Illegal to "Kill" Robots?

[MicroBalrog]

Johan?

Him. One and only. Of course in this case I refer to his more obscure work on the Carolingians rather than “Homo Ludens”.

My favorite history professor (Herr Doktor Doktor Bowlus of the U of Ark at LR) preferred the term "Late Antiquity" to "The Dark Ages."

Exactly my point. The notion that the light of progress went out when Rome did is viewed as... bizarre by many if not most contemporary historians.

Also, this thread lacks pictures of Summer Glau. Someone, fix it! :D

[ArfinGreebly]

Couple of points wander aimlessly through my mind as I read this.

One - there's a difference between LIFE (which involves a spiritual component) and really, really, really advanced computation.  I don't think the creation of successively complex computational devices ever results in life.  The thing that's aware of being aware is missing.

Two - assuming that it is possible to create a computational device so advanced that its "thinking" functions are indistinguishable from those of life, and granting that we will eventually approach and possibly arrive at such a point, a plausible argument can be made that anything that life can achieve once, it can achieve again, leading to the plausible argument that such an event would not be unique, and would likely not be the first such event . . . leading to the question, "what happened the last time life created such computational power?"

And maybe item Two isn't a wholly serious question.

But I believe it needs to be asked nonetheless.

[Perd Hapley]

I thought the "Dark" referred to the lack of original sources that were available (at least at one time) to shed light on those "Dark Ages," not to a lack of progress.  Of course, some people have viewed it that way. 

[Kwelz]

Wow, there is a lot of FUD i this thread.  To say that the Dark ages were not is...  Well I don't know what to even call it.  A time when fear was the motivating factor and god was used as a tool for hate as much as anything else.  I don't know what else to call it.  Scientific advancement was not only halted but backslid quite a ways. 

As for the "spiritual" factor of life that was mentioned; I am afraid this is a red Hearing.  There is no Spiritual component to life.  You are either alive and thinking or you are not.  We can have a discussion on Souls, spirits, Chi, whatever, if we want.  But from a scientific view they are a non issue when it comes to life. 

[Perd Hapley]

Kwelz, could you specify what time period was known as the Dark Ages, and why?  Can you supply a brief history thereof?  Can you tell us why you have such a negative view of the Dark Ages? 

This thread is not really about science, but about rights.  Rights are not a scientific concept, so I don't know why you are pushing to eliminate things from the conversation, just because you don't find them to be scientifical.

Lastly, I'm not sure how the conversation benefits from dogmatic denials of the spiritual. 

[ArfinGreebly]

There is no Spiritual component to life.  You are either alive and thinking or you are not.  We can have a discussion on Souls, spirits, Chi, whatever, if we want.  But from a scientific view they are a non issue when it comes to life.

Scientific view?  Life?  I'm thinking your mileage will vary depending on which scientist is consulted.

No spiritual component . . . simply based on a declaration?  "I'm a scientist, and I say souls are irrelevant to life."

Nah.  Sorry.  We're gonna hafta disagree on that.  Life is more than chemistry and electric current.  There is a non-physical component.

Call it a difference of opinion if you must.  My opinion isn't based on stuff I read in books.

All is not lost, however.  It is possible to argue that a soul/spirit/whatever could choose a "robot" manifestation as a more viable host, in preference to a "meat" body.  I'm sure that's already been proposed somewhere.

Just to clarify:  I am not in a position to say you're wrong.  I am, however, in a position to say it's terribly unlikely I'll ever see it your way.

[agricola]

Wow, there is a lot of FUD i this thread.  To say that the Dark ages were not is...  Well I don't know what to even call it.  A time when fear was the motivating factor and god was used as a tool for hate as much as anything else.  I don't know what else to call it.  Scientific advancement was not only halted but backslid quite a ways. 

As for the "spiritual" factor of life that was mentioned; I am afraid this is a red Hearing.  There is no Spiritual component to life.  You are either alive and thinking or you are not.  We can have a discussion on Souls, spirits, Chi, whatever, if we want.  But from a scientific view they are a non issue when it comes to life. 

This (the attack on "the Dark Ages" in their conventional sense) is a relatively new phenomenon that is, in all likelyhood, influenced by multiculturalism and revisionism amongst some historians who seek to promote the idea that change was gradual, fashionable even.  To find it advanced by some here is "interesting", to say the least.

The best treatment of this nonsense is in Bryan Ward-Perkins book The Fall of Rome, in which he comprehensively rubbishes the modern theory and reinforces the old (which, after all, is backed by the entirity of the written evidence, and most of the archaeological).  The vast majority of surviving evidence does not support the "modern" theory of late Antiquity, at least in the West.  Look at Gildas, at Bede, at the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

To sum it up quickly, Ward-Perkins first demonstrates that most of the Roman citizenry, even the peasants, enjoyed a standard of living not equalled until the 19th or 20th century.  He demonstrates that large numbers of them were literate and that they had access to large amounts of cheap, mass-produced items that were, in terms of quality, far above those that were considered luxury items between 500-1000 in the West.  He then demonstrates that, with the fall of the Empire in the West (and indeed, in parts of the East) there was a catastrophe that took Europe more than a thousand years to recover from.

As for robots, if we build them smart enough then we should respect them as such. 

edit:  a link to Ward-Perkins book on Amazon is here:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fall-Rome-End-Civilization/dp/0192807285/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229385870&sr=8-1

[Kwelz]

Just to clarify:  I am not in a position to say you're wrong.  I am, however, in a position to say it's terribly unlikely I'll ever see it your way.

That is the great part of things.  We don't have to agree on things or see them the same way.  But we can still discuss them :)  Sure some of the discussions will get a bit heated but hey.  It happens.  I dont' see it as a bad thing that we are strong in our opinions. 

[Perd Hapley]

I started a thread for the Dark Ages Debate. 

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=16826.msg311274;boardseen#new

[MicroBalrog]

To sum it up quickly, Ward-Perkins first demonstrates that most of the Roman citizenry, even the peasants, enjoyed a standard of living not equalled until the 19th or 20th century

A roman 'peasant' is completely different from what they took to be a 'peasant' in the 9th century.

[De Selby]

Paging Mr. Turing.

Exactly-the test he came up with only measures behavior, not consciousness or awareness.

While you're waiting for Mr. Turing to turn up on the page, read Mr. Putnam.

[agricola]

A roman 'peasant' is completely different from what they took to be a 'peasant' in the 9th century.

That change is because of what happened between then and the ninth century. 

[MicroBalrog]

That change is because of what happened between then and the ninth century. 

A Roman peasant usually owned a slave or multiple slaves. Small farming almost completely disappeared in Italy by the days of the Republic. It was the slaves who directly worked most of the land.

[Firethorn]

Good to see others agree. Someone else said something about property rights which is fine until they encroach on my/our rights. That is fine with me too. I just can't see robots being treated the same as human beings.

But if you have a baby it's not your property.  Even if you're a guy; are we really that far off from being able to create an artificial womb?

For starters, it is very insulting to humans as a whole. It is also very egotistical to think that you created something that deserves the same rights as human beings.

We do it all the time right now, with the creation of new humans?

From a religious/spiritual standpoint, I think it could also be easily interpreted as an insult to God. To think that we could create something that is on the same level as human beings, which are the "image" of God, is not exactly being humble. Just a thought.

Ah, ok.  I think that where I come from, a sapient AI is simply a different form of child.  And I'm of the belief that exploring god's universe and creating great new things is NOT an insult to God.  Turning our backs on God's creation would be.

And as an aside, is it possibly insulting to God to claim to know what insults God?

Very well put.  I'm reminded of the recent article where a grandmother in England was told to remove her christmas lighting 'because it might offend the neighbors'.  Said neighbors, not Christian, came forward and said they liked the display.  Basically, I'd beware of assuming offensiveness on behalf of a third party.

Apparantly, it looks as though it will become an issue in our lifetime. I pray that people start switching their brains on soon. For a multitude of reasons. This one being pretty far down on the list.

I think it's going to be a while yet.  We haven't even managed to create a Sentient AI yet, much less a Sapient one.  Though it might turn out that creating one is as easy as creating the other.  We have a long ways to go on the computational front - current computer architecture isn't really suited for AI - and that alone might encumber any thoughts of an AI being infinitely mobile on the future internet.

As for robots, if we build them smart enough then we should respect them as such.

I'd say 'AI' over robot, they're unlikely to be a robot in any traditional sense, though any AI is likely to control one or more.  But I agree.

If nothing else, much like the Colonies, I figure AI will be less likely to rebel if we grant them some of our traditional 'rights'.  On the other hand, waiting until they present some sort of demand for them has it's appeals as well.  We just don't have a clue yet, thus discussions like this.

[Strings]

Wouldn't that actually be a good test of their self-awareness: when they request that they be granted the same rights as other sapient beings?

[Nick1911]

<snort>

Religious war between which parties?  No scientific or technological advance has been the cause of religious war.  It may have been a means to make it (inclined plane, catapult, gunpowder) or may have had effects that cause adherents to different religions to clash (rise of horticulture, navigational aids, printing press), but the existence of a technology or hunk of scientific knowledge has not led to a religious war.

Between the party that believes artificial intelligence (Strong AI, indistinguishable from a persons mind) is intelligence, and thus must be treated as sapient beings whom have rights, and the party that believe that only humans are worthy of rights because AI lacks an undefinable, unidentifiable concept of "soul".  IMO, It's insane to think that factions wouldn't develop around this topic.

<gigglesnort>
You must hang around too many Unitarians or other similar "religious" types.  The advent of AI will cause many ethical* and moral* clashes, but only the most ill-informed or shaky religious folk will have such an faith-shaking experience.  A fine example of such is Howard Dean, who quit his participation in the Episcopal church over a clash of visions regarding...a bike path.
* In formed by religious teachings

You're right; but I'm not going to discuss why I think so.

Scientific view?  Life?  I'm thinking your mileage will vary depending on which scientist is consulted.

No spiritual component . . . simply based on a declaration?  "I'm a scientist, and I say souls are irrelevant to life."

Nah.  Sorry.  We're gonna hafta disagree on that.  Life is more than chemistry and electric current.  There is a non-physical component.

Why do you say that?  You've arrived at the conclusion that there is a non-physical component to human beings; but by what route have you determined that?

Call it a difference of opinion if you must.  My opinion isn't based on stuff I read in books.

I don't really expect for either of our opinions to wane.  I arrived at my opinion by objectively making conclusions about the world I live in based on (among other things) the things I've read in books.  If it's not a private manner, I'd like to know how did you arrive at yours?  Not looking for a fight - just a better understanding.

[myrockfight]

Well, so what if it's "insulting"??

Says the guy who is going to Hell. LOL. JK!

What if you're confronted with an AI or a robot that is self-aware and intelligent, and asks for equal treatment?

Why would that make a difference at all? I could care less what it asked me. Just because it asks me doesn't change what it is. I wouldn't let it access my feelings and pursuade me that way. You can't. Or you shouldn't anyway.

And as an aside, is it possibly insulting to God to claim to know what insults God?  In my experience, claiming that something is insulting to God is just a heavy-handed way of claiming "It's insulting to me." And it's convenient to call to a higher authority that's not likely to speak up right at the moment and disagree with your use of his endorsement of your position. "??

I understand exactly where you are coming from. Just so you know, I do not pretend to know what insults God and what doesn't. I do not pretend to know what He thinks. However, like I said, "I think it could also be easily interpreted as." I can't say that I am going one way or another with it. Someone mentioned that He wrote it down. I am not a Bible scholar. I am not sure what verse that would fall under. But I can definitely see someone arguing the point.

People definitely invoke God's thoughts and will for him as the basis of an argument. I personally don't agree with using the argument selfishly to win an argument. However, I don't think that makes the point moot either. I personally believe in God. However, that isn't saying a whole lot in the context of this reply because you need to know the intricacies of my beliefs to make an assessment of it. And that would be an awfully long post.

That part of the argument is relevent to the situation though. Laws are written to protect our rights collectively. Our culture defines what we decide those laws should be. As a population we have to agree collectively on the laws that govern us. We have a Judeo-Christian foundation for our laws. Whatever the law would be, it would have to jibe with what we believe as a population - or, in theory, it wouldn't become a law. If the law doesn't jibe with our beliefs and we believe it significantly affects us, the law will be repealed or it will stay and we will eventually revolt.

Ultimately, I suspect the problem many have with AI (or recognizing the great apes or higher cetaceans as "sapient", too) would be the same if we met advanced aliens with a civilization and history thousands, perhaps millions of years older than ours. To be forced to acknowledge other sapient/sentient beings is rather corrosive to the notion we inhabit the center of a creation tailor-made for us. It's "little fish, big pond" syndrome.

Personally, that isn't an issue for me. I don't think it would be an issue for most people either. I think that argument isn't relavent in a highly educated society, such as ours. However, if we are taught to believe that they are inferior to us - then most people will believe that. Look at the Palestinian/Israeli issue. That crap is ingrained in those people from a young age. As a culture, I think we have moved beyond that. You still have individuals or small groups that differ, but as a whole we are above it.

I think it would be impossible for a logical, sane mind to decide that another life form (alien) is inferior if they have mastered something that obviously take a huge amount of knowledge, resources, and co-ordination, such as space travel. People may be scared, but I don't think we would find them inferior at all. I don't think acknowledging another life form as sentient is threatening within itself. The threat comes from their actions.

[seeker_two]

Is Commander Data a person, with the right to choose, or is he a toaster, the property of Star Fleet?

I see your TNG and raise you a TOS reference....


....if it's good enough for Kirk to make out with, then it's good enough for sapience....



http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Rayna_Kapec

[Kwelz]

I think the underlying problem here is a disagreement on what "Life" is. 

[AJ Dual]

Not if He has taken the time to write down what irks Him off.

And there we reach the endpoint of our debate.

Implicit in that is that the bible is divine canon. And that in absence of any empirical evidence for it to be so, is the circular answer of faith. And faith is an answer to which I'm sympathetic, as I have faith that there is a God of some sort, that it had a hand in creating the universe as we know it, and that it has some kind of a plan for us.

I just think that God isn't too particular about how long it takes, or who or where exactly the "us" that the plan is for turns out to be. You have a book as the beginning of your faith. I see it more in the incredibly fine balance between gravity and the charges of fundamental subatomic particles. A minute fraction off one way, and there would be no stars, planets, or elements in the Universe heavier than Helium.  A minute fraction in another, and all the matter and energy in the Universe would be nothing but dead black holes.

My beliefs actually have a lot in common with Creationists/Intelligent Designers, I just think they're looking for their evidence a few billion years too late. 

And that whatever God's plan is, we need to grow a great deal, and survive a very long time as a species, or whatever we turn into, before we even have a chance of knowing what it is. Advanced technology, and learning everything we can about science, possibly including the creation of AI, will be essential if we are to do so.

So I can tell we disagree on some very broad strokes of theology, but I respect your viewpoint. And not that it matters much, but do know that militant atheists and moral relativists who are disrespectful and abusive in pushing their (anti)beliefs, leveraging the power of the state to force "separation" irritate me immensely.

[K Frame]

"sapience"

What the hell is sapience?

[seeker_two]

"sapience"

What the hell is sapience?

Keep up, Mike....we can't keep stopping the thread for stragglers...

Sapient is the correct term. Dogs and cats are also sentient, but so far only humans are sapient as far as we know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapience

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

[AJ Dual]

Sentience is the ability to feel and perceive. However while it's used to denote thinking tool users in Sci-Fi and speculation on alien life, it's really not the whole enchilada.

Sapience is the ability to make judgments based on the information it receives through it's sentience.

Your dog is Sentient. It perceives the world, and has feelings about what it perceives. However, if you did careful psychological tests on your dog to determine it's ability to plan, hold abstract thoughts, count, or hold visions of itself and others, and plan for the future or predict outcomes, you might find that it's sapience is rather limited as compared to a gorilla, a dolphin, or a human.

[Perd Hapley]

Implicit in that is that the bible is divine canon. And that in absence of any empirical evidence for it to be so, is the circular answer of faith.

Actually no, it's not circular at all, it is supported by sufficient evidence.  But do you really want to sidetrack the discussion with that debate? 

[K Frame]

Keep up, Mike....we can't keep stopping the thread for stragglers...

Oh yeah, you're setting an absolutely BLAZING pace...

Right, professor...

:rolleyes: