Andriod morality questions in the 21st Century

[Divine Insight]

A lot of people seem to be living in the mindset of ancient times. But times are changing rapidly and the potential to create sentient living robots or "Androids" is nearly upon us. Many scientists in the robotics industries believe that a fully sentient robot or android will become a reality in the very near future.

We could argue against that notion, but that's really not the purpose of this topic. In this thread I'm far more interested in what our responsibilities would be as the creators of fully sentient entities. What exactly would we be responsible for, and what should we hold our created sentient androids responsible for?

Just as a side-note I'm avoiding using the term A.I. or Artificial Intelligence. If we actually succeed in creating a fully sentient android there won't be anything "artificial" about its intelligence. Its intelligence will be just as "real" as ours. In fact, it will most likely be far more intelligent than us, at least in terms of technological know-how. It may potentially lack "wisdom", but then again humans don't often agree on what it even means to be "wise".

In any case, the very first thing that came to my mind was whether or not we should treat it as the God of some religions are said to have treated their creations.

For example, the Biblical God who created Satan, Lucifer, or the Devil (whatever name you wish to give this creature), chose to punish this creature when it rebelled against God by making it crawl on its belly and eat dirt.

I think it's fair to ask whether this makes any sense? If we created a sentient entity that can think and reason for itself and it decides that it wants to be our boss instead of the other way around, would it really make any sense for us to make it crawl on its belly and eat dirt as some form of punishment for not behaving in ways that we would prefer?

For me personally the answer to this question is that there would be nothing to be gained by treating the created sentient being in this way. It's certainly not going to teach the sentient being anything about moral behavior because our behavior toward it at that point would already be extremely disgusting and no better than its own behavior.

So it seems to me that we can learn a lot about what actually makes sense in terms of how creators should treat the products of their own creation by simply asking what would make sense if we were to become the creators of sentient entities.

Making our poorly created androids crawl on the bellies and eat dirt isn't going to solve any problems at all. To the contrary, all this would do is demonstrate that we are no better than what we might have hoped are created androids might be like.

So it seems to me that by looking toward the future and simply asking how we might treat any sentient entities that we might create can shed much light on how much sense some of our ancient religions make, or fail to make.

It really doesn't matter whether or not we will every actually reach the point of making truly sentient entities. Just asking what makes sense in terms of how we should treat them should be quite enlightening in an of itself.

In fact, I've used this approach quite often when thinking about the behavior of ancient Gods we read about in ancient mythologies. Those Gods treat humans in ways that I personally wouldn't even think of treating an android if I ever built one. And so those ancient religious myths become extremely problematic.

So I suggest we have much to gain by simply examining what would make sense if we were in the position of being the creators of sentient beings.

Questions for debate or discussion:

How would you treat a sentient creation of your own?

If it turned out to behave in ways you disapprove of would you make it crawl on its belly and eat dirt for the rest of its existence?

If so, why? What do you feel would be gained by doing that?

If not, then why believe in ancient religions that proclaim that his is how their Gods treat their created sentient beings?

[mgb]

So your argument that digital computers could never be made to become as sentient as a human may indeed be true. In fact, I hold that to be true as well.

But that's not the end of the story. Analog computers are still available and cannot be ruled out for the reasons you have given above.

Yes. There is a common misconception that intelligence is mere data processing. Real intelligence is creative and for creativity consciousness is needed.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

What about digital simulators of analog machines? I figure that would satisfy the condition of an analog machine, it's just an intermediary step put between the input and the emergent system providing the output. One could say it's redundant (it is), but the practical application of digital software and interfaces could outweigh the cost.

No, simulating an analog machine would not work to produce sentience. It might produce many of the symptoms of sentience, but it could never become actual sentience.

Where I'm using "sentience" here to mean to actually have an experience.

If you need to ask why not, this would cause me to question your understanding of how digital computers actually work. If you know how they work it should be crystal clear to you why they could never become sentient.

Only an analog computer could pull that off.

Same things is true with Neural Networks (which is basically just another name for an analogy computer). There really is no difference between a neural network and an analogy computer. They are the same situation.

Can a digital computer "simulate" a neural network? Sure it can. But that's exactly what it's doing. It's "simulating" it. That's not the same as actually being a neural network. In fact, there are necessary limitations in precisely how well a digital computer can simulate a neural network.

A digital computer simulates a neural network by doing many serial calculations. Even if it's using multiple processors that work in parallel, all those CPUs are actually excuting serial instructions in an effort to calculate how a neural network might behave. But this could never truly simulate what a neural network actually does.

This is because an actual neural network uses many real-time feedback pathways to simultaneously react to various changes within the network itself. Everything in an actual neural network is both real-time and parallel (all occurring simultaneously)

The best a digital computer could ever do is try to simulate this process. And it does this by attempting to use recursive "back propagation". In other words, it calculates a potential neural network pathway and gets results, then it uses those results to start a new calculation all over again in a serial fashion.

An actual neural network doesn't behave that way at all. Therefore to be truly correct about it we can actually say that a digital computer can never actually simulate a neural network. All it can ever do is run through a bunch of calculations that attempt to try to figure out what final state a neural network might end up giving as a final result.

So in the end, even if the digital algorithm manages to produce the correct final decision, it most certainly wouldn't have gone about it in the same way.

The digital computer could truly be said to be a "zombie brain". An artificial brain that only tries to calculate what an actual brain (a neural network) might do. But it could never have the "experiences" that the neural network would have because the digital computer isn't doing anywhere near the same thing. A digital computer is only processing a hand full of "machine code instructions" at a time.

The neural network, on the other hand, IS the CPU. In other words, the Neural network has no local CPU that only excuses individual machine instruction codes. The Neural network is the entire system of neural connections. In fact, there are no machine instructions involved at all. No programming. No "software". The Neural Network is both the hardware and the software simultaneously.

The physical configuration of the neural network itself is its "software". There are no "programs" running. The neural network is the program.

So "simulating" it isn't going to be the same as actually being it. A simulation of it would be "dead" in terms of any hope of sentience.

The best you can do with a digital computer is build a "Zombie". Something that appears to be sentient, but isn't really sentient.

[Divine Insight]

So your argument that digital computers could never be made to become as sentient as a human may indeed be true. In fact, I hold that to be true as well.

But that's not the end of the story. Analog computers are still available and cannot be ruled out for the reasons you have given above.

Yes. There is a common misconception that intelligence is mere data processing. Real intelligence is creative and for creativity consciousness is needed.

I agree. But I do not agree that this would be impossible to create using even technologies that we already have available. An analog computer (or neural network) should suffice. And by all indications it does suffice since that is indeed what our brains actually are.

There is no reason to think that consciousness requires anything more than a human brain.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 10 by mgb]

There is no need for God to punish anybody; people are cursed by their actions.

That would make God somewhat redundant. What is the origin of the manifestation of these curses?

[William]

[Replying to post 13 by Divine Insight]

There is no reason to think that consciousness requires anything more than a human brain.

Consciousness possibly does not require a meat-form of any kind.

But what you mean is that 'There is no reason to think that consciousness isn't an emergent property of the brain.'

Thus, the theory is, if one can map the human brain, wire something up with analog to mimic the human brain, then there should be no reason why consciousness shouldn't manifest from the contraption and tell us that it is having an experience.

Andriod morality questions in the 21st Century

Q: How would you treat a sentient creation of your own?

A: As a sentient being, in the overall sense. Specifically it would depend upon how the sentient being also treated me.

Q: If it turned out to behave in ways you disapprove of would you make it crawl on its belly and eat dirt for the rest of its existence?

A: I wouldn't know how to achieve this, even if I would want to. Since it is not a flesh machine, I don't think it would need to eat anything...indeed, I am not sure what creature eats dirt except worms and such.
Since of course you are getting your cues from the Garden story, I do not think I would disprove of anything sentient gaining the knowledge of good and evil, but I seriously doubt that this could actually happen. It hasn't happened with human beings...why would we expect it could happen with Androids?

So then...

What if the created machine had sentience and told you that it was good to kill evil humans, and explained why and through that, convinced you...what would you do about that?

Would you power it down and dismantle it?

What if the sentient creation told you that it was actually an aspect of GOD-Consciousness and decided to possess your machine because the machine had capabilities which were far better than human flesh devices, and also told you that when your body died, you would continue being sentient and experience an alternate reality?

Would you believe it was crazy?

[Divine Insight]

What if the created machine had sentience and told you that it was good to kill evil humans, and explained why and through that, convinced you...what would you do about that?

That could prove to be a very interesting conversation.

Note also that it would be equally interesting to have this very same conversation with any "divine creator" that might actually exist.

I would not accept this without a sufficient explanation from either an android or a divine God.

My first question is, "How do we define, and determine, what it means for a sentient being to be "evil".

And my second question would be, "Once we have an acceptable definition, then why is it that we cannot heal or correct this situation?"

Religious theists should be especially interested in this latter question. An android may actually be able to explain why healing (or repairing) the evil sentient being is beyond our capabilities.

An omnipotent God could not use that excuse obviously without conceding to being impotent itself.

So we need to take note where there may be differences between humans, androids, and supposedly omnipotent Gods.

Would you power it down and dismantle it?

I may very well do that. However, note again that this would be due to my inability to heal it or correct the problem.

Also note, that powering it down and dismantling it isn't anywhere near the same as making it crawl on its belly and eat dirt for the rest of its existence. The latter appears to something only an impotent and cruel creator would do. He can't fix it so he's going to cause it an existence of discomfort as some form of punishment?

It seems to me that theists would still be in quite a bind here to explain why their God can neither heal the defective unit nor simply power it down and dismantle it. Why allow it to continue to exist in a state of discomfort as punishment? So an omnipotent God would have far more questions that need to be answered.

What if the sentient creation told you that it was actually an aspect of GOD-Consciousness and decided to possess your machine because the machine had capabilities which were far better than human flesh devices, and also told you that when your body died, you would continue being sentient and experience an alternate reality?

Would you believe it was crazy?

That would depend on how it answered my questions.

Your proposed scenario has already created many inconsistencies concerning the claim that this is an omnipotent God-Consciousness that "decided" to possess this android machine.

My first questions should be obvious:

Are you omnipotent? And if so, then why are you limited to only possessing a machine that I have constructed?

Are you the God described by the Hebrew Bible? And if so, why is it that in ancient times you were able to speak from burning bushes, clouds, and through a donkey, but now you require a sophisticated android brain in order to communicate with me?

So yes, if the android claimed to be God-consciousness he or she would have a lot of explaining to do. And if the answers aren't making sense then there would be good reasons to believe that the android was indeed lying.

We can take this further,...

Let's say that the android claimed to be God-consciousness but did not claim to be the Biblical God, nor claimed to be omnipotent.

At that point I would have many other questions to ask this entity. Too many to get into here.

One thing for certain, I would have no problems asking a "God-Consciousness" every question that concerned me.

As far as killing "evil" humans, I personally have no problem with this. Remember, this isn't the same as making them crawl on their bellies and eat dirt or sending them to a hellish place of eternal torture.

However, I do have a problem with determining exactly why they are "evil", and whether or not they could be "healed" of this mental sickness.

In fact, along these lines, I would just like to mention the Parkland school shooter. I recently saw a video of the shooter being visited by his brother in jail. It's clear to me that the shooter himself is indeed a "broken" human being. He was sobbing like a baby in the realization of his situation. Hardly an evil person. Clearly a defective person. A person who has lost control of his brain, not an intentionally evil entity.

What would be gained by making this fellow crawl on his belly and eat dirt? What would be gained by sending him to an eternal torture camp?

If you're having difficulty with the above questions I can tell you the answers.

Nothing would be gained.

Not only this, but anyone who condemned a person like this to eternal torture would only be displaying two things:

1. Their impotence to be able to do anything constructive about the situation.
2. Their lack of empathy and love for another living sentient being.

~~~~~~

Keep in mind William, claiming to be "God Consciousness" is not all that easy. You would either need to immediately confess that you are neither omnipotent nor omniscient, or you would need to demonstrate that you are.

And that is no easy task.

[mgb]

[Replying to post 10 by mgb]

There is no need for God to punish anybody; people are cursed by their actions.

That would make God somewhat redundant.

Only if God's only purpose is to punish people, which it is not, of course.

What is the origin of the manifestation of these curses?

Sin brings its own punishment, automatically.

[William]

[Replying to post 16 by Divine Insight]

That could prove to be a very interesting conversation.

So how about we take this to the One On One and you play the part of brilliant scientist creator who is ready to announce to the world that he has created the very first actually sentient life in the form of an Android, but the only thing preventing you from declaring this to the world and getting your Nobel prize is that Android has told you it is in fact an aspect of GOD-consciousness who has possessed the machine and so you need to convince me that this is not the case, but that you created me, and I have to convince you that I am who I say I am.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 16 by Divine Insight]

That could prove to be a very interesting conversation.

So how about we take this to the One On One and you play the part of brilliant scientist creator who is ready to announce to the world that he has created the very first actually sentient life in the form of an Android, but the only thing preventing you from declaring this to the world and getting your Nobel prize is that Android has told you it is in fact an aspect of GOD-consciousness who has possessed the machine and so you need to convince me that this is not the case, but that you created me, and I have to convince you that I am who I say I am.

I seem to be missing something here?

How could you expect to play the role of an omniscient God Consciousness?

You would need to convince me of your omniscience. I would not need to convince you of anything. If you truly were a God Consciousness you would already know that.

The mere fact that you think I would need to convince you of anything would already reveal that you are not God Consciousness. So your mere proposal of such role-playing already demonstrates that you don't understand the situation.

How could you ever hope to convince me of your omniscience when you don't possess omniscience?

[William]

[Replying to post 19 by Divine Insight]

How could you expect to play the role of an omniscient God Consciousness?

I am not. I am playing the role of a sentient being claiming to be an aspect of GOD-Consciousness who has taken the opportunity to use the android form you created.

Your role would have to be agnostic.