NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a British headline of the future I read tomorrow in yesterday's paper from next century;

=============================
UK report says robots will have rights

By Salamander Davoudi in London
Published: December 19 2006 22:01
Last updated: December 19 2006 22:01
The next time you beat your keyboard in frustration, think of a day where it may be able to sue you for assault. Within 50 years we might even find ourselves standing next to the next generation of vacuum cleaners in the voting booth.

Far from being extracts from the extreme end of science fiction, the idea that we may one day give sentient machines the kind of rights traditionally reserved for humans is raised in a British government-commissioned report which claims to be an extensive look into the future.
=============================
-- http://www.ft.com/cms/s/5ae9b434-8f8e-11db-9ba3-0000779e2340.html

So, man-made items will have rights?

Personally, I would have thought something like this would come out of California, but maybe there is some sort of contest for being Most Loopy...

Well that makes a lot of fucking sense - for years abuse sentient beings such as cows and chiekns, yet make sure we give rights to any man-made future sentient beings? So what, sentient beings born in this century don't matter but machines made in a later century do? Where's the logic in that?

Well that makes a lot of fucking sense - for years abuse sentient beings such as cows and chiekns, yet make sure we give rights to any man-made future sentient beings? So what, sentient beings born in this century don't matter but machines made in a later century do? Where's the logic in that?

Ah, dude, cows and chickens aren't sentient.

Just a British headline of the future I read tomorrow in yesterday's paper from next century;

=============================
UK report says robots will have rights

By Salamander Davoudi in London
Published: December 19 2006 22:01
Last updated: December 19 2006 22:01
The next time you beat your keyboard in frustration, think of a day where it may be able to sue you for assault. Within 50 years we might even find ourselves standing next to the next generation of vacuum cleaners in the voting booth.

Far from being extracts from the extreme end of science fiction, the idea that we may one day give sentient machines the kind of rights traditionally reserved for humans is raised in a British government-commissioned report which claims to be an extensive look into the future.
=============================
-- http://www.ft.com/cms/s/5ae9b434-8f8e-11db-9ba3-0000779e2340.html

So, man-made items will have rights?

Personally, I would have thought something like this would come out of California, but maybe there is some sort of contest for being Most Loopy...

If robots could vote wouldn't this cause a problem? If a candidate is doing poorly he could just build himself more voters.

Ah, dude, cows and chickens aren't sentient.

That's what I thought. But after checking Wiktionary I was proved wrong. I guess the easy solution is, don't give robots feelings!

Adjective

sentient

1. Conscious or aware.
2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.

What would be the point of fully sentient robots, apart from 'just because we can'? Surely you can program them to not care about being oppressed or kicked or whatever. Is something that can be essentially brainwashed and ordered around easily deserving of rights?

Now I'm getting images of Terminator 3 and The Matrix.

That's what I thought. But after checking Wiktionary I was proved wrong. I guess the easy solution is, don't give robots feelings!

"Wiktionary?" What th' heck is that? Something else that can be edited by anyone?

But, going with it, for the moment, how is "aware" defined? And, how do cows and chickens display it?

"Wiktionary?" What th' heck is that? Something else that can be edited by anyone?

But, going with it, for the moment, how is "aware" defined? And, how do cows and chickens display it?

You're singling out aware, what about words such as consious, feeling and sensation?

Don't expect I response I'm going to bed.

What would be the point of fully sentient robots, apart from 'just because we can'? Surely you can program them to not care about being oppressed or kicked or whatever. Is something that can be essentially brainwashed and ordered around easily deserving of rights?

Now I'm getting images of Terminator 3 and The Matrix.

As a species we've done some crazy shit in the past. Purely to prove we could. I wouldn't put it past us.

As a species we've done some crazy shit in the past. Purely to prove we could. I wouldn't put it past us.
Well, if they got too uppity and started demanding rights, we could just grab them and reprogram them. Unless they were too smart for us and took over the world.

You're singling out aware, what about words such as consious, feeling and sensation?

Don't expect I response I'm going to bed.

Ah, so if one is knocked unconscious, one loses one's rights...

But, OK, define these words also.

"Wiktionary?" What th' heck is that? Something else that can be edited by anyone?

But, going with it, for the moment, how is "aware" defined? And, how do cows and chickens display it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness#Self-awareness
Self-awareness

Consciousness and self-awareness are poorly understood.

Self-awareness is a unique type of consciousness in that it is not always present, and is not sought after. Meditation or repetitive tasks, as well as some schools of thought in art theory and existentialism seek to reduce self-consciousness, and even self-awareness, at least temporarily.

The ability to self-analyze (or scrutinize) is widely believed among psychologists not to develop until mid-childhood, and arguably is present in only a few species of animals. Tests that are usually considered as representative of self-consciousness include applying a bright dot to a subjects forehead, and then placing them in front of a mirror – if they reach for their own forehead, it appears they may realize their own existence in a self-aware sense. Great apes, dolphins and elephants can pass this test. However, others criticize this test as testing only the understanding of the duplicability of image, and not especially meaningful as a way of gauging self-consciousness.

Suffering in the Zen Buddhist identifies negative results from attaching firmly to the narrow conception of a self that is an unchanging entity. For example: yesterday's self was healthy and happy but today's self is ill and lamenting the loss of health in addition to suffering with the pain of ill health.

The philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach's theory of religion was based upon projection deriving from a Hegelian sense of self consciousness.

Well, if they got too uppity and started demanding rights, we could just grab them and reprogram them. Unless they were too smart for us and took over the world.

would'nt that be pretty evil from a moral standpoint?

would'nt that be pretty evil from a moral standpoint?

Nope.

They're machines.

We made'em.

They're property.

would'nt that be pretty evil from a moral standpoint?
Hmm, probably. Although they'd be programmed to love their new state anyway. In any case, I don't see huge numbers of sentient robots being built in the future.

It wouldn't surprise me, there is that stupid movement to make Great Apes legal persons, so I'm sure that my coffee maker has a right to happiness as well (it is, after all, plainly demonstrating self-awareness by the fact that it can cut itself on and off at predetermined times).

Nope.

They're machines.

We made'em.

They're property.

you can make people aswell.

If they did meet some criteria of self-awarness/intelligence for example. What would be the difference between a flesh and blood person and one make or metal/plastic?

On the other hand, I think we'd be more justified to charge our machines with abuse rather than them charging us. :mad:

Hmm, probably. Although they'd be programmed to love their new state anyway. In any case, I don't see huge numbers of sentient robots being built in the future.

even that though. If you created an intelligent machine. and you hamstrung it to be subservient, would that not also be wrong? Imaging (for the sake of argument) that you raised a child and did the equivalent through conditioning.

Just a British headline of the future I read tomorrow in yesterday's paper from next century;

=============================
UK report says robots will have rights

By Salamander Davoudi in London
Published: December 19 2006 22:01
Last updated: December 19 2006 22:01
The next time you beat your keyboard in frustration, think of a day where it may be able to sue you for assault. Within 50 years we might even find ourselves standing next to the next generation of vacuum cleaners in the voting booth.

Far from being extracts from the extreme end of science fiction, the idea that we may one day give sentient machines the kind of rights traditionally reserved for humans is raised in a British government-commissioned report which claims to be an extensive look into the future.
=============================
-- http://www.ft.com/cms/s/5ae9b434-8f8e-11db-9ba3-0000779e2340.html

So, man-made items will have rights?

Personally, I would have thought something like this would come out of California, but maybe there is some sort of contest for being Most Loopy...
Better stop beating on my Xbox 360.

If this applies to toy dump trucks though, I will show no mercy! I always have beat on sandbox toys, and I always will. That applies to any thing suitable for sandbox play!

even that though. If you created an intelligent machine. and you hamstrung it to be subservient, would that not also be wrong? Imaging (for the sake of argument) that you raised a child and did the equivalent through conditioning.
With this I'm inclined to think that a machine designed to be subservient is not really intelligent in the sense of applicable to morality and stuff. If you make an independent and intelligent machine subservient because it annoys you, then I see how it might be immoral, but that's because it's basically taking away a person's sapience. Can't lose what you never had.

With this I'm inclined to think that a machine designed to be subservient is not really intelligent in the sense of applicable to morality and stuff. If you make an independent and intelligent machine subservient because it annoys you, then I see how it might be immoral, but that's because it's basically taking away a person's sapience. Can't lose what you never had.

what if its designed with the potential? yet is limited for some reason (to do a job or whatever)?

what if its designed with the potential? yet is limited for some reason (to do a job or whatever)?
Like I said, I don't think it matters as long as you don't allow it to realise its potential and then take that ability away.

I see no reason why computer sentience ought not be recognized. The only difference between computers and biological life is the components. We're all just very complex biological machines. Trade carbon for silicon and you've got a computer.

Like I said, I don't think it matters as long as you don't allow it to realise its potential and then take that ability away.

looking at it from a biological point of view (again for argument sake) if someone through medical science could limite the development of a foetus so that the brain did not reach its full potential but instead reached the maximum intelligence of a say a dog, to make a good servant, would that be acceptable?

curious.

I see no reason why computer sentience ought not be recognized. The only difference between computers and biological life is the components. We're all just very complex biological machines. Trade carbon for silicon and you've got a computer.

'Cept for that pesky soul...

Ah, dude, cows and chickens aren't sentient.

No, but dolphins and some apes are, so just replace them and he does actually have quite a good point. After all, not many people care about dolphins getting caught in tuna nets.

'Cept for that pesky soul...

This soul thing. Can you show me one?

So, I guess a vibrator will be able to file charges of sexual abuse in the future...

'Cept for that pesky soul...

yeah....... how do you prove if someone has a soul?
what about if you clone a baby? do you clone the soul aswell?

if you can could you give an example of what a soul is, its characteristics, etc...?

'Cept for that pesky soul...

An artifact of our intellect. A person's personality and "soul" can be radically altered by a head injury.

No, but dolphins and some apes are, so just replace them and he does actually have quite a good point. After all, not many people care about dolphins getting caught in tuna nets.

Are they?

Who said?

Bright, sure. But, sentient? They are animals.

This soul thing. Can you show me one?

Nope.

yeah....... how do you prove if someone has a soul?

Humans have them by default.

what about if you clone a baby? do you clone the soul aswell?

That's a question that is making the rounds. If the clone is borne of woman, then it would for certain. But, if grown entirely in the lab - I don't know.

However, for myself, I would prefer to err on the side of caution and say, yes, the clone has a soul.

if you can could you give an example of what a soul is, its characteristics, etc...?

It is the undying part of that which makes up a Human.

Best I can do, really.

Now, can you do better for the carrier of gravity?

Are they?

Who said?

Bright, sure. But, sentient? They are animals.

They are animals? Really, and how does this exclude them from having sentience? They can use tools, recognise themselves in a mirror, some have even learnt language, what more do you want?

And if you cant show us that humans have a "soul", how can you show us that animals dont?

Ah, dude, cows and chickens aren't sentient.

Yes they are. I'd show you all the research proving it, but I'm at uni finding stuff for an assignment and the library closes soon, so I won't right now. try google in the meantime.

They are animals? Really, and how does this exclude them from having sentience? They can use tools, recognise themselves in a mirror, some have even learnt language, what more do you want?

And if you cant show us that humans have a "soul", how can you show us that animals dont?

He's a Christian, and as such believes that humans are "special" we were created separately and that we were given a soul. Animals however were made as beasts of burden and not given intelligence or a soul.

Now, a person such as my self who happens to believe evolution is the best current model for how our world came about tends to think that there's no predefined limit as to where intelligence begins and ends. A cow can be bright enough by the standards of a cow, so can a gold fish. At some point you have to draw the line of where you care about the critter's feelings. It's a form of taxonomic discrimination, but still.

You don't flinch at tossing a lobster into a pot of boiling water, but a puppy? Never.

some have even learnt language
Not really. No one has ever releiably proved that an animal is capable of going beyond the realm of telegraphic speech, and so it is doubtful that the monkey or parrot or whatever is really aware that it is "speaking."
Rather, they become conditioned to the point that the comprehend that certain movements or noises generate desirable effects.
I know because the Internets told me so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nim_Chimpsky)

He's a Christian, and as such believes that humans are "special" we were created separately and that we were given a soul.

True enough.

Animals however were made as beasts of burden

Don't forget their use as food.

Now, a person such as my self who happens to believe evolution is the best current model for how our world came about

As do I.

My view is that evolution is God's tool for creation.

Semantics. What's your view on Gorillas then? Taught language and given a human IQ test they score fairly high, do they have souls?

Now, can you do better for the carrier of gravity?

why? i never claimed only humans feel gravity

My view is that evolution is God's tool for creation.

i'm curious Myseneum (so i can understand you better),

how does this apply to apes?

or the other neanderthal species? did they have souls or not?

curious

True enough.
.

Where does the soul reside? If you cut someone down the middle but manage to keep both sides separately alive, do they share a soul? Does it become two souls?

What if you grow organs to implant into machines, down the whole cyborg angle what % of humanity is required for a soul?

Semantics. What's your view on Gorillas then? Taught language and given a human IQ test they score fairly high, do they have souls?

Were they taught language?

Or, just complex responses to certain stimuli?

As for IQ tests, they are bunk to start with - animal or human.

i'm curious Myseneum (so i can understand you better),

how does this apply to apes?

Specify.

How does what apply? Evolution?

or the other neanderthal species? did they have souls or not?

I don' t know about them. But, I think I see where you're leading.

If Homo Sapiens has a soul and Homo Sapiens evolved from Homo Erectus, did Homo Erectus have a soul? If Homo Erectus, then how about Homo Habilis? Or, earlier? Or, what threshhold was crossed to qualify for having a soul?

The answer to these questions is simple - I don't know. I am not a theologian and I suspect that a theologian may have problems with my belief that evolution is a part of creation.

I guess I could just make a dictate. But, I'm not authorized.

However, if I have your idea correct, then it raises good questions. If I don't then it still raises good questions, just not the ones you intended.

curious

Curiousity killed the cat.
But, satisfaction brought it back.

Humanity seems to be a inappropriate measure of what should and should not be granted rights, the Problem of Other Minds makes judging anything on the basis of intelligence and spirituality neither here-nor-there.

I'd use the test where if any 'person' can request their rights, then they deserve their rights. So I'm glad my government is thinking in the right direction, I would hate for my nation to be known by history as a nation that practiced robotic apartheid.

Specify.

How does what apply? Evolution?

I don' t know about them. But, I think I see where you're leading.

If Homo Sapiens has a soul and Homo Sapiens evolved from Homo Erectus, did Homo Erectus have a soul? If Homo Erectus, then how about Homo Habilis? Or, earlier? Or, what threshhold was crossed to qualify for having a soul?

The answer to these questions is simple - I don't know. I am not a theologian and I suspect that a theologian may have problems with my belief that evolution is a part of creation.

I guess I could just make a dictate. But, I'm not authorized.

However, if I have your idea correct, then it raises good questions. If I don't then it still raises good questions, just not the ones you intended.
Curiousity killed the cat.
But, satisfaction brought it back.

with apes i was refering to a soul.
regarding your other answers, fair enough. I actually like how you answered and the fact that you don't see everything in black and white (which as you know a few christians on this forum do).

something else. for the sake of argument and boredom ;)
is the soul transferable?
By this i mean if you could transfer you consciousness from a human into an artificial brain, would theis 'person' still have a soul, or is the human body and intrinsic part of it all?

If it can transfer, a person in the machine still has his soul. What happens if to such people come together and share they're coding (for lack of a better term) to create a mixture of them (a child). Would it have a soul?

(wow, don't know where this thought has come from)

Where does the soul reside? If you cut someone down the middle but manage to keep both sides separately alive, do they share a soul? Does it become two souls?

What if you grow organs to implant into machines, down the whole cyborg angle what % of humanity is required for a soul?

This is something I've been pondering for quite a while.

To take it to an extreme, if one had a complete and perfect brain transplant to a robotic body does the soul go, too? If so, then is the sol located in the brain?

Or, to go even further, let's assume a device like that Pohl wrote about in his Gateway series. Assume that the essence of a person can be distilled down to pure data and that this data can be stored on some media. This data can then be read by - for lack of a better term - a computer which is powerful enough to provide a virtual world for the data to interact with, perhaps even with "meat" humans in the real world.

Do the virtual essences retain their souls? Or, are they just fancy programs, the original bodies having died and the souls gone to the afterlife?

Interesting questions and fun to ponder.

Humanity seems to be a inappropriate measure of what should and should not be granted rights, the Problem of Other Minds makes judging anything on the basis of intelligence and spirituality neither here-nor-there.

I'd use the test where if any 'person' can request their rights, then they deserve their rights. So I'm glad my government is thinking in the right direction, I would hate for my nation to be known by history as a nation that practiced robotic apartheid.

what about a mute with no limbs?

with apes i was refering to a soul.

I would have to say, no.

regarding your other answers, fair enough. I actually like how you answered and the fact that you don't see everything in black and white (which as you know a few christians on this forum do).

Some things can be seen in black or white, some are best viewed in color. The trick comes in knowing what TV to use.

something else. for the sake of argument and boredom ;)
is the soul transferable?
By this i mean if you could transfer you consciousness from a human into an artificial brain, would theis 'person' still have a soul, or is the human body and intrinsic part of it all?

If it can transfer, a person in the machine still has his soul. What happens if to such people come together and share they're coding (for lack of a better term) to create a mixture of them (a child). Would it have a soul?

(wow, don't know where this thought has come from)

I think we were both on the same wavelength, as my post #48 shows...

What about pillows? Pillows have been abused and beaten for years and years! Why don't we make a law for punching bag rights! Anything about pin cushions? Oh I have an idea- let's make a law that denies anyone the right to be physically and mentally abusive to anything nonliving and manmade! Wouldn't that just make this a perfect world?