Should I Have The Right To Destroy What I Create?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sparkythedog
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
  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? 😉
  1. Are we still talking about the OP’s hypothetical computer that has thoughts and feelings like a human, or machines in general? And do you mean “human” when you say “person,” or are you using it more broadly?
  2. If it has the ability to think rationally and make decisions, which I’m assuming the OP’s computer does, then yes.
  3. Not applicable.
  4. Because machines like the OP’s hypothetical computer don’t exist.
And seriously, why is it that no one has been able to answer the questions about what a soul is and what it does?
 
  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?
A question is not an answer!

Why don’t we regard machines as responsible for their activity?
  1. Are we mistaken about what? That the machine is conscious? In my scenario it has passed the test I that proposed.
About whether machines are responsible for their activity.
How do you differ from a machine?
  1. Worth is a relative concept. I don’t know what you mean or how to answer that question.
What are your conclusions worth if you are not responsible for them?

Are they really yours or are you just a device which transmits them?
 
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.
The machine is saddened by thought because of a scripture "the letter killeth, the spirit giveth life.
Has anyone answered your question about the soul?

do you really want to know
 
  1. How is a machine different from a person if souls don’t exist?
Machines in general because the hypothetical computer is a fantasy.
And do you mean “human” when you say “person,” or are you using it more broadly?
A rational being with free will.
2. Is a machine responsible for what it does?
  1. If it has the ability to think rationally and make decisions, which I’m assuming the OP’s computer does, then yes.
Without evidence!
4. If so why isn’t a machine ever taken to court?
  1. Because machines like the OP’s hypothetical computer don’t exist.

👍
And seriously, why is it that no one has been able to answer the questions about what a soul is and what it does?
There have been many answers based on the flagrant inadequacy of materialism:
The belief in an animating principle in some sense distinct from the body is an almost inevitable inference from the observed facts of life. Even uncivilized peoples arrive at the concept of the soul almost without reflection, certainly without any severe mental effort. The mysteries of birth and death, the lapse of conscious life during sleep and in swooning, even the commonest operations of imagination and memory, which abstract a man from his bodily presence even while awake—all such facts invincibly suggest the existence of something besides the visible organism, internal to it, but to a large extent independent of it, and leading a life of its own. In the rude psychology of the primitive nations, the soul is often represented as actually migrating to and fro during dreams and trances, and after death haunting the neighbourhood of its body. Nearly always it is figured as something extremely volatile, a perfume or a breath. Often, as among the Fijians, it is represented as a miniature replica of the body, so small as to be invisible. The Samoans have a name for the soul which means “that which comes and goes”. Many peoples, such as the Dyaks and Sumatrans, bind various parts of the body with cords during sickness to prevent the escape of the soul. In short, all the evidence goes to show that Dualism, however uncritical and inconsistent, is the instinctive creed of “primitive man”.
newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm

The article then traces the history of human ideas about the soul until the modern era.
 
Machines in general because the hypothetical computer is a fantasy.
Thought experiment. A kind of fantasy, yes, but the distinction is important here.
A rational being with free will.
Okay. Since we’re talking about “machines in general” and persons are “rational beings with free will,” machines in general differ from persons in the they are not rational beings with free will.
I think the computer in the OP’s hypothetical would be a person, though.
Without evidence!
Of course without evidence; it’s a thought experiment.
 
Machines in general because the hypothetical computer is a fantasy.
A rational being with free will.

Without evidence!
👍
There have been many answers based on the flagrant inadequacy of materialism:
newadvent.org/cathen/14153a.htm

The article then traces the history of human ideas about the soul until the modern era.
the soul developes from lifes experiences, traumas our reactions to people, places and things thst corrupt.
the soul is a living thing, it never dies.
 
A question is not an answer!

Why don’t we regard machines as responsible for their activity?

About whether machines are responsible for their activity.
How do you differ from a machine?
What are your conclusions worth if you are not responsible for them?

Are they really yours or are you just a device which transmits them?
Tony - I appreciate your interest in this thread but you don’t seem to understand the point of this discussion and I can’t seem to explain it to you sufficiently. So I’m going to have to end our interaction here.
 
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.
I answered the question about the soul, but I think you are playing a mind game. I answered to another poster.
so I wll leave you to entertain others who have had no spiritual
experience .
I dont think you really want the answere anyway.
have fun
louise
 
the soul developes from lifes experiences, traumas our reactions to people, places and things thst corrupt.
the soul is a living thing, it never dies.
Welcome to the forum, Louise! 🙂

“develops” is the keyword. Inanimate things don’t.
 
Tony - I appreciate your interest in this thread but you don’t seem to understand the point of this discussion and I can’t seem to explain it to you sufficiently. So I’m going to have to end our interaction here.
The point, Sparky, is that you don’t want to - or can’t - answer my questions. Farewell…
 
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?
Please do not equate human beings with machines. We started with a machine that became conscious and as far as I know, regardless of what qualifiers it has, it is still a machine. So if I see fit that I need it for spare parts, yep, it goes to my next project.

Being machine conscious does not automatically earn itself rights to life. The machine can not be human conscious, because it is not human. It may be “machine” conscious and that is as far as it goes. If in the future, robots become conscious, do they have a right to “human rights” or machine rights equivalent? Do they have a right to power to keep them continuously running, right to maintenance to keep them in great shape, right to vote for the proper environment to “live” in? Right to defend themselves if humans want to end their life when they don’t wish to?
 
How did that right arise? Who gave it that right?
If morality is to have any meaning, it should be concerned with minimizing evils and maximizing goods for everything that can experience them. The OP’s computer, with it’s human like intelligence and emotions, is capable of experiencing good and evil to more or less the same extent as a human (allowing for some differences, such as the ability to process pain); this puts the computer and its existence on a similar level of moral concern as that of a human. That’s how the right arises.
 
when I look at human beings all I see is material. Where is the spirit? How does it interact with the body?how do you know there is a spiritual world? Do you have evidence for any of this?
That is a whole new discussion for its own thread but in short, yes there is evidence of a spiritual world.

As for not seeing a spirit, I suppose you dont see parent-child bonds either, but you know that such a thing exists.
 
I would say that you have a right to destroy that which you have created if a necessity to destroy that creation develops (i.e. you need the parts to survive/remain healthy or you need to defend yourself or others against that creation), but otherwise, no. Even if that created object hadn’t a soul like that of a human being, if it still had the capacity to share the human experience on some level, just like many animals, I would have to reason that exhibiting selfishness in an act of destroying a sensible and intelligent thing that I or other human beings have created would be immoral. I don’t think that the destruction would be the main issue, but rather, the issue would be the reasoning behind the destruction.
 
What is the definition of a living thing? What makes a cat alive and a thinking and feeling machine not?
A living organism is capable of growth, reproduction, and development. A machine is incapable of this. A machine is not living.
 
A living organism is capable of growth, reproduction, and development. A machine is incapable of this. A machine is not living.
sparky has gone, why is this topic continuing?

sparky, where sre you? Peek a boo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top