressing emotion, then your scenario is well-defined, and I have no problem with it.

 

[Darryl_B]

I’m glad you pointed out that detail. I wanted to keep my reason for disassembling Andy as simple as possible. I also didn’t want any exterior reason for doing so like a hurricane or blizzard. I was curious how people would react to a scenario where I destroyed something without any apparently urgent reason to do so. I wanted it to be clear that I can easily obtain parts without Andy’s destruction.

I think Andy would be relieved that it has an advocate for its continued existence.

I hope I answered your questions. Here’s one back:

Based on what you know of my motives, how would you judge my morality in this scenario?

The question of moral judgment, in my observation, is usually based on emotion rather than a consistent right and wrong. I will example what I mean. A lot of people will immediately feel compassion for Andy, for no other reason than that they will fill in the missing information from the hypothetical scenario according to their imagination. eg. since they are not told whether Andy is a cute lovable machine, or that it is a heinously ugly monster, they will tend to fill in that gap by their own imagination. So a person who imagines that the machine is like No 5 is alive (an old movie from the 80s) will immediately put their moral judgment in the not fair to destroy tick box. If however the person imagines the machine to be a hideous monster desiring to take over the world (skynet), they will immediately put their moral judgment in the please eradicate now tick box.

Same with your motives. The implication of your motives, that you can’t be bothered and therefore have to sacrifice Andy for your next project, is of course going to sway a lot of emotion against you and for the machine. So the emotion is influencing directly the moral compass.

Personally I try to evaluate moral decisions excluding the goodness or badness of the surroundings, so I picture Andy as being neutral, and I also picture your motives as neutral.

From that position my moral compass tells me you have the right to destroy Andy Version 1.0. That is just my moral compass.

 

[justforme23]

No

I see you’re fairly new to this forum. Please tell me you’re trolling?

Ok, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re being serious here. This scenario that I’ve described is what’s known as a thought experiment. It’s a made up story for the purpose of exploring ideas of morality. I haven’t actually created a thinking machine.

If you want to continue this conversation, this is the place you need to start from. The conversation is about morality - not “can Sparky actually invent a machine that thinks”.

I can’t believe this is the second time I’ve had to explain that this isn’t real. Nathan Poe is slowly shaking his head in despair right now.

 

[justforme23]

justforme23:
thoughts come from two places.
i

I am not trolling, I just see the truth and to making excuses for this topic is not reality, but comes from unreality and if the truth you are questioning about an object being moral, those thoughts, are something you need to question its source.

real or not , if you had a spiritual bone in your body such thoughts would never enter your mind or those here who entertain such thoughts.

 

[Sparkythedog]

OK, I did read that before, but now I know which scenario you mean.

The description is all very objectively observational, except for one statement: “Andy expresses emotion”. If you are saying Andy actually has emotion and that emotion is producing the observed results, I would have to say you are claiming more than can be known through observation and interaction. But if you mean that Andy behaves the same as you would expect someone to behave who is expressing emotion, then your scenario is well-defined, and I have no problem with it.

I meant to say Andy behaves as one would expect someone to behave who is expressing emotion. I didn’t want it to appear that I had any insight into Andy other than what can be derived from observation and interaction.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I meant to say Andy behaves as one would expect someone to behave who is expressing emotion. I didn’t want it to appear that I had any insight into Andy other than what can be derived from observation and interaction.

OK, then I stand by the answers I gave before.

 

[justforme23]

OK, then I stand by the answers I gave before.

I just read a post on “adam and logic”, and compared to this topic, I hope you get my message, this topic is so lacking in logic content, it should wake you up to your lack of anything resembling common sense.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I just read a post on “adam and logic”, and compared to this topic, I hope you get my message, this topic is so lacking in logic content, it should wake you up to your lack of anything resembling common sense.

Do you have anything substantive to say, besides an unsupported accusation of lack of common sense on my part? There are over 950 posts in “Adam and Logic”. If you would like me to read and comment on one of them, give me the number. But I am not going to read through 950 posts because you say it shows I have no common sense.

 

[Darryl_B]

I just read a post on “adam and logic”, and compared to this topic, I hope you get my message, this topic is so lacking in logic content, it should wake you up to your lack of anything resembling common sense.

So why would you hang around a thread that obviously frustrates you? You have the power to post or not to post, you have the power to read or not to read. I think though the temptation is too great.

Personally I have found many of the responses (whether I agree with them or not) helpful to me in understanding how people see things through their own set of belief systems, and I can therefore better understand the psyche or various ways of approaching moral issues, and particularly what motivates those responses, the driving factor.

So please do not be so hasty to tell me what constitutes “logic” or “common sense”.

 

[justforme23]

So why would you hang around a thread that obviously frustrates you? You have the power to post or not to post, you have the power to read or not to read. I think though the temptation is too great.

Personally I have found many of the responses (whether I agree with them or not) helpful to me in understanding how people see things through their own set of belief systems, and I can therefore better understand the psyche or various ways of approaching moral issues, and particularly what motivates those responses, the driving factor.

So please do not be so hasty to tell me what constitutes “logic” or “common sense”./QUOTe
I am writing tonight on my tablet and sometimes the post wont go down so sentences are misplaced you wll know why.

nothing frustrates me, I learn from everything, that catches my attention about people places and things, except from the imagination, that can deceive.

It would be interesting to hear what you understand how you approach moral ussues. Have you studied your own moral issues? That is really the place to learn from.
I have no beliefs, I have no religion. They can get in the
way. The mind must be still in order to really find the true belief.
to learn from within is all we need, not from being taught from the outside.
Louise

 

[Darryl_B]

I am writing tonight on my tablet and sometimes the post wont go down so sentences are misplaced you wll know why.

nothing frustrates me, I learn from everything, that catches my attention about people places and things, except from the imagination, that can deceive.
louise,

It would be interesting to hear what you understand how you approach moral issues. Have you studied your own moral issues? That is really the place to learn from.
I have no beliefs, I have no religion. They can get in the
way. The mind must be still in order to really find the true belief.
to learn from within is all we need, not from being taught from the outside.
sorry if I .

Your religion states Christian and you have told the OP to see a priest. What then do I make of your statement that you have no beliefs, and that you have no religion? I don’t equate your words with your claim, so I cannot answer the rest of your questions (even though I have).

 

[justforme23]

Your religion states Christian and you have told the OP to see a priest. What then do I make of your statement that you have no beliefs, and that you have no religion? I don’t equate your words with your claim, so I cannot answer the rest of your questions (even though I have).

I am a christian now since my experiences but I nener studied to become a christian. I do believe in christ. I am not religious at all.
I hope my post did not confuse you. i have no religion. My belief is not in religion., it is in the holy spirit, never went to church, but I know about exorcisms. If I see someone who needs one, of course I tell them to go to a priest.
s

 

[Darryl_B]

I am a christian now since my experiences but I nener studied to become a christian. I do believe in christ. I am not religious at all.
I hope my post did not confuse you. i have no religion. My belief is not in religion., it is in the holy spirit, never went to church, but I know about exorcisms. If I see someone who needs one, of course I tell them to go to a priest.
s

Go and see a priest. A Catholic priest. And please do not try and disassociate the Holy Spirit from the Christian religion.

 

[justforme23]

Go and see a priest. A Catholic priest. And please do not try and disassociate the Holy Spirit from the Christian religion.

oh but you recieve the holy spirit after accepting christ.
If I am getting you angry, you may have learned something about your own morals. Isnt that what you are studying.

 

[Darryl_B]

oh but you recieve the holy spirit after accepting christ.
If I am getting you angry, you may have learned something about your own morals. Isnt that what you are studying.

Sorry, but you do not make me angry, you actually make me sad. I mourn for the un-religious christian (yes lower case). But that is not the topic of this thread.

 

[justforme23]

Sorry, but you do not make me angry, you actually make me sad. I mourn for the un-religious christian (yes lower case). But that is not the topic of this thread.

I will not post you again
you have a problem.
I told you the truth.