Should robots be entitled to the same rights as humans?

[fisherman_carl]

I haven’t used too much Aristotelian philosophy in this discussion but one thing that occurs to me is that the problem becomes much simpler when you consider Aristotelian philosophy. This includes the idea that things have certain natural ends to them. For instance a tree’s natural end is to grow into a tree. Similarly a human grows into a human. A tree’s form and matter is that of a tree. Everything it is composed of works to that end. However, a robot is not a natural thing at all. The things it is composed of do not have a natural end of being a robot. For instance, if a robot was made of wood and that wood was so fresh that it was still alive the wood would not continue to grow into a robot, but it would grow into a tree with branches and leaves. This is how we know that a robot is not alive. Because the things it is composed of are actually not naturally ordered to make robots. They have been artificially contrived together. Thus, the forms of the things the robot is composed of are forms of other things. The form of a tree, or the form of iron. But, it is not the form of a robot.

There was this one android I was looking at on youtube from Japan that was called an actroid. It tries to look and act like a human. But, when you consider that it is composed of parts that are not human but of other things that have other natural ends it becomes less impressive. For instance, if it’s hair started growing leaves because it was made out of fresh wood you would visibly see what I mean.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I haven’t used too much Aristotelian philosophy in this discussion…

I am glad, because I don’t accept it. It would be a waste of time to refer to it. Same with the Thomistic approach.

However, a robot is not a natural thing at all.

So what? It is not BIOLOGICALLY alive. But it would be INTELLCTUALLY alive, and that is what counts.

Let’s look at a few pro-s and con-s of the two life forms.

Biological:

• extremely volatile, susceptible to the minor fluctuations in temperature, environment, etc.
• must live off of other life-forms, vegetation and/or animals. (Yuck!)
• extremely sensitive to parasites and microorganisms.
• if a minor “mishap” occurs it needs special care to become fully operational again.
• if a major problem occurs, it will become completely unfunctional, colloquially called dead.

Silicon based:

• can handle a wide range of environmental surroundings. Can live in vacuum or under water.
• uses either solar energy or nuclear power.
• totally immune to diseases.
• minor mishaps can be corrected quite easily.
• major problems can be fixed by employing a “backup” and restoring the previous state.

And lots of others. Biological life is vastly inferior compared to silicon based life.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I am glad, because I don’t accept it. It would be a waste of time to refer to it. Same with the Thomistic approach.

So what? It is not BIOLOGICALLY alive. But it would be INTELLCTUALLY alive, and that is what counts.

Let’s look at a few pro-s and con-s of the two life forms.

Biological:

• extremely volatile, susceptible to the minor fluctuations in temperature, environment, etc.
• must live off of other life-forms, vegetation and/or animals. (Yuck!)
• extremely sensitive to parasites and microorganisms.
• if a minor “mishap” occurs it needs special care to become fully operational again.
• if a major problem occurs, it will become completely unfunctional, colloquially called dead.

Silicon based:

• can handle a wide range of environmental surroundings. Can live in vacuum or under water.
• uses either solar energy or nuclear power.
• totally immune to diseases.
• minor mishaps can be corrected quite easily.
• major problems can be fixed by employing a “backup” and restoring the previous state.

And lots of others. Biological life is vastly inferior compared to silicon based life.

You mention silicon based life. It would have to be naturally occurring to be considered alive. Do you have an example of this? The point that I made that you may have missed is that only something that is naturally occurring can be considered alive. If there is naturally occurring silicon based life then fine. Anything artificially constructed is not alive. Because what ever it is composed of is not ordered to its existence. It would be no more alive than a table or a lamp. You never answered my question before. Do you believe software running algorithms programmed by humans on a computer is intellectually alive?

Would you consider a Pentium processor computer running Windows 95 on it to be intellectually alive? Now,what if that same computer ran the greatest ai software on it ever invented? Does it now become intellectually alive? Then a faster computer comes out so it goes back to running Windows 95. No longer intellectually alive? Lets face it, it was never alive. It was always a machine executing whatever algorithms were sent to it. It does not have a mind. The only mind involved was the programmers.