P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
Thank you! I needed a good laugh.
- Status
C
Crusaderbear
Guest
Wait for the day they can upload your conscience into one…then you can
have a philosophical argument…with yourself!
have a philosophical argument…with yourself!
P
phil19034
Guest
Then, on the ninth day, after the serpent realized he could not trick the robots into eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the serpent simply slithered inside of the robot and reprogrammed him.
The serpent then named the robot Skynet.
This was the last day.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Or simply slithered inside him and deactivated him. And lo! There was no soul in the deactivated robot!
I
inocente
Guest
God does what He wants, He doesn’t need our permission. Plus I wondered what stories future robots might have of their genesis.
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
This question comes up because we humans claim to have “rights”. If we have “rights”, its only because God has granted them as our Creator, and guarantees them although we will have to wait till the final judgment to see if our “rights” have been honoured or not, because we certainly don’t see human rights guaranteed in this world.
So the question as to whether robots should have the same rights as their creators, we would have to ask if humans should have the same rights as God, our Creator.
The answer is rather obvious. No.
However God wants*** respect*** for all His creatures, and if we are going to follow his lead, then we should ***respect ***our own creations.
To me the key-word is “respect”, not “rights”.
How intelligent a robot might be isn’t the sole criteria. Are we going to guarantee backhoes “rights” because they can dig holes much faster than us; motor cars because they can move faster than us; nuclear bombs “rights” because they are so much more powerful than us; computers because they can blindly calculate much faster than us? Why should intelligence be the sole criteria?
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
So how do you respect a backhoe?
D
dmar198
Guest
Use it well, store it properly, maintain its condition, bless God for its usefulness, and praise Him while you hoe with it.
B
Bookcat
Guest
C3PO is not a person.
(well really he is…an actor…)
No computer or robot has “rights”.
(well really he is…an actor…)
No computer or robot has “rights”.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Well that’s good common sense, but that’s really just taking care of it, not respecting it. Respect implies looking up to, admiring, esteeming the person. A backhoe is a machine. You might admire and esteem the person who invented it, but you wouldn’t transfer that feeling to the machine. That would be really crazy, misplaced behavior.Use it well, store it properly, maintain its condition, bless God for its usefulness, and praise Him while you hoe with it.
“Pinocchio is broken; his strings have been cut.”
– Cmdr. William T. Riker, “The Measure of a Man” (Star Trek: The Next Generation)
memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/The_Measure_Of_A_Man_(episode
As nice as Picard’s argument was, Commander Maddox was actually correct. Data has no rights. No matter how advanced it was, it should never have been admitted to Starfleet.
– Cmdr. William T. Riker, “The Measure of a Man” (Star Trek: The Next Generation)
memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/The_Measure_Of_A_Man_(episode
As nice as Picard’s argument was, Commander Maddox was actually correct. Data has no rights. No matter how advanced it was, it should never have been admitted to Starfleet.
P
Pallas_Athene
Guest
I suggest you get Stanislaw Lem’s book: “The Cyberiad”. A wonderful collection of science fiction short stories. Hopefully you can find it in the library.
D
djames99
Guest
I don’t think so. Let’s see…
They would not possess a soul. Actually because of this, they rate under plants and animals, as these have animating souls. Even if some of it’s components were made of parts of living things that had animating souls, these things are no longer living. It would not possess an intellect.
The robot would determine it’s behavior from internal programming, and not from conscience. It could not attain, as pre choices are determined by a selection of pre determined events. It could not be faulted as there are no set responses to events it does not have stored in it’s data bank. It could not obtain reward, because what it chose as already been predetermined. It was not created in the image of God. At every second it is self aware, it’s use could only be of utility character. Even if were to deduce that it should have rights in justice, it can only summarize from facts gleaned from experience, a selection stored in it’s data bank.
The human soul, as well as animating, was created for life in the next world. It is to share the Kingdom with God. In fact, this world is not it’s true home.
Probably more, but don’t have the time.
Spence, (computer programmer ret’d).
They would not possess a soul. Actually because of this, they rate under plants and animals, as these have animating souls. Even if some of it’s components were made of parts of living things that had animating souls, these things are no longer living. It would not possess an intellect.
The robot would determine it’s behavior from internal programming, and not from conscience. It could not attain, as pre choices are determined by a selection of pre determined events. It could not be faulted as there are no set responses to events it does not have stored in it’s data bank. It could not obtain reward, because what it chose as already been predetermined. It was not created in the image of God. At every second it is self aware, it’s use could only be of utility character. Even if were to deduce that it should have rights in justice, it can only summarize from facts gleaned from experience, a selection stored in it’s data bank.
The human soul, as well as animating, was created for life in the next world. It is to share the Kingdom with God. In fact, this world is not it’s true home.
Probably more, but don’t have the time.
Spence, (computer programmer ret’d).
D
dmar198
Guest
Hmmm… There’s probably more than one way to use the word “respect.” Google defines respect as a feeling that can be shown toward Things in appreciation for their abilities: “a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.” source
I’ve seen some inanimate objects that made me feel awe, such as the interstate system. Why not walk up to a backhoe and feel awed, and then appreciate it or admire it for what it can do? By Google’s definition, that sounds like respect.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Because it was designed by a human being. Have awe for the person who designed it, not the machine. What - are you in awe of your car, your dishwasher, your washing machine, your computer? That is really nuts!!!
I
inocente
Guest
Rights are a social construct, conferred by society on its members. Several countries grant limited rights of personhood to the other hominids (gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans) in recognition of the qualities they share with us. This is mainly to prevent them being used in harmful experiments and in circuses. In a democratic society, I imagine most people would see speaking sentient robots as deserving at least those rights, since the only alternative would be to treat them as slaves or worse.
But also, and I can’t emphasize this enough, Star Trek is fiction, it didn’t really happen.
Thanks, there’s a Penguin Modern Classics version for 14 euros, reckon I can afford that.
M
mikekle
Guest
The question is, whether or not these robots will even care about being used or abused? I guess it depends on the level of AI they have. If they are bipedal and created to look humanoid, its certain some people will view them as people and demand rights for them, or at least not to mistreat them, but people ‘abuse’ technology today, cars, electronic devices, etc. and no one really considers it wrong, it might be costly , repairs and such if things are abused, but not really a moral issue, as cars, etc dont have feelings.
It will be interesting to see how the first type of AI responds to things like this, if they recognize they are just machines, it wont be a problem, but if they find out these things have ‘feelings’ or develop them…we are in for problems.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Oh brother… we are in for problems if people start thinking like you. Robots are machines not living beings. End of story.
E
edwest2
Guest
It is only a device, nothing more. It has nothing in it that was not programmed into it. It has no emotions, and if it expresses any they are also programmed in. It has no fear of death or anything else for that matter. It has no goals aside from what is programmed into it. It may fake a pleasant conversation, and even be programmed to sense emotional cues from real human beings and respond accordingly, but it was made out of parts, programmed and given functions. By living human beings.
It no more deserves rights than a laptop or the most sophisticated computer in the world. It has no personal anything. If everyone died tomorrow, it would continue to perform its assigned tasks, go into shutdown, or run out of power. Not caring at all.
It lacks actual human attributes. It is totally artificial.
Ed
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
Of course not. This gets into the matter of what is alive and what just mimmicks certain aspects of life. A car for example can move like a living thing. But it is not alive. No one would think a car is alive just because it moves. Likewise,.no one should think a robot is alive just because it can run software that can mimic certain human behaviours.
- Status