Would an AI have a right to live?

[Anachronous Rex]

You... really can't follow English at all, can you?

I didn't say wikipeadia wasn't a reliable source. I said that no source is obligated to cover all possible contingencies. Do you understand what that means?

I.e, not 100% reliable as a source.

No.

No. That is not at all what I said. It's not 100% reliable, but it is a perfectly good source, you're just not using it right, and I explained why.

And you still have to provide a source that does cover these so called "parts" that somehow proves me wrong.

What in the name of unholy Dagon are you talking about?

[Aghny]

Did you even read my post ? I am not mentioning individual people. But that the "species" need to be human.

You said that only humans can be people.
You were shown that a corporation, regardless of who works in said corporation, is considered a person.
Corporations are not humans, and are considered people.

a.k.a. You. Are. Wrong.

Show me how corporations don't consist of humans again.

[Conscentia]

A corporation is obviously not part of the human species.

But comprised of human species.

No - it's independent of the humans who work within it, as I have already told you.

[Aghny]

No. That is not at all what I said. It's not 100% reliable, but it is a perfectly good source, you're just not using it right, and I explained why.

[Aghny]

But comprised of human species.

No - it's independent of the humans who work within it, as I have already told you.

Independent of the individual people, not independent of human species.

[Camicon]

You said that only humans can be people.
You were shown that a corporation, regardless of who works in said corporation, is considered a person.
Corporations are not humans, and are considered people.

a.k.a. You. Are. Wrong.

Show me how corporations don't consist of humans again.

A human consists of multiple organs: hearts, lungs, kidneys.
Humans are not considered kidneys, simply because they are a part of us.

Corporations consist of multiple people: accountants, CEO's, secretaries.
Corporations are not considered people, simply because people work in them.

That corporations are considered people is ridiculous, but regardless of my opinion, they are. And you are wrong.

[United Marxist Nations]

Considering the fact that it wouldn't be alive to begin with, no.

[Camicon]

Considering the fact that it wouldn't be alive to begin with, no.

Define "life".

[Conscentia]

No - it's independent of the humans who work within it, as I have already told you.

Independent of the individual people, not independent of human species.

It is "independent of individual people", thus an individual in it's own right and one which is obviously not part of the human species. In what way does that make it "not independent of the human species"?

[Conjoined Empire]

I understand your arguments, yet let us look at it this way... we were not created or designed by people...

Now let us look at it on a scientific basis:
Something is living if:
1) It can react to stimuli (Required) [Yes]
2) It can reproduce (Require) [No]
3) It respirates (Required) [No]
4) It has metabolic processes (Required) [No]
5) It can move (Not required.) [No]

[Anachronous Rex]

No. That is not at all what I said. It's not 100% reliable, but it is a perfectly good source, you're just not using it right, and I explained why.

I'm going to make a bet. With all of NS. I put down my computer on the gambit that Aghny will never be able to formulate a coherent rebuttal to my point, merely because he doesn't actually understand what my point was.

Accordingly, all of his future posts will attempt to dodge this issue, and will not deal in any substitutive way with the content of my post. Because how could he?

I feel confident in making this bet, as I have had a high degree of predictive success with it in the past.

[Aghny]

Show me how corporations don't consist of humans again.

A human consists of multiple organs: hearts, lungs, kidneys.
Humans are not considered kidneys, simply because they are a part of us.

Corporations consist of multiple people: accountants, CEO's, secretaries.
Corporations are not considered people, simply because people work in them.

That corporations are considered people is ridiculous, but regardless of my opinion, they are. And you are wrong.

Give me an example of where a corporation is considered people or persons where the said corporation need not have any human presence.

Maybe this will help.

Take the case of sandwich.
Regardless of the type of bread, you need a bead in the first place for it to be a sandwich. In this case the bread being humans.

[Conscentia]

I understand your arguments, yet let us look at it this way... we were not created or designed by people...
Now let us look at it on a scientific basis:
Something is living if:
1) It can react to stimuli (Required) [Yes]
2) It can reproduce (Require) [No]
3) It respirates (Required) [No]
4) It has metabolic processes (Required) [No]
5) It can move (Not required.) [No]

Disagree.

I'm with Shrodinger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Life%3F

[Aghny]

Independent of the individual people, not independent of human species.

It is "independent of individual people", thus an individual in it's own right and one which is obviously not part of the human species. In what way does that make it "not independent of the human species"?

You are avoiding my points on purpose aren't you ?

[Conscentia]

It is "independent of individual people", thus an individual in it's own right and one which is obviously not part of the human species. In what way does that make it "not independent of the human species"?

You are avoiding my points on purpose aren't you ?

How is quoting you directly avoid thy posts?:blink:
Edit: Misread thy post, sorry.

How am I avoiding thy points?

[New Naephak]

I understand your arguments, yet let us look at it this way... we were not created or designed by people...

Now let us look at it on a scientific basis:
Something is living if:
1) It can react to stimuli (Required) [Yes]
2) It can reproduce (Require) [No]
3) It respirates (Required) [No]
4) It has metabolic processes (Required) [No]
5) It can move (Not required.) [No]

"Biological" life. And by the time we have the software to make an AI we'll probably have to hardware to do all of these, anyways.

[Aghny]

You are avoiding my points on purpose aren't you ?

How is quoting you directly avoid thy posts?

The points. I..., nevermind you made that clear with that reply.

[Conscentia]

[delete]
See Camicon's post below.

[Camicon]

A human consists of multiple organs: hearts, lungs, kidneys.
Humans are not considered kidneys, simply because they are a part of us.

Corporations consist of multiple people: accountants, CEO's, secretaries.
Corporations are not considered people, simply because people work in them.

That corporations are considered people is ridiculous, but regardless of my opinion, they are. And you are wrong.

Give me an example of where a corporation is considered people or persons where the said corporation need not have any human presence.

Maybe this will help.

Take the case of sandwich.
Regardless of the type of bread, you need a bead in the first place for it to be a sandwich. In this case the bread being humans.

Corporations are people, independent of who or what is a part of it, just like humans are people regardless of what we are made of.

Your analogy is a crock full of bullshit.

[Aghny]

Anyway, i wonder, would a biological AI be possible ? It sure as hell would be incredibly hard even so, but that is an interesting concept, in paper anyway.

[Alowwvia]

This entire thread is a fuck-up with semantics that dodge the central point.

The scenario listed is this:

An AI become sapient. This doesn't mean it can mimic human thought patterns or some shit, but that it follows Cognito Ergo Sum. Think about yourself for a minute: You are a thinker. You perceive the world around you, and think thoughts, and are. You are.

Machines, and most animals to our knowledge, are not. They don't have the cognition to realize that they are an individual thinker that is actively perceiving reality, rather than simply reacting as part of your enviorment. To our knowledge, only humans, as far as we know, have the neurological hardware to pull this feat, to imagine and philosophize and ponder our own existence and selves.

However the hypothetical here states that, if an artificially-created intelligence becomes this state of Cognito Ergo Sum, where it realizes that is in in fact a thinking entity independent of its own environment, and that it realizes it can 'imagine' things it cannot fully 'compute', and that it can address that it doesn't know certain knowledge or that it does things it doesn't understand, then, being like us, is it ethical to end this consciousness it if it has a desire to continue existing?

[Salandriagado]

Anyway, i wonder, would a biological AI be possible ? It sure as hell would be incredibly hard even so, but that is an interesting concept, in paper anyway.

You still haven't given us whatever definition of "biological" you're using.

[Aghny]

Give me an example of where a corporation is considered people or persons where the said corporation need not have any human presence.
Maybe this will help.
Take the case of sandwich.
Regardless of the type of bread, you need a bead in the first place for it to be a sandwich. In this case the bread being humans.

Disagree. If another species existed capable of understanding the concept of a "corporation", it would be able to create one itself without the need for humans.
Humans happen to be the only example of a species which can form corporations. That doesn't make them the only possible species which can form corporations. There may be other, which we are simply not aware of.

Only such species are not defined as people or persons at the moment. Should they be "if" known to exist ? well, that would depend on the ones who get to decide.

Corporations are people, independent of who or what is a part of it, just like humans are people regardless of what we are made of.

Your analogy is a crock full of bullshit.

Feel free to cite a source where it says a corporation not comprised of human entities can be considered as a person.

[Aghny]

Anyway, i wonder, would a biological AI be possible ? It sure as hell would be incredibly hard even so, but that is an interesting concept, in paper anyway.

You still haven't given us whatever definition of "biological" you're using.

How more clear can i be other than explicitly defining what it is in another post just recently ?

[Conscentia]

Only such species are not defined as people or persons at the moment. Should they be "if" known to exist ? well, that would depend on the ones who get to decide.

The if's are not built into the definition. A definition of a person is created, and we would test the if's to see if they can be classified as a person.