Would an AI have a right to live?

[Free Detroit]

The struck isn't really what I was talking about.

I know, but it was relevant to the overall question. "If we make something just like us, wouldn't it be just like us?" Yes, of course.

How do we know that human consciousness is bound in an absolute way to the organism itself? If neurology has taught us anything of late, it is that the portion of our brain that we thing of as "consciousness" may not be so great as we imagine. Our choices and decisions are made for "us" and before "we" are aware of them, by processes not under "our" control. I think serious doubts are being cast as to the nature of what consciousness even is.

I am including these autonomic processes as part of consciousness, because - as you suggest - they inform and to some degree determine consciousness. It is exactly those processes that make it clear that consciousness is bound to the organism; we "think" not only with our brains, but with our entire nervous system and more, and are aware of only a small part of that process.

What if we could replicate something like that?

For the reasons we've both cited: "We" are significantly more than a set of electro-chemical impulses that can be mapped into a non-human container; who we are is determined by the organism as a whole. The only way we could replicate a human-like intelligence is to make a human, thus my point which you struck about the question becoming irrelevant.

To take it a step further, we could conceivably create an alien intelligence - something utterly different than a human, but not necessarily a simulation (of the human mind). The point at which this becomes philosophically sticky is the same place the point about, say, animal rights becomes sticky. Probably, like with animals and other organisms (e.g. ecosystems), we would not be able to communicate meaningfully with it, and thus would not be able to recognize it as intelligent.

[Anachronous Rex]

The struck isn't really what I was talking about.

I know, but it was relevant to the overall question. "If we make something just like us, wouldn't it be just like us?" Yes, of course.

How do we know that human consciousness is bound in an absolute way to the organism itself? If neurology has taught us anything of late, it is that the portion of our brain that we thing of as "consciousness" may not be so great as we imagine. Our choices and decisions are made for "us" and before "we" are aware of them, by processes not under "our" control. I think serious doubts are being cast as to the nature of what consciousness even is.

I am including these autonomic processes as part of consciousness, because - as you suggest - they inform and to some degree determine consciousness. It is exactly those processes that make it clear that consciousness is bound to the organism; we "think" not only with our brains, but with our entire nervous system and more, and are aware of only a small part of that process.

What if we could replicate something like that?

For the reasons we've both cited: "We" are significantly more than a set of electro-chemical impulses that can be mapped into a non-human container; who we are is determined by the organism as a whole. The only way we could replicate a human-like intelligence is to make a human, thus my point which you struck about the question becoming irrelevant.

To take it a step further, we could conceivably create an alien intelligence - something utterly different than a human, but not necessarily a simulation (of the human mind). The point at which this becomes philosophically sticky is the same place the point about, say, animal rights becomes sticky. Probably, like with animals and other organisms (e.g. ecosystems), we would not be able to communicate meaningfully with it, and thus would not be able to recognize it as intelligent.

Hmm...

This is all good stuff. I concede the point.

Although I still think anything it is a worrisome precedent to deny synthetic intelligence the status of "life" merely on account of it being synthetic. Visions of Space Opera dance in my head.

[Free Detroit]

Hmm...

This is all good stuff. I concede the point.

That's the first official concession I've ever gotten on NSG Thanks!

Although I still think anything it is a worrisome precedent to deny synthetic intelligence the status of "life" merely on account of it being synthetic. Visions of Space Opera dance in my head.

Yes, it is. I agree (and also hope) it's an issue we'll have to deal with at some point much more seriously in the future.

I also understand the counterpoint. I was sad when they wanted to take away Lt. Data, and hated those heartless Starfleet bastards for trying.

[Sociobiology]

Kindly define "biologicial".

I would define it as a heart or vital organs or working muscle tissue

so amoeba not biological?

[Sociobiology]

The struck isn't really what I was talking about.

I know, but it was relevant to the overall question. "If we make something just like us, wouldn't it be just like us?" Yes, of course.

How do we know that human consciousness is bound in an absolute way to the organism itself? If neurology has taught us anything of late, it is that the portion of our brain that we thing of as "consciousness" may not be so great as we imagine. Our choices and decisions are made for "us" and before "we" are aware of them, by processes not under "our" control. I think serious doubts are being cast as to the nature of what consciousness even is.

I am including these autonomic processes as part of consciousness, because - as you suggest - they inform and to some degree determine consciousness. It is exactly those processes that make it clear that consciousness is bound to the organism; we "think" not only with our brains, but with our entire nervous system and more, and are aware of only a small part of that process.

so if I get in an accident, and medical science has advanced to the point that they can keep my brain alive in a jar hooked up to prosthetic senses and or limbs I stop being human? For that matter is a man with an artificial arm less human?
of course you have to consider what aware means, we track some of those processes that is awareness, a computer does not track all of its processes either but does track some.

For the reasons we've both cited: "We" are significantly more than a set of electro-chemical impulses that can be mapped into a non-human container; who we are is determined by the organism as a whole.

so a person born without legs is less human?
If I have an artificial heart I become less human?

To take it a step further, we could conceivably create an alien intelligence - something utterly different than a human, but not necessarily a simulation (of the human mind). The point at which this becomes philosophically sticky is the same place the point about, say, animal rights becomes sticky. Probably, like with animals and other organisms (e.g. ecosystems), we would not be able to communicate meaningfully with it, and thus would not be able to recognize it as intelligent.

[/quote]
actually we have various measures of intelligence that do not nessistate communication, things like understanding abstract concepts like weight (something chimps cannot do) and the ability to retain and recreate a novel tool (which chimps can).

[Sociobiology]

there is a really odd brain injury that produce that effect, were the person will sit at an intersection until their car runs out of gas because they are trying to compare every variable about two different routes, they can just go "fuck it" and pick one route based on one or two variables.

and that last step is the one an AI will need.

Yeah, this is already a staple of AI programming. I myself programmed a very simple application for coloring the map of the united states which could dynamically decide on the best state to color next and what color to make it.

Withing the potential values of different outcomes isn't the last step of AI programming - it's the first.

but can it do it with a novel situation, that is to say can it whittle the potential before it knows any of them, or is it merely programmed to whittle based on prior knowledge of the programmer.
If I gave it a completely new map generated say of a globe or three dimensional space instead of a flat plane could it alter its whittling process to use it on that.

[Ironrite]

I would define it as a heart or vital organs or working muscle tissue

so amoeba not biological?

Well... Yes.. Point taken

[Aghny]

so if I get in an accident, and medical science has advanced to the point that they can keep my brain alive in a jar hooked up to prosthetic senses and or limbs I stop being human? For that matter is a man with an artificial arm less human?

I believe the term for something like that is "cyborg" and not "human". But that would depend on the type and extend of parts replaced.

[Camicon]

so if I get in an accident, and medical science has advanced to the point that they can keep my brain alive in a jar hooked up to prosthetic senses and or limbs I stop being human? For that matter is a man with an artificial arm less human?

I believe the term for something like that is "cyborg" and not "human". But that would depend on the type and extend of parts replaced.

So people with prosthetics are less of a person than people without prosthetics?

[Ovon]

a computer is a computer same go's for AI's.

[Camicon]

a computer is a computer same go's for AI's.

Computer's are inanimate objects.

Sapient AI's, by definition, are people.

[Ovon]

a computer is a computer same go's for AI's.

Computer's are inanimate objects.

Sapient AI's, by definition, are people.

no if we made it it cant have fealings ,or human dision making so no.

[Conscentia]

Computer's are inanimate objects.
Sapient AI's, by definition, are people.

no if we made it it cant have fealings ,or human dision making so no.

Children are made by their parents. Do they not have feelings?

[Anachronous Rex]

Computer's are inanimate objects.

Sapient AI's, by definition, are people.

no if we made it it cant have fealings ,or human dision making so no.

Why not? Be specific.

[Ovon]

no if we made it it cant have fealings ,or human dision making so no.

Children are made by their parents. Do they not have feelings?

yes becouse we have free will and AI can be controlled what to do and have no free will of its own.

[Alowwvia]

Computer's are inanimate objects.

Sapient AI's, by definition, are people.

no if we made it it cant have fealings ,or human dision making so no.

>If we made it it can't have feelings

Why? Feelings are just little jolts of electricity between neurons, nothing that can't be replicated.

[Anachronous Rex]

Children are made by their parents. Do they not have feelings?

yes becouse we have free will and AI can be controlled what to do and have no free will of its own.

Right up until the point where they say, "no." Which is usually followed by deadly neurotoxin.

Seriously, demonstrate that you have free will, and then demonstrate that an AI could not.

[Dooom35796821595]

AI is just a term. game consoles use AI, does that mean smashing an Xbox is murder?

the best solution is to wait for the field to advance to a point where this would come up in the scientific community.

[Conscentia]

Children are made by their parents. Do they not have feelings?

yes becouse we have free will and AI can be controlled what to do and have no free will of its own.

Free will doesn't exist.

[Camicon]

Computer's are inanimate objects.

Sapient AI's, by definition, are people.

no if we made it it cant have fealings ,or human dision making so no.

Apparently, you don't know what sapience means.

[Ovon]

no if we made it it cant have fealings ,or human dision making so no.

>If we made it it can't have feelings

Why? Feelings are just little jolts of electricity between neurons, nothing that can't be replicated.

true but would it understand what you make it feel.

[Anachronous Rex]

>If we made it it can't have feelings

Why? Feelings are just little jolts of electricity between neurons, nothing that can't be replicated.

true but would it understand what you make it feel.

Why not? Also, half the time I don't understand what I feel. What's your point?

[Conscentia]

>If we made it it can't have feelings
Why? Feelings are just little jolts of electricity between neurons, nothing that can't be replicated.

true but would it understand what you make it feel.

Do you understand what you feel?

[Ovon]

true but would it understand what you make it feel.

Why not? Also, half the time I don't understand what I feel. What's your point?

well i understand all my fealings but is it realy (life) if you program it and say that it is not technology but alive.

[Anachronous Rex]

Why not? Also, half the time I don't understand what I feel. What's your point?

well i understand all my fealings but is it realy (life) if you program it and say that it is not technology but alive.

I don't know. Once science uncovers exactly what makes your brain tick in every detail, such that there is no more mystery left in why you do anything you do, will you no longer be "life?"