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?

[Divine Insight]

The idea of an informal one on one where the roles of inventor and Android sentient interact is just a way in teasing out the ideas and seeing where these might go.

The only problem with this is that the ideas that you are proposing have already been inconsistent and self-contradictory and apparently continue to be so based on what you are about to say in the rest of your quotes below:

The idea is that the scientist inventor assumed one thing only to be confronted by another, and how that might affect the scientist.

This is already an error on your part because you are assuming what you think the scientist might be thinking when in fact you aren't in a position to make that assumption.

I (William the Human) understand my individuate self as a particle of GOD-Consciousness in human form, and argue from that position consistently on the board.

But that wasn't your original proposal. You're original proposal was that a GOD-Consciousness intentionally took possession of this android brain.

I actually have no problem with the Eastern mystical view of pantheism and that all humans are a facet of an imagined consciousness field. I even hold that if this is indeed the case, then my android should indeed be precisely the same as a human. In other words, if we humans are a facet of a larger consciousness field, then I see n no reason why the android wouldn't amount to the same end result.

However, the problem with this is that the android would then be just as cluesless about this as a human would be. The only way the android could come up with this idea is if had been exposed to the idea previously, or had been engaged in creative philosophical speculations. I would like to think that if I had raised and educated my android it would be fully aware of the speculative nature of such philosophies.

The idea of being within an Android form and not being 'born' and retaining memory of a prior experience would be an interesting concept to explore in this manner.

Again, you are making incorrect assumptions about how I would go about building an android. I woiuldn't just turn-on the android and expect it to already be well-educated and expect it to instantly carry on a conversations with me. This is why I say that you are thinking in terms of sci-fi movie androids.

My android would indeed need to be taught from scratch from the very beginning just like a human baby.

Therefore if it came up with any ideas about being part of a speculated GOD-Consciousness I could simply ask it where it got that idea from. It would then either point to the source where it was first introduced to the idea, or it would explain that it has been speculating philosophically on its own and came up with the idea originally.

If the former, I would then ask it why it beliefs the original source of the claim.

If the latter, it should then automatically understand that this is just philosophical speculation.

So I'm already well on-top of any conversations concerning this topic should it come up with an android.

However, it is your invention so if you want to say from your perspective that the Android was indeed 'born' as in 'had a beginning point in its experience as the android' we can run with that, as I am very confident I can explain how I got the information as to having existed in a prior reality.

But know you are assuming that my android would be making claims about having existed in a prior reality. There are many problems with this. First off, is there any way that this android can verify those experiences and know for certain that they aren't a figment of it's own imagination? Clearly not. So the android would be in the same position as a human being unable to verify any of its perceived experiences to anyone beyond itself and its own perceived experiences.

And this is why I say that you haven't gained anything by pretending to be an android. You may as well just make your claims as (William the Human).

Role-playing an android wouldn't help your case.

The idea of one on one is to allow for you and I to interact through these roles without others being able to post in the thread. This is an interaction between the scientist and what he assumed to be his creation.

So just explain that you are starting the thread for that purpose and ask that no one else post to it. Most people will respect that if you make that clear at the top of the thread. You and I have been exchanging posts on this idea in this thread and no one has interrupted us yet.

I would rather the thread be started by both of us through agreement as to the specifics etc...

In other words, you basically want and official Head-to-Head exchange.

One problem there is that the Head-to-Head is reserved for debates. This wouldn't be a debate.

But let's exam the specifics you would like to have:

As an example, the background story. Obviously your character is a genius, and most likely at least middle aged.

I don't see why I would need to play the role of a middle-aged genius. Where did I ever claim that I was either of those things? In fact, I'm quite sure that I never claimed that I would be able to build this android on my own. I would need quite an army of technologists working with me on this to accomplish this feat.

Obviously your character could not have achieved what he did without funding so you may want to make your character someone born into riches where money is no object - perhaps an inheritance. Or perhaps you are funded by a corporation, which itself would bring in complications because you have others to which you have to report to and thus know practically everything you are doing - or at least everything that you cannot hide from them. At that rate it would be best to go with the genius scientist inventor who has an endless supply of money, and very few people know about his invention.

You are already making demands on the creator of this android that I would never agree to. I also don't see where the scientists who built this android would have much to do with dealing with a claim that android itself might make.

Also as background, your motivation for wanting to create a sentient being through this particular method.

That's a quite interesting topic in and of itself. Because in TRUTH I do not want to create a sentient life form. And I have never said that I would want to create one. I simply suggested that it would be possible.

So once again you are jumping to conclusions that wouldn't even apply to me.

In fact, if I ever headed up a group of scientists and technologists to build this android one of my foremost actions would be to spend quite a bit of focus in the beginning on MISSION STATEMENTS, and clarifying precisely why we are setting out to build this sentient being, and how we intend to treat it should we succeed.

That original clarification would need to be done quite clearly before I would even consider heading up the group.

And our purpose to create it had better be nothing short of simply seeing whether or not we could actually do this.

So when it came time later to answer any questions from the android the answer would already be crystal clear. We created the android just to see if it's possible. We would even take full responsibility for having created the android, and have no expectations that it should behave as we might have hoped.

Finally, if the android proved to be dangerous and a threat to us, then of course we would do everything in our power to "shut it down". Not as any form of punishment of vengeance, but simply to protect ourselves from it.

So you are extremely belated in those kind of questions. I wouldn't even start a project to build a sentient life-form without having addressed all of those questions ahead of time.

I might also add that humans should consider these very same types of questions before they create sentient babies.

The other reason for One on One is because it won't be a case of you getting to ask all the questions. All in all neater than an open thread.

But why should anyone (including myself) be the least bit interested in any questions you might have about the creators of the androd?

Your original proposal was to play the role the android so that you could claim to be GOD-Consciousness that intentionally possessed the android.

You have since changed that proposal to make your claim now that the android is nothing more than a "particle" of GOD-Consciousness as in the view of Pantheism.

And NOW, you want to change things even more to make it all about the android asking its creators why they created it.

The android might actually ask those questions without any need to be "GOD-Consciousness". After all, I've known human children who have asked their parents why they bought them into this cruel world. And I'm willing to bet that most parents don't even have a good answer for that other than it just seems like this is what humans do naturally.

A lot of young people grew up to believe that their purpose in life was to marry and start a family. In fact, many religions claim that their God has instructed people to multiply.

At least with my android I had a good excuse for building it. I just wanted to see if we could do it. That may not be a very good reason, but at least it would be an honest reason.

So many of your questions should have already been answered in this post alone.

All that would be left is for you to explain why it is that you have come to believe that you are GOD-Consciousness.

So that would be the crux of the exchange anyway.

Keep in mind that this was YOUR PROPOSAL, not mine.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 28 by mgb]

Yes, literal reading of the bible is not the way it should be interpreted. The old testament is distorted by translation, interpretations, additions, subtractions etc. It gives a distorted view of God.

So much for the word of God. I wonder how much of what you say applies to the rest of the Bible. If the view of God is distorted the fault lies with God relying on sloppy (holy) ghost writers. You have to wonder how such a being managed to fine tune an entire universe when it can't even produce a simple, unambiguous book that clearly communicates to its intended audience.

[mgb]

[Replying to post 28 by mgb]

Yes, literal reading of the bible is not the way it should be interpreted. The old testament is distorted by translation, interpretations, additions, subtractions etc. It gives a distorted view of God.

So much for the word of God. I wonder how much of what you say applies to the rest of the Bible. If the view of God is distorted the fault lies with God relying on sloppy (holy) ghost writers. You have to wonder how such a being managed to fine tune an entire universe when it can't even produce a simple, unambiguous book that clearly communicates to its intended audience.

[William]

[Replying to post 33 by mgb]

You have to wonder how such a being managed to fine tune an entire universe when it can't even produce a simple, unambiguous book that clearly communicates to its intended audience.

This is an important observation which is oft overlooked by Christians when atheists use the same reasoning in their arguements.

Clearly the conclusion one must draw from this is not that GOD wrote a book which one is required to 'be in the know' if one is to understand it. Indeed a better 'book' would be the universe itself, as it would be the far better representation of any 'word' of its creator as it would have to reflect the nature of said creator far more accurately than any book ever could.

But what has this to do with Andriod morality questions in the 21st Century?

[mgb]

[Replying to post 28 by mgb]

Yes, literal reading of the bible is not the way it should be interpreted. The old testament is distorted by translation, interpretations, additions, subtractions etc. It gives a distorted view of God.

So much for the word of God. I wonder how much of what you say applies to the rest of the Bible. If the view of God is distorted the fault lies with God relying on sloppy (holy) ghost writers. You have to wonder how such a being managed to fine tune an entire universe when it can't even produce a simple, unambiguous book that clearly communicates to its intended audience.

God offers truth to the world. He is not going to force it on anybody. The bible is a distorted reflection of God's word. If mankind cannot hear and preserve truth that is mankind's fault.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 28 by mgb]

Yes, literal reading of the bible is not the way it should be interpreted. The old testament is distorted by translation, interpretations, additions, subtractions etc. It gives a distorted view of God.

So much for the word of God. I wonder how much of what you say applies to the rest of the Bible. If the view of God is distorted the fault lies with God relying on sloppy (holy) ghost writers. You have to wonder how such a being managed to fine tune an entire universe when it can't even produce a simple, unambiguous book that clearly communicates to its intended audience.

God offers truth to the world.

That is quite the statement! How does it do this?

He is not going to force it on anybody.

How did you come about this knowledge about this god concept?

The bible is a distorted reflection of God's word.

Yes, it is distorted, but why on earth call it the words of a god?

If mankind cannot hear and preserve truth that is mankind's fault.

Now you appear to be blaming the victims. Shame on you.

[mgb]

That is quite the statement! How does it do this? [offer truth to the world]

By revelation. Religion is a distortion of revelation.

How did you come about this knowledge about this god concept?

God does not force truth. That would destroy our free will. We must be free to reject truth and live in illusion if we choose to.

Yes, it [the bible] is distorted, but why on earth call it the words of a god?

The bible is a valuable guide to God's word, distorted as it is. It should be read with intelligence and wisdom. God can use it to reveal His truth. He can use all kinds of things to teach.

Now you appear to be blaming the victims. Shame on you.

Actions have consequences. I'm not judging anybody. If people reject truth that is their choice.

[Divine Insight]

The bible is a valuable guide to God's word, distorted as it is. It should be read with intelligence and wisdom. God can use it to reveal His truth. He can use all kinds of things to teach.

But this isn't a valid argument.

You have just confessed that the Bible is distorted and that men need to read it via the interpretation of their own intelligence and wisdom. This necessarily demands that the wisdom comes from men, and not from any God.

Now you appear to be blaming the victims. Shame on you.

Actions have consequences. I'm not judging anybody. If people reject truth that is their choice.

What truth?

You have already required that the Bible is distorted. So you can no longer point to the Bible as "truth".

So your argument simply makes no sense.

Where are men supposed to find truth other than from their own intelligence and personal sense of wisdom?

Even the most devout religious men can't agree with each other on what constitutes "wisdom". So men's idea of wisdom is itself a subjective opinion.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 32 by brunumb]

You have to wonder how such a being managed to fine tune an entire universe when it can't even produce a simple, unambiguous book that clearly communicates to its intended audience.

the most popular, widely read, influential book in the history of humanity?

speak for yourself!

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 32 by brunumb]

You have to wonder how such a being managed to fine tune an entire universe when it can't even produce a simple, unambiguous book that clearly communicates to its intended audience.

the most popular, widely read, influential book in the history of humanity?

speak for yourself!

None of which makes it clear and unambiguous. By the way, widely owned is not the equivalent of widely read. Nor is it a refection of popularity.