Should robots be entitled to the same rights as humans?

[CHRISTINE77]

With true A.I being darn near impossible for us to create using our intelligent minds, how many people actually believe that our own minds were the product of chance? If we can’t do it with reasoning how could it happen on its own without an intelligent mind behind it?

If its true what materialists believe that we can get a whole heck of a lot for nothing, the universe, our minds, love, etc, then I think I will quit my job and figure out how this works so I can take advantage of it. Here I thought I had to work for living when I could just be getting something from nothing.

:thumbsup:You got it!

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I do not share your materialistic reductionist assumptions. Everything is not reduced to matter. Do you consider a computer program to be alive? What do you mean by intelligently alive?

Information processing is the question. As always: “life is complex responses to complex stimuli”. Where we shall draw the line will be arbitrary, just like the line between bacteria and viruses. Bacteria are usually considered to be “alive”, while viruses are considered to be alive by some, but not all.

We could have a conversation about the details, once we can agree on the basic principle. In the meantime consider Watson, which could beat the living daylight of the best Jeopardy champions, and these days it acts as a wonderful consultant to physicians. It can diagnose health problems more efficiently than the actual doctors can.

With true A.I being darn near impossible for us to create using our intelligent minds…

How do you know that?

… how many people actually believe that our own minds were the product of chance?

The number of people believing something is not indicative to the veracity of that claim.

It is quite interesting that people value the biological life of a mosquito, while shrugging off the diagnostic help provided by Watson. And Watson is just one of the first attempts on the road of creating artificial intelligence. What WILL grow out of it is wonderful to contemplate.

I am not going to be a nuisance, but you neglected the point of my previous post, namely: how to decide if that “someone” or “something” merits the label of “human”. because that is the crucial question, which believers hardly ever dare to tackle.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Information processing is the question. As always: “life is complex responses to complex stimuli”. Where we shall draw the line will be arbitrary, just like the line between bacteria and viruses. Bacteria are usually considered to be “alive”, while viruses are considered to be alive by some, but not all.

We could have a conversation about the details, once we can agree on the basic principle. In the meantime consider Watson, which could beat the living daylight of the best Jeopardy champions, and these days it acts as a wonderful consultant to physicians. It can diagnose health problems more efficiently than the actual doctors can.

We could have a conversation about what makes something alive but really we all can recognize what is alive and what isn’t alive. We do this everyday. We don’t need to over analyze it. It is obvious to us. It is really common sense.

How do you know that?

I know that from school as I have a degree in computer science. I also took a course in logic and did a little programming with prolog, which is for a.i. So I know somewhat how difficult it is. My instructors told me that a.i. was really a pipe dream and that originally computer scientists had tried to build an a.i that could do everything, but could not. So they decided to move onto specialized robots that were easier to make.

The number of people believing something is not indicative to the veracity of that claim.

It is quite interesting that people value the biological life of a mosquito, while shrugging off the diagnostic help provided by Watson. And Watson is just one of the first attempts on the road of creating artificial intelligence. What WILL grow out of it is wonderful to contemplate.

Elementary my dear Watson. Actually, I don’t know anyone who values the life of a mosquito. A.I. has been tried and so far unsuccessful. I am not saying it is impossible, but extremely difficult. Personally, I think our minds have an immaterial component, that could not be duplicated in an a.i.

I am not going to be a nuisance, but you neglected the point of my previous post, namely: how to decide if that “someone” or “something” merits the label of “human”. because that is the crucial question, which believers hardly ever dare to tackle.

Anything born of humans is human. That’s an easy test.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

We could have a conversation about what makes something alive but really we all can recognize what is alive and what isn’t alive. We do this everyday. We don’t need to over analyze it. It is obvious to us. It is really common sense.

No, it is not “obvious”, this is simplistic thinking. Not even biologists can agree if the viruses are “biologically alive” or not.

My instructors told me that a.i. was really a pipe dream and that originally computer scientists had tried to build an a.i that could do everything, but could not. So they decided to move onto specialized robots that were easier to make.

And how would your instructors “know” what will be possible in a few hundred or thousand years? Of course specialized entities are easier, but you can combine those entities.

Elementary my dear Watson. Actually, I don’t know anyone who values the life of a mosquito.

Also elementary is that the mosquito was just a tongue-in-cheek example. The point is that one of the standard objections is: “but they are just machines, they are not alive, they just do what they are told, etc…”. So the fact that something “looks like” alive is a very important consideration - for them. My question is: “why is it so important”? Do you also assert that “robots” can only do what they are programmed to do and deny the existence of self-modification?

A.I. has been tried and so far unsuccessful. I am not saying it is impossible, but extremely difficult.

Yes, so far.

Anything born of humans is human. That’s an easy test.

And the reverse? If someone is NOT born of humans? What about IVF fertilization and the zygote grown in an artificial womb? What about (hypothetical) androids, beings grown in a vat? Tough questions don’t have simplistic answers.

 

[fisherman_carl]

No, it is not “obvious”, this is simplistic thinking. Not even biologists can agree if the viruses are “biologically alive” or not.

And how would your instructors “know” what will be possible in a few hundred or thousand years? Of course specialized entities are easier, but you can combine those entities.

Also elementary is that the mosquito was just a tongue-in-cheek example. The point is that one of the standard objections is: “but they are just machines, they are not alive, they just do what they are told, etc…”. So the fact that something “looks like” alive is a very important consideration - for them. My question is: “why is it so important”? Do you also assert that “robots” can only do what they are programmed to do and deny the existence of self-modification?

Yes, so far.

And the reverse? If someone is NOT born of humans? What about IVF fertilization and the zygote grown in an artificial womb? What about (hypothetical) androids, beings grown in a vat? Tough questions don’t have simplistic answers.

IVF fertilization is still in a sense born of humans. Androids grown in a vat is not human. I don’t see any difficulty differentiating there. However, if you are growing something using biological tissue we might not call it an android, but a cyborg.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

IVF fertilization is still in a sense born of humans. Androids grown in a vat is not human. I don’t see any difficulty differentiating there. However, if you are growing something using biological tissue we might not call it an android, but a cyborg.

We need to synchronize our vocabularies. A “cyborg” is a human-machine combination. Strictly speaking anyone with a denture or an artificial limb is a cyborg, albeit a very simple one. Think about the six-million dollar man… Android is a being grown in a “vat”, that is organic material put together into a humanoid form. If you take a "regular zygote and perform some deep-level genetic engineering on it, it would also become an android. This new being could have gills as well as lungs to be able to live as an amphibious being and also outside water. Would this being considered a “human”?

Nothing is “simple” when you try to investigate the boundaries.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

We need to synchronize our vocabularies. A “cyborg” is a human-machine combination. Strictly speaking anyone with a denture or an artificial limb is a cyborg, albeit a very simple one. Think about the six-million dollar man… Android is a being grown in a “vat”, that is organic material put together into a humanoid form. If you take a "regular zygote and perform some deep-level genetic engineering on it, it would also become an android. This new being could have gills as well as lungs to be able to live as an amphibious being and also outside water. Would this being considered a “human”?

Nothing is “simple” when you try to investigate the boundaries.

There’s no such thing as a cyborg or an android. Fantasy.

 

[Elena321]

To be honest,i think the discussion is pointless as I believe robots will never be able to become like humans and have self dermination and range of emotions.
Neuroscience/medical science is SOOOOOOO behind that we cant even regain lost personality or other functions to people with Dementia,Alzheimers,or Schizophrenia for example,we cant even make paraplegics walk again,so if we cant even do these things then the ideal that we could create robots that would become on the same level as humans is just wishful thinking.

Perhaps at the very most,we could programme a robot to mimic human emotion and make it perform a sad external expression and “cry” water,but we could never make the robot love another from their own freewill/free choice or to make decisions and impressions about what it thinks about a person when meeting them for the first time etc.

 

[fisherman_carl]

To be honest,i think the discussion is pointless as I believe robots will never be able to become like humans and have self dermination and range of emotions.
Neuroscience/medical science is SOOOOOOO behind that we cant even regain lost personality or other functions to people with Dementia,Alzheimers,or Schizophrenia for example,we cant even make paraplegics walk again,so if we cant even do these things then the ideal that we could create robots that would become on the same level as humans is just wishful thinking.

Perhaps at the very most,we could programme a robot to mimic human emotion and make it perform a sad external expression and “cry” water,but we could never make the robot love another from their own freewill/free choice or to make decisions and impressions about what it thinks about a person when meeting them for the first time etc.

Yes, I think you are probably right. But, there will be some pretty sophisticated machines that may ‘fool’ some people. As far as having an artificial intelligence. You know an a.i. program is only as smart as it’s programmers are able to make it. The advantage of some intelligent software programs may be the ability to store large volumes of information and be able to access that information quickly with intelligent searches. An intelligent system could in theory search the information for a users query quicker than someone on their own. These kind of systems already exist, but they could always be better. Some times for instance when I search on google it brings up a lot of irrelevant hits. It isn’t always intelligent enough to know just exactly what I am asking for. So such improvements in that area I could see benefiting people.

But, that’s a far cry from an android that is intelligent. One of the things that I could see being impossible or very difficult to accomplishing this is ideas. Where do new ideas come from in our minds? It’s one thing to process existing information and do queries on it. It’s another to come up with entirely new ideas altogether. We don’t even know where they come from in our own minds. How could we program that into an a.i.? Just programming randomness into it would yield very unpredictable results. Not something I would want to trust.

Going back to the idea of robots having rights. It would be a sad day in history if ever robots had more rights than a human fetus.

 

[fisherman_carl]

We need to synchronize our vocabularies. A “cyborg” is a human-machine combination. Strictly speaking anyone with a denture or an artificial limb is a cyborg, albeit a very simple one. Think about the six-million dollar man… Android is a being grown in a “vat”, that is organic material put together into a humanoid form. If you take a "regular zygote and perform some deep-level genetic engineering on it, it would also become an android. This new being could have gills as well as lungs to be able to live as an amphibious being and also outside water. Would this being considered a “human”?

Nothing is “simple” when you try to investigate the boundaries.

No, I would not consider it fully human because you have altered significantly to something else. It started out fully human, of course, but then you changed or removed part of its humanness. So it is no longer fully human. Of course it depends on how much you have altered it. A human has a particular form. We can easily recognize humans and distinguish them from say a Klingon or a Ferengi. Would you consider a Klingon to be an android? When I think of androids I think of C3PO or commander Data. I don’t think of something growing, but something that is constructed. The definition of an android is “a robot with human appearance.” If you are growing something with biological tissue and merging that with machine I would consider it part android part organism, kind of like a cyborg, but not necessarily with human parts.

This is a tricky question of course because one has to also consider the soul which is still a human soul, even if the genetics were altered. But, at the general Resurrection will he receive his altered body form or the original form he was conceived with? My guess it would be the original design, as that is God’s design. Whereas the altered design was man’s conception.

As far as how he would be treated, it should be as human, since that is what he was conceived as. Now, maybe I am wrong, but I don’t think he would be considered fully human, at least not until the general resurrection. I base this on the fact that Aquinas does not consider a bodiless human soul to be fully human, because there is a component missing in his humanness, his body. Thus, the human who’s dna has been so altered that he is no longer recognized as human still maintains the human soul, but his body has become unhuman. Thus, he is not fully human. Maybe he is like a Klingon?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

No, I would not consider it fully human because you have altered significantly to something else. It started out fully human, of course, but then you changed or removed part of its humanness. So it is no longer fully human. Of course it depends on how much you have altered it.

What about it, when the new condition is due to some massive mutation? Would it be OK to hunt it down for its meat? What is a “significant” change?

The definition of an android is “a robot with human appearance.”

Very inaccurate. Robot, cyborg, android are not synonyms. Robots are considered fully silicon based, androids are grown in an artificial womb, and cyborgs are originally human with artificial implants.

This is a tricky question of course because one has to also consider the soul which is still a human soul, even if the genetics were altered.

I suggest you forget about this “soul”. You can’t even define it, much less have a soul-o-meter which would show if a being has it, or not. And it has nothing to do with “rights”.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

What about it, when the new condition is due to some massive mutation? Would it be OK to hunt it down for its meat? What is a “significant” change?

Very inaccurate. Robot, cyborg, android are not synonyms. Robots are considered fully silicon based, androids are grown in an artificial womb, and cyborgs are originally human with artificial implants.

I suggest you forget about this “soul”. You can’t even define it, much less have a soul-o-meter which would show if a being has it, or not. And it has nothing to do with “rights”.

Well so much for your insight.

 

[fisherman_carl]

What about it, when the new condition is due to some massive mutation? Would it be OK to hunt it down for its meat? What is a “significant” change?

LOL! Would it be ok to hunt it down for meat? What are you a hunter? A cannibal?

I would say that it would be immoral to go around changing people’s DNA to begin with.

Very inaccurate. Robot, cyborg, android are not synonyms. Robots are considered fully silicon based, androids are grown in an artificial womb, and cyborgs are originally human with artificial implants.

“androids are grown in an artificial womb” - LOL! Read this - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28robot%29

Please name one Android grown in an artificial womb.

I suggest you forget about this “soul”. You can’t even define it, much less have a soul-o-meter which would show if a being has it, or not. And it has nothing to do with “rights”.

That’s funny. A soul is the form of a living thing. Humans have rational souls that have an intellect and a will. Animals have sensitive souls. And plants have vegetative souls. There is always going to be a certain amount of mystery when it comes to things like the soul. Do you reject all mystery? Mystery is part of what makes life interesting. God is one mystery that one can never completely solve. We have to be prepared to live with some mystery. Our heads can only handle so much you know.

"The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits.” - GK Chesterton

"Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead. " CCC 357

 

[Pallas_Athene]

LOL! Would it be ok to hunt it down for meat? What are you a hunter? A cannibal?

If that modified being is not human, then it would be fair game to eat it, and that would not be cannibalism.

I would say that it would be immoral to go around changing people’s DNA to begin with.

The morality of such a procedure is not the question.

How much modification would make the resulting being “non-human”? There are some people who are immune to heart disease. Their blood contains such a high level of cholesterol, that would be fatal for others… and yet they are healthy. It seems that there is a genetic discrepancy compared to “normal” humans, and scientists try to discover what it is… and hopefully to propagate it to everyone. That would get rid of the heart disease related deaths - which is the number one killer in the world. Is this an “immoral” endeavor in your eyes?

Please name one Android grown in an artificial womb.

I thought you are aware that we are talking about hypotheticals.

 

[fisherman_carl]

If that modified being is not human, then it would be fair game to eat it, and that would not be cannibalism.

Not what you described, half man half fish, taken from a human zygote. It has human intelligence. It would not be morally permissible to eat it. Would you consider it morally permissible to eat Klingons or Vulcans because they are not human?

The morality of such a procedure is not the question.

It should be.

How much modification would make the resulting being “non-human”? There are some people who are immune to heart disease. Their blood contains such a high level of cholesterol, that would be fatal for others… and yet they are healthy. It seems that there is a genetic discrepancy compared to “normal” humans, and scientists try to discover what it is… and hopefully to propagate it to everyone. That would get rid of the heart disease related deaths - which is the number one killer in the world. Is this an “immoral” endeavor in your eyes?

I’m not sure what your question is here.

I thought you are aware that we are talking about hypotheticals.

Ok, name one hypothetical android that comes from a synthetic womb. You must have got that idea from somewhere.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Not what you described, half man half fish, taken from a human zygote. It has human intelligence. It would not be morally permissible to eat it. Would you consider it morally permissible to eat Klingons or Vulcans because they are not human?

Of course not, since I respect intelligence and don’t care what is the material that the being is “made of”.

I’m not sure what your question is here.

You said: “I would say that it would be immoral to go around changing people’s DNA to begin with.” so I am looking for the details. Why would be immoral to get rid of heart disease if it would require genetic engineering?

Ok, name one hypothetical android that comes from a synthetic womb. You must have got that idea from somewhere.

It is a common theme in science fiction. Type in “androids in science fiction” into Google and you will get many references. But I am not talking about the technical details.

There can be three different types of artificial beings: 1) fully organic material (android), 2) fully artificial material (robot) and 3) a hybrid (cyborg). Whether the organic being is composed of something like a “human DNA” or not (Klingon?) is not relevant. How would you approach the “rights” afforded to them? They are all intelligent beings.

When you consider “human” beings, don’t forget “clones”, or a hypothetical “full three dimensional Xerox copy”.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Of course not, since I respect intelligence and don’t care what is the material that the being is “made of”.

You said: “I would say that it would be immoral to go around changing people’s DNA to begin with.” so I am looking for the details. Why would be immoral to get rid of heart disease if it would require genetic engineering?

It is a common theme in science fiction. Type in “androids in science fiction” into Google and you will get many references. But I am not talking about the technical details.

There can be three different types of artificial beings: 1) fully organic material (android), 2) fully artificial material (robot) and 3) a hybrid (cyborg). Whether the organic being is composed of something like a “human DNA” or not (Klingon?) is not relevant. How would you approach the “rights” afforded to them? They are all intelligent beings.

When you consider “human” beings, don’t forget “clones”, or a hypothetical “full three dimensional Xerox copy”.

Your definition of an android as a fully organic being is not found in the dictionary,but what do I know. You apparently have a greater appreciation of droids and have your own definition. You are trying to blur the lines between human and android in your own scientific fantasy.So I will leave you to your own imagination. As for me I think we will always know the difference between humans and robots.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Your definition of an android as a fully organic being is not found in the dictionary,but what do I know. You apparently have a greater appreciation of droids and have your own definition. You are trying to blur the lines between human and android in your own scientific fantasy.So I will leave you to your own imagination. As for me I think we will always know the difference between humans and robots.

Fantasy is the keyword with Pallas.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Your definition of an android as a fully organic being is not found in the dictionary,but what do I know.

Dictionaries are not famous for being precise in the fringe areas of science or science fiction.

You apparently have a greater appreciation of droids and have your own definition.

The words to describe artificial beings are useful to differentiate the types of possible beings. If you wish, you can choose another word instead of “android”.

You are trying to blur the lines between human and android in your own scientific fantasy.

I am not “trying” to blur the lines, I am showing that the lines ARE blurred. Just like the lines between the living an inorganic material.

So I will leave you to your own imagination. As for me I think we will always know the difference between humans and robots.

Thanks for your participation. Best wishes.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Fantasy is the keyword with Pallas.

Yes, ONE of the keywords. You can learn a LOT from the “WHAT IF” scenarios. Besides, ALL the great authors of literature exercised their “fantasy” when creating their awe-inspiring pieces of fiction. I cannot even dream about reaching their level, but I would not dare to “denigrate” their efforts by calling it to mere “fantasy”.