On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Derek Zahn <[email protected]> wrote:
> PM, > > We grant rights to humans because they are human, which (so far at least) > is a clear easily-verified criterion (and if there are border cases that is > what courts are for). It isn't because of "sentience" per se. > > If, as you suggest, we should give rights to some future robots, we better > have an equally precise definition that we can use to decide which ones are > deserving of rights and which are just objects. > That is precisely the danger of duality, since it's completely arbitrary and wrong if you consider the universe to be a whole. For instance in muslim countries women are considered objects, and not deserving of human rights -- even though by most western definitions they would still classify as human. Similarly Jews and Slavs were considered less than human by invading Nazi's, and so they put them into slave labour concentration camps. It's a false distinction, since really it's not some hard-solid boundary, it's movement along a continuum. Similar to how we are simply animals with slightly larger brains than most land-mammals, though smaller than for instance dolphins, our advantage against them being our opposable thumbs. It's much easier simply to acknowledge that there is a continuum, and accomodate accordingly i.e. less evolved or complex beings having lower costs and requirements than more evolved ones. Another problem with saying "all humans are equal" is that it's patently false, since among humans there is also movement along a continuum, and to deny that fact, is simply to allow those that can manipulate the system better to take advantage of it. > I don't think "sentience" (as defined) is anywhere near precise enough > for the purpose: > > "Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or be conscious, or to have > subjective experiences. " > > We don't have agreed-on definitions for any of those things that we can > apply to machines. > linguistically computers already do all of those, as do animals. Since they can feel the typing, perceive the internet, and be the subject of experience, "papy (my computer) understands C" in fact it can even convey it's experience, that's how we're communicating, thanks to it's conveyance of information. > Hopefully, people will think carefully about the consequences of > experimenting with creations that have moral issues with being turned > off. "Intelligence" doesn't by itself have any such implication in my > opinion. Even possessing a detailed self-model isn't necessarily > relevant. I'm not sure what is, though. > > > ------------------------------ > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [agi] Robots and Slavery > Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 20:50:27 -0800 > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience > > > How do we know that Derek Zahn is sentient? He may not be. What is the > test? > > Good question. > > ~PM. > > ------------------------------ > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [agi] Robots and Slavery > Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:54:03 -0700 > > PM, > > What is "sentience"? How can you tell if a robot is sentient and thus > deserving of rights? > > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/4027887-e37ac021> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/5037279-a88c7a6d> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
