First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply Does a sentient robot deserve rights?
33345 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Socal
Offline
Posted 6/11/16

electricdoomfire wrote:


pandrasb wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

" it's inorganic, it can't reproduce like we do, have feelings, or a consciousness."

Just because something is inorganic doesn't mean it can't have feelings or a consciousness or what resembles one.


yes it does, resembling one is not true life. It can't grow or reproduce, it's just a thing.

Even if you created AI it would only be an imitation, not true life.


if a machine feels, it is because it was programmed that way. The feelings in question are therefore not genuine because they were given to the machine. The machine didn't choose to react emotionally towards something. In moist cases, a machine wouldn't respond with emotion, it would be like a Vulcan (no emotion). That is because machines don't operate by emotion, but by logic and reason. And if a machine has consciousness, does that mean it acknowledges it is alive or that life is important? Is living irrelevant to a machine? Is death a confusing subject? Because of questions such as these, a machine will never be like a human and will not develop feelings and consciousness similar to a human





agreed
20719 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 6/11/16

electricdoomfire wrote:


pandrasb wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

" it's inorganic, it can't reproduce like we do, have feelings, or a consciousness."

Just because something is inorganic doesn't mean it can't have feelings or a consciousness or what resembles one.


yes it does, resembling one is not true life. It can't grow or reproduce, it's just a thing.

Even if you created AI it would only be an imitation, not true life.


if a machine feels, it is because it was programmed that way. The feelings in question are therefore not genuine because they were given to the machine. The machine didn't choose to react emotionally towards something. In moist cases, a machine wouldn't respond with emotion, it would be like a Vulcan (no emotion). That is because machines don't operate by emotion, but by logic and reason. And if a machine has consciousness, does that mean it acknowledges it is alive or that life is important? Is living irrelevant to a machine? Is death a confusing subject? Because of questions such as these, a machine will never be like a human and will not develop feelings and consciousness similar to a human



"if a machine feels, it is because it was programmed that way. The feelings in question are therefore not genuine because they were given to the machine. "

Humans feel because we are programmed to feel that way by nature all we are really is just organic computers.
Consciousness and feelings are all part of our brains design and functions of the brain.

If you can replicate the brain you can replicate those functions.

The though part would be replicating it and that's the only problem but if Nature can create us and our brain which allows us to have consciousness and feel it is in the realm of possibility that we can do the same.

20719 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 6/11/16 , edited 6/11/16

pandrasb wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


pandrasb wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

" it's inorganic, it can't reproduce like we do, have feelings, or a consciousness."

Just because something is inorganic doesn't mean it can't have feelings or a consciousness or what resembles one.


yes it does, resembling one is not true life. It can't grow or reproduce, it's just a thing.

Even if you created AI it would only be an imitation, not true life.


if a machine feels, it is because it was programmed that way. The feelings in question are therefore not genuine because they were given to the machine. The machine didn't choose to react emotionally towards something. In moist cases, a machine wouldn't respond with emotion, it would be like a Vulcan (no emotion). That is because machines don't operate by emotion, but by logic and reason. And if a machine has consciousness, does that mean it acknowledges it is alive or that life is important? Is living irrelevant to a machine? Is death a confusing subject? Because of questions such as these, a machine will never be like a human and will not develop feelings and consciousness similar to a human





agreed


humans must not have conciousness after all our feelings and conciousness are a function of our brain which is a neural network which can be recreated with the knowledge and means to do so.

If nature can create and program a creature to feel and be conscious its in the realm of possibilities for a human to do so.
if we can't do so it just goes to show how pathetic we are and how little we understand.

Humans are by no means special.

xxJing 
37179 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Duckburg
Online
Posted 6/11/16 , edited 6/14/16
The only purpose to create a simulation of a human is to be able to do experiments on it to further the prosperity of humanity. Rights exist as a means for society to function, they ensure that people are on equal ground and promote human progress. Giving rights to a simulation defeats the purpose of creating it in the first place.

So no, robots do not deserve rights because having them basically makes them meaningless.
1227 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / ya mum's house
Offline
Posted 6/11/16

Ryulightorb wrote:


pandrasb wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


pandrasb wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

" it's inorganic, it can't reproduce like we do, have feelings, or a consciousness."

Just because something is inorganic doesn't mean it can't have feelings or a consciousness or what resembles one.


yes it does, resembling one is not true life. It can't grow or reproduce, it's just a thing.

Even if you created AI it would only be an imitation, not true life.


if a machine feels, it is because it was programmed that way. The feelings in question are therefore not genuine because they were given to the machine. The machine didn't choose to react emotionally towards something. In moist cases, a machine wouldn't respond with emotion, it would be like a Vulcan (no emotion). That is because machines don't operate by emotion, but by logic and reason. And if a machine has consciousness, does that mean it acknowledges it is alive or that life is important? Is living irrelevant to a machine? Is death a confusing subject? Because of questions such as these, a machine will never be like a human and will not develop feelings and consciousness similar to a human





agreed


humans must not have conciousness after all our feelings and conciousness are a function of our brain which is a neural network which can be recreated with the knowledge and means to do so.

If nature can create and program a creature to feel and be conscious its in the realm of possibilities for a human to do so.
if we can't do so it just goes to show how pathetic we are and how little we understand.

Humans are by no means special.



I'm not programmed by nature. That implies that humans live without choice. Humans live by free choice. In nature, plants and animals only care about survival. They, in nature, only live to survive. Humans do the same, but In a greater variety. To say that humans aren't special diminishes the human experience. Humans are the top of the evolutionary scale for a reason. That is due to our cognitive processes and the ability to reason and map out our own life. Humans are more than just a brain that operates a body. If someone is in a coma and the brain is still active but the body isn't, is that person truly alive whilst being immobile and unable to live via choice and decision. And if feeling and consciousness can be recreated, why can't nerve cells regenerate like blood cells. And if someone has amnesia, is it possible to completely replicate their experience to make them the same person as before. And if experience can constantly be remade, then why is Alzheimer's even an issue. Loss of memory is serious and human emotions are unique. Compare the idea of emotional expression with humans compared to animals. Both may have the ability to show emotion, but there is a limit as far as other animals are concerned. Humans are simply more articulate and feasible in their mental processes to actively show feeling. Humans can only be bred and controlled for so far. There is always that chance that they will upset the prediction and choose for themselves. Because of this, humans are only predictable to an extent. Saying that nature regulates humans and their brain processes so that they feel and emulate certain ways diminishes humans as a whole. If you believe humans aren't special, that is because you yourself don't care to give them any credit. Humans are just statistics, another group in an evolutionary pedigree so you might think. I prefer to think that I'm special because I choose to be. No one person is exactly like me in every way just like nobody is exactly like you. that makes you special. Your experience is entirely your own and mine is entirely my own. You can't recreate a life lived from scratch. If that were the case, wouldn't we have another martin luther king, gandi, kurt cobain or Jimi Hendrix. You can say there were people that came close, but they still couldn't match the original
20719 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 6/11/16

electricdoomfire wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:


pandrasb wrote:


electricdoomfire wrote:


pandrasb wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

" it's inorganic, it can't reproduce like we do, have feelings, or a consciousness."

Just because something is inorganic doesn't mean it can't have feelings or a consciousness or what resembles one.


yes it does, resembling one is not true life. It can't grow or reproduce, it's just a thing.

Even if you created AI it would only be an imitation, not true life.


if a machine feels, it is because it was programmed that way. The feelings in question are therefore not genuine because they were given to the machine. The machine didn't choose to react emotionally towards something. In moist cases, a machine wouldn't respond with emotion, it would be like a Vulcan (no emotion). That is because machines don't operate by emotion, but by logic and reason. And if a machine has consciousness, does that mean it acknowledges it is alive or that life is important? Is living irrelevant to a machine? Is death a confusing subject? Because of questions such as these, a machine will never be like a human and will not develop feelings and consciousness similar to a human





agreed


humans must not have conciousness after all our feelings and conciousness are a function of our brain which is a neural network which can be recreated with the knowledge and means to do so.

If nature can create and program a creature to feel and be conscious its in the realm of possibilities for a human to do so.
if we can't do so it just goes to show how pathetic we are and how little we understand.

Humans are by no means special.



I'm not programmed by nature. That implies that humans live without choice. Humans live by free choice. In nature, plants and animals only care about survival. They, in nature, only live to survive. Humans do the same, but In a greater variety. To say that humans aren't special diminishes the human experience. Humans are the top of the evolutionary scale for a reason. That is due to our cognitive processes and the ability to reason and map out our own life. Humans are more than just a brain that operates a body. If someone is in a coma and the brain is still active but the body isn't, is that person truly alive whilst being immobile and unable to live via choice and decision. And if feeling and consciousness can be recreated, why can't nerve cells regenerate like blood cells. And if someone has amnesia, is it possible to completely replicate their experience to make them the same person as before. And if experience can constantly be remade, then why is Alzheimer's even an issue. Loss of memory is serious and human emotions are unique. Compare the idea of emotional expression with humans compared to animals. Both may have the ability to show emotion, but there is a limit as far as other animals are concerned. Humans are simply more articulate and feasible in their mental processes to actively show feeling. Humans can only be bred and controlled for so far. There is always that chance that they will upset the prediction and choose for themselves. Because of this, humans are only predictable to an extent. Saying that nature regulates humans and their brain processes so that they feel and emulate certain ways diminishes humans as a whole. If you believe humans aren't special, that is because you yourself don't care to give them any credit. Humans are just statistics, another group in an evolutionary pedigree so you might think. I prefer to think that I'm special because I choose to be. No one person is exactly like me in every way just like nobody is exactly like you. that makes you special. Your experience is entirely your own and mine is entirely my own. You can't recreate a life lived from scratch. If that were the case, wouldn't we have another martin luther king, gandi, kurt cobain or Jimi Hendrix. You can say there were people that came close, but they still couldn't match the original


Free will to a degree is an illusion atleast it's suspected to be but scientific theories aside.
All that we are can be recreated and improved upon and we can be recreated once we have full understanding of the human brain and body.
My free will is that of decisions made sub consciously by my brain reacting to the world around it.

vhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Neuroscience in general has had results to make the claim that free will is an illusion look more solid

Whether it is an illusion or not aside it's still a function of the brain.


20719 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 6/11/16

xxJing wrote:

The only purpose to create a simulation of a human is to be able to do experiments on it to further the prosperity of humanity. Rights exist as a means for society to function, they ensure that people are on equal ground and promote human progress. Giving rights to a simulation defeats the purpose of creating it in the first place.

So no, robots do not deserve rights because having them basically makes them meaningless.


So if we create a clone they should have no rights?
That is basically nearly the same thing although different means you are creating a being that can think and feel.

When does the simulation stop being treated as a simulation and start being treated as life.

IF we are going on the it was created artificially therefore it can't ever be anything but a simulation line of thought we could come out and say a clone or a human made from the ground up (which is impossible right now but there are a few firms out there trying to do this) does not deserve rights.
4067 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / United states
Offline
Posted 6/11/16
That's a difficult question, and one we'll probably have to start defining in the next few decades.
45489 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 6/12/16 , edited 6/12/16

Hail_King_Kakao wrote:

I hope not, I'm still banking on being able to avoid dying alone by being enslaved by a kawaii AI girl.


Fixed that for you.
20719 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 6/12/16

TheManWithNoPlan wrote:

That's a difficult question, and one we'll probably have to start defining in the next few decades.


your name shows up as "ThemanwithnoP"

...i just assumed your name was the man with no penis
4067 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / United states
Offline
Posted 6/12/16

Ryulightorb wrote:


TheManWithNoPlan wrote:

That's a difficult question, and one we'll probably have to start defining in the next few decades.


your name shows up as "ThemanwithnoP"

...i just assumed your name was the man with no penis


Hah, I laughed at that more than I should've. Didn't know the last three characters would be cut off until I made the account.
33345 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Socal
Offline
Posted 6/12/16 , edited 6/12/16

Ryulightorb wrote:

humans must not have conciousness after all our feelings and conciousness are a function of our brain which is a neural network which can be recreated with the knowledge and means to do so.

If nature can create and program a creature to feel and be conscious its in the realm of possibilities for a human to do so.
if we can't do so it just goes to show how pathetic we are and how little we understand.

Humans are by no means special.



well idk bout you but I think I'm pretty special lol (I'm jk)

if we can't do so it just goes to show how pathetic we are and how little we understand.

The brain is a complex cookie


you make it sound easy
20719 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 6/12/16

pandrasb wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

humans must not have conciousness after all our feelings and conciousness are a function of our brain which is a neural network which can be recreated with the knowledge and means to do so.

If nature can create and program a creature to feel and be conscious its in the realm of possibilities for a human to do so.
if we can't do so it just goes to show how pathetic we are and how little we understand.

Humans are by no means special.



well idk bout you but I think I'm pretty special lol (I'm jk)

if we can't do so it just goes to show how pathetic we are and how little we understand.

The brain is a complex cookie


you make it sound easy


well i am simplifying
12636 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Marshall, Michigan
Offline
Posted 6/12/16 , edited 6/12/16

Ryulightorb wrote:


jtjumper wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

I have been playing way to much fallout 4 but the game made me think what do you think about this topic.

I feel mixed because one it's a creation a product we made however one could say the same about children.

Do you think it's ethically wrong to deny said robots/androids rights because they were programmed and created by human hands?

I kind of do and don't wish that we get to this point in my lifetime it would be amazing to witness and see how humans react.


http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-953007/should-powerful-enough-ais-be-given-rights#53917853


good minds think alike it seems


I'll copy part a my question here if that's ok with you.


jtjumper wrote:

Should powerful enough AIs be given rights?
Questions to consider:
If humanlike AIs are given equal rights, why create them?
Is equal capability enough to make AIs worthy of equal rights?
Many modern arguments against human slavery center around human dignity or maybe just the idea that we don't want to ever become slaves. On the question of robot "slaves," does applying human dignity to machines dilute human dignity itself? Are robots things or beings? For whichever choice, why?
Perhaps regulating against mistreating robots that have a sense of suffering could the solution.


Other salient questions: Why do we give other humans rights?
If it's because they deserve it, do they deserve it because they're human or because they're intelligent?
If it's because they're intelligent, should we give fewer rights to less intelligent people?
Maybe we give rights to other humans so they don't fight with us. Is that a good reason to give AIs rights?
What about AIs that are smarter than us?
Furthermore, why even create AIs that aren't subservient to us? Also, if they are subservient to us, could they still have some rights?
33510 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 6/12/16
No. The moment you entered the name of a non-organic being you answered your own question ffs
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.