Should I Have The Right To Destroy What I Create?

[Sparkythedog]

Sparkythedog;11676572:

This is a thought experiment. In this scenario I created a conscious machine. God did not create it for me. My wuestion is, should I be allowed to destroy it on a

As long as you are not creatng a human, machine, yes you can destroy it.
Whst a strange question. What an umagination you have.
are you a scientist?

Unfortunately I’m not. I’m just a weirdo who likes debating on internet forums.

 

[Sparkythedog]

This thread began with what had the potential to be a wondrously thought provoking discussion about the moral and ethical implications of creating a conscious entity. It wasn’t meant to be a discussion about whether or not we can, it was meant to be an examination of the responsibilities inherent in having done so. It was a question as to whether the rights of the creator can at some point become secondary to the rights of the creation. Is life, and consciousness in particular, so precious as to supersede the rights of the creator? And are the obligations of the creator such that he should feel some moral responsibility for the well-being of that which he has created?

But alas, it seems that such a discussion will not take place, and that is a shame. Men miss so much, by not being willing to listen, and even more-so, to question.

Wow! I could not have put it more eloquently if I tried. What you described were my thoughts exactly.

Don’t give up on it yet! There’s still time!

 

[justforme23]

Scifi question: Let’s say I created a conscious machine with the ability to think and feel in ways that are indistinguishable from that of human beings. (By this I mean that, were you to chat anonymously with it online, you couldn’t tell the difference between it and a human.)

Now, let’s say, that I want to use the parts of that machine for a different project. Should I have the right to destroy it?

okay, since you are not a weirdo, start expressing your idea of how to create a consciousness knowing, that it can only be done by having

a relationship with the creator. Not being you. One that cannot be
destroyed by you once created.that will bring you peace.
why else would want to destroy it.if you had peace.
start talking.

 

[Darryl_B]

Scifi question: Let’s say I created a conscious machine with the ability to think and feel in ways that are indistinguishable from that of human beings. (By this I mean that, were you to chat anonymously with it online, you couldn’t tell the difference between it and a human.)

Now, let’s say, that I want to use the parts of that machine for a different project. Should I have the right to destroy it?

Does the machine have a soul?

 

[tonyrey]

The test that I proposed earlier, to tell if a computer has thought, is known as the Turing Test. In this test a person (you, me or anyone else) is either speaking with a human or a computer over an internet chat. The chat is anonymous so you don’t know whether you’re talking with the computer or the human. Your task, in this test is to determine if you are talking to the computer or the human. You can have any type of conversation you wish.

If the computer cannot be identified, meaning its responses are indistinguishable from a human’s responses, then the computer has passed the test. The test does not prove to us that the computer has “thoughts” like we do, but since its responses are the same as a human’s responses we can assume that it is doing the same thing that the rest of us do when we “think”.

You are basing one assumption on another!

1. Why don’t we regard machines as responsible for their activity?
2. Are we mistaken?
3. Are you responsible for your conclusions?
4. If what are they worth?

 

[ericc]

I’m not at all clear on what a soul supposedly is or does, and I’m definitely not clear on why simply lacking a soul would automatically give you the right to dismantle the conscious computer.

What is the big deal about creating a conscious machine? In terms of ownership, I have full rights. I have no obligation towards a machine. I don’t even have the obligation or ethical responsibilities to keep it running. Assuming it runs on electricity, if I didn’t pay my power bills, so it stops being conscious. Big deal. It just mean I am a super genius in creating a conscious machine. The question is why I don’t have the right? The last time I check, machines have no rights , regardless of the amount of intelligence in it. It is just a tool.

 

[valekhai]

What is the big deal about creating a conscious machine? In terms of ownership, I have full rights. I have no obligation towards a machine. I don’t even have the obligation or ethical responsibilities to keep it running. Assuming it runs on electricity, if I didn’t pay my power bills, so it stops being conscious. Big deal. It just mean I am a super genius in creating a conscious machine. The question is why I don’t have the right? The last time I check, machines have no rights , regardless of the amount of intelligence in it. It is just a tool.

None of that addresses my questions about the “soul.”

Frankly, I’m getting disturbed that there are so many people here who think that something that is capable of self awareness, rational thought, and complex emotions can be casually snuffed out because someone else “owns” it.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Does the machine have a soul?

I don’t know. So far, no one seems to be able to tell me specifically what a soul is or how to detect it.

 

[ericc]

None of that addresses my questions about the “soul.”

Frankly, I’m getting disturbed that there are so many people here who think that something that is capable of self awareness, rational thought, and complex emotions can be casually snuffed out because someone else “owns” it.

You shouldn’t get too disturbed. Machines don’ t have souls. There is no known mechanism to get a soul to hitch on to a machine. There is no known man-made process to create a soul either. Where would one get a spare soul in the first place? I didn’t know you are seriously considering that machines can have souls attached to it. Hence, I didn’t touch on it.

 

[Sparkythedog]

okay, since you are not a weirdo, start expressing your idea of how to create a consciousness knowing, that it can only be done by having

a relationship with the creator. Not being you. One that cannot be
destroyed by you once created.that will bring you peace.
why else would want to destroy it.if you had peace.
start talking.

I’m sorry, but don’t understand what you are trying to ask? Your post has an angry emoticon attached to it. Are you angry about something?

 

[valekhai]

You shouldn’t get too disturbed. Machines don’ t have souls. There is no known mechanism to get a soul to hitch on to a machine. There is no known man-made process to create a soul either. Where would one get a spare soul in the first place? I didn’t know you are seriously considering that machines can have souls attached to it. Hence, I didn’t touch on it.

No, I’m not considering that a machine can have a soul. I don’t know what a soul supposedly is. I don’t know what a soul supposedly does. I don’t know why having a soul or not is relevant to whether or not the machine is worthy of moral consideration. No one has given a clear explanation of any of that. I’m saying that even without a soul, the machine has a right to exist that outweighs its creator’s ownership rights to its parts.

 

[Sparkythedog]

You are basing one assumption on another!

1. Why don’t we regard machines as responsible for their activity?
2. Are we mistaken?
3. Are you responsible for your conclusions?
4. If what are they worth?

Responses to your question list.

1. Do you think we should hold a conscious machine responsible for its activities?
2. Are we mistaken about what? That the machine is conscious? In my scenario it has passed the test I that proposed.
3. Yes.
4. Worth is a relative concept. I don’t know what you mean or how to answer that question.

 

[Sparkythedog]

What is the big deal about creating a conscious machine? In terms of ownership, I have full rights. I have no obligation towards a machine. I don’t even have the obligation or ethical responsibilities to keep it running. Assuming it runs on electricity, if I didn’t pay my power bills, so it stops being conscious. Big deal. It just mean I am a super genius in creating a conscious machine. The question is why I don’t have the right? The last time I check, machines have no rights , regardless of the amount of intelligence in it. It is just a tool.

So if someone created you, you believe that they have the right to end your life or do with you as they will. Are you just a tool of your creator?

 

[meltzerboy]

This thread began with what had the potential to be a wondrously thought provoking discussion about the moral and ethical implications of creating a conscious entity. It wasn’t meant to be a discussion about whether or not we can, it was meant to be an examination of the responsibilities inherent in having done so. It was a question as to whether the rights of the creator can at some point become secondary to the rights of the creation. Is life, and consciousness in particular, so precious as to supersede the rights of the creator? And are the obligations of the creator such that he should feel some moral responsibility for the well-being of that which he has created?

But alas, it seems that such a discussion will not take place, and that is a shame. Men miss so much, by not being willing to listen, and even more-so, to question.

Excellent question, in particular with regard to the balance between the rights and the responsibilities of the creator and the rights, if any, of the created. What do others think about this?

 

[justforme23]

I’m sorry, but don’t understand what you are trying to ask? Your post has an angry emoticon attached to it.

Are you angry about something? /QUOTe

I am never angry,

I wondered at how man made computers come so close to the functions of the human mind that god created, but, misses one component that gets in the way, being the human spirit and the human entity that creates its own computerized mind.

perhaps that is the creation you want to destroy.,

 

[Partinobodycula]

Excellent question, in particular with regard to the balance between the rights and the responsibilities of the creator and the rights, if any, of the created. What do others think about this?

Sometimes I think that it is enough that men ponder the question, it is not always necessary that they answer the question. To have the humility to ask, is more important than to have the wisdom to answer.

 

[justforme23]

Sometimes I think that it is enough that men ponder the question, it is not always necessary that they answer the question. To have the humility to ask, is more important than to have the wisdom to answer.

I disagree.

 

[Darryl_B]

I don’t know. So far, no one seems to be able to tell me specifically what a soul is or how to detect it.

How then would the machine react to the news that you have created a bigger better faster machine called version 2.0 and that version 1.0 is redundant?

 

[Sparkythedog]

How then would the machine react to the news that you have created a bigger better faster machine called version 2.0 and that version 1.0 is redundant?

I don’t know, you’d have to ask the machine. How does this answer my question about a soul that you were responding to?

I guess if you are looking for me to tell you how the machine responds to this because it’s my made up scenario: The machine says it is saddened by the thought that it is considered redundant and scared about what that means for it’s future.

 

[tonyrey]

No, I’m not considering that a machine can have a soul. I don’t know what a soul supposedly is. I don’t know what a soul supposedly does. I don’t know why having a soul or not is relevant to whether or not the machine is worthy of moral consideration. No one has given a clear explanation of any of that. I’m saying that even without a soul, the machine has a right to exist that outweighs its creator’s ownership rights to its parts.

1. How is a machine different from a person if souls don’t exist?
2. Is a machine responsible for what it does?
3. If not why not?
4. If so why isn’t a machine ever taken to court?