Strong Artificial Intelligence and the Soul

[idav]

not a member of the plant or animal kingdoms

Everything is animate, just easier to notice at the macro scale. What exactly does an amoeba have that a machine can't be given?

 

[George-ananda]

1: not animate; lifeless.

So, we look up 'animate,' (sometimes dictionaries are inefficient!):

adjective 7. alive; possessing life: animate creatures.

8. lively: an animate expression of joy.

9. of or relating to animal life.

10. able to move voluntarily.

So, I'll ask you to rephrase before responding to the premise, unless you want to stipulate that "life is dependent on organic functions produced by biological evolution."

I don't see why I need to rephrase and replace the word. I think my wording was clear. Especially after I clarified 'plant or animal' kingdom.

Your hair-splitting over words is too tedious and misses the point of the OP question

 

[Storm]

I say we avoid giving machines any emotions, even strong AI, that way we don't have to worry about their feelings. They should be like Spock or Data even.

Ever see the TNG episode The Measure Of A Man?

 

[Storm]

I don't see why I need to rephrase and replace the word. I think my wording was clear. Especially after I clarified 'plant or animal' kingdom.

Your hair-splitting over words is too tedious and misses the point of the OP question

Yeah, I thought I'd be nice and give you the chance to correct your misused word first, since your 'definition' was totally off.

But whatever. So your argument is that, soul or no soul, if you didn't get here the same way humans did, you have no rights? How is that not Fantastic Racism? Shouldn't the reality of sapience be given more weight than whether a physical form operates on squishy organs or silicon and wires?

 

[idav]

Ever see the TNG episode The Measure Of A Man?

I don't think I've seen that episode.

 

[Storm]

I don't think I've seen that episode.

Now that I think about it I can't swear to the title. It's the one where some R&D guy wants to disassemble Data for study and they have a trial debating whether sapient = alive.

Magnificent ep, btw.

At any rate, my point was to ask whether you think:
1) Sapience must be emotional
2) Legal rights and ethical treatment should be predicated on emotional capacity.

 

[idav]

Now that I think about it I can't swear to the title. It's the one where some R&D guy wants to disassemble Data for study and they have a trial debating whether sapient = alive.

Magnificent ep, btw.

At any rate, my point was to ask whether you think:
1) Sapience must be emotional
2) Legal rights and ethical treatment should be predicated on emotional capacity.

Interesting questions. Wiki was nice enough to confirm the title and I found a quote from Data very intriguing. "That action injured you and saved me. I will not forget it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Measure_of_a_Man_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)

I need to think more on it but I wonder if Data's statement was emotional. Was he afraid of being dismantled? Sapience means you know more than enough to make informed decisions and in a way fear can actually be a rational thing. I may need to rethink my wanting to enslave AI, LOL.

 

[George-ananda]

So your argument is that, soul or no soul, if you didn't get here the same way humans did, you have no rights?

Without comsciousness, there is no 'you' to have rights!!

How is that not Fantastic Racism?

See above, there is no 'you' to be racist towards.

Shouldn't the reality of sapience be given more weight than whether a physical form operates on squishy organs or silicon and wires?

Artificial sapience is not conscious. Example to clarify: Smacking my dog with a hammer is wrong. Smacking my old computer so that it fits in the garbage can is fine; no matter how amazingly well the programs on it can mimic human intelligence.

 

[Storm]

I may need to rethink my wanting to enslave AI, LOL.

I'm sure the Cylons would appreciate it.

 

[Storm]

Without comsciousness, there is no 'you' to have rights!!



See above, there is no 'you' to be racist towards.



Artificial sapience is not conscious. Example to clarify: Smacking my dog with a hammer is wrong. Smacking my old computer so that it fits in the garbage can is fine; no matter how amazingly well the programs on it can mimic human intelligence.

Sapience is sapience. The only reason you've given thus far to deny identity to sapient beings (the premise of strong AI) is that they didn't evolve the same way we did. So, yeah. Racism.

If it turns out that elephants, African Gray Parrots, and/ or certain species of whale are sapient, will you change your definition of "conscious" to "Humans and humans only?" What's the difference?

If we begin producing artificially grown humans whose gametes weren't produced via sexual contact, what about them?

 

[George-ananda]

You noticeably made no comment on my dog/old computer example.

Sapience is sapience.

Nope. There is Animal Sapience and there is Artificial Sapience.

The only reason you've given thus far to deny identity to sapient beings (the premise of strong AI) is that they didn't evolve the same way we did. So, yeah. Racism.

No again. Not because they evolved differently but that they don't have consciousness.

If it turns out that elephants, African Gray Parrots, and/ or certain species of whale are sapient, will you change your definition of "conscious" to "Humans and humans only?" What's the difference?

Haven't I included animals from my post #1

If we begin producing artificially grown humans whose gametes weren't produced via sexual contact, what about them?

They would be conscious with full rights. I said nothing about the manner of conception.

 

[idav]

Artificial sapience is not conscious. Example to clarify: Smacking my dog with a hammer is wrong. Smacking my old computer so that it fits in the garbage can is fine; no matter how amazingly well the programs on it can mimic human intelligence.

The computer doesn't express pain like a dog does. What if the machine cried "don't hit me!!".

 

[George-ananda]

The computer doesn't express pain like a dog does. What if the machine cried "don't hit me!!".

Then I'd say. That was a cute design of the human programmer. Kudos to him. And continue my business.

 

[idav]

Then I'd say. That was a cute design of the human programmer. Kudos to him. And continue my business.

That's monstrous! :cover:

But really now. What if he pleaded his case and was just as convincing as a human and gave evidence that he is self aware?

 

[idav]

Then I'd say. That was a cute design of the human programmer. Kudos to him. And continue my business.

Now perhaps you can answer my earlier question. What exactly does an amoeba have that a machine can't be given?

edit: not a soul right?

 

[George-ananda]

That's monstrous! :cover:

But really now. What if he pleaded his case and was just as convincing as a human and gave evidence that he is self aware?

Then I'd say the human programmer is really good. And continue my business.

 

[Storm]

You noticeably made no comment on my dog/old computer example.

No, I didn't. Seeing as neither dogs nor old computers are sapient, I didn't see the relevance.

Nope. There is Animal Sapience and there is Artificial Sapience.

Nope, yourself. There is NOT artificial sapience. When and if such is created, you have provided no justification for the distinction.

No again. Not because they evolved differently but that they don't have consciousness.

Sapience is a classification of complex consciousness. Sorry, but if you want to reject the rules of the game, don't enter the field.

Haven't I included animals from my post #1

Humans are currently the only known sapient species. You included animals as "animate," not sapient.

They would be conscious with full rights. I said nothing about the manner of conception.

So, again. How do you justify the distinction? What makes you contest that only humans are capable of sapience?

 

[George-ananda]

Now perhaps you can answer my earlier question. What exactly does an amoeba have that a machine can't be given?

edit: not a soul right?

Now, I've seen arguments about, amoebas, viruses, etc. and 'What is Life' question at this micro-level and it's not a topic I've given much thought to or understand, nor do I need to to comment on the OP question.

At the macro animal level, there is consciousness. And artificial intelligence lacks this consciousness. No man-made object can FEEL pain, that is the main point.

 

[idav]

So, again. How do you justify the distinction? What makes you contest that only humans are capable of sapience?

I think he's saying that only biological forms are even capable of true sapience.

 

[Storm]

I think he's saying that only biological forms are even capable of true sapience.

I'm pretty sure you're right. Which of course, leads to the question of why he's playing the game while rejecting the rules.