Andriod morality questions in the 21st Century

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Andriod morality questions in the 21st Century

Post #1

Post by 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?
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Andriod morality questions in the 21st Century

Post #2

Post by Bust Nak »

Divine Insight wrote: How would you treat a sentient creation of your own?
As people.
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?
Depends on how much I disapprove of it.
If so, why? What do you feel would be gained by doing that?
I gain a better/safer society. It is a deterrent to others from the same crime (and ideally a method for rehabilitation, so I am leaning more towards crawling on its belly and eating dirt indefinitely, as apposed to definitely for the rest of its existence.)
If not, then why believe in ancient religions that proclaim that his is how their Gods treat their created sentient beings?
n/a
Making our poorly created androids crawl on the bellies and eat dirt isn't going to solve any problems at all.
It is a bit unusual, but we do punish people for things that we disapprove of all the time. Is crawling on bellies and eating dirt all that different from imprisonment? That's how we solve problems with people who behave in ways we disapprove of. Or perhaps that doesn't count as solving the human nature problem?
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.
Right, but have we ever pretended or presented ourselves as better than what we hoped we could create? We are not better than what we hoped to create, whether demonstrated or not.

The problem with "the behavior of Gods we read about in ancient mythologies" is that us human are a rather low bar to go by.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Andriod morality questions in the 21st Century

Post #3

Post by Divine Insight »

Bust Nak wrote: It is a bit unusual, but we do punish people for things that we disapprove of all the time. Is crawling on bellies and eating dirt all that different from imprisonment? That's how we solve problems with people who behave in ways we disapprove of. Or perhaps that doesn't count as solving the human nature problem?
I agree. Humans do indeed seem to have dramatically different ideas of what constitutes "right and wrong". For example, I'm personally totally against treating people cruelly for their wrong doings.

I will also agree that our current prisons often equate to not being much better from condemning a person to crawling on their bellies and eating dirt. I also disagree with this situation as well.
Bust Nak wrote:
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.
Right, but have we ever pretended or presented ourselves as better than what we hoped we could create? We are not better than what we hoped to create, whether demonstrated or not.

The problem with "the behavior of Gods we read about in ancient mythologies" is that us human are a rather low bar to go by.
Perhaps so, but you do seem to have agreed that punishing the offending created entity in this way is indeed a very "low bar".

This already diminished the God. Suggesting that humans are no better hardly helps that situation.

But I agree, there are no doubt many humans who are going to see nothing wrong with this method of dealing with the sentient beings they create.

A very "low bar" for any God to be certain.

But then again, this supports the secular naturalist's suspicion that these ancient religious fables were indeed the fabrication of humans. This would explain where the "low bar" came from in the first place.

Further question for discussion:

Does setting a "low bar" for the behavior of a God add credence to a God myth?
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

mgb
Guru
Posts: 1668
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:21 pm
Location: Europe
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Andriod morality questions in the 21st Century

Post #4

Post by mgb »

Divine Insight wrote: 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.
Roger Penrose in his book The Emperor's New Mind makes a case against strong AI. He argues, convincingly, that human thought is not algorithmic in the way computers are. He is right in this, I think. Human thinking has the ability to look ahead and theorize and prove things that computers don't. He cites Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and Turing's Halting Problem as problems in computing that humans can easily overcome.
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.
You are taking literally an alegory that is only meant to be a story about the fall. The serpent is only an image. At any rate God is made to say that he will eat dirt, but that does not mean God will make him do it; it means that this will be a consequence of his own evil. He said 'you will eat dirt' not 'I will make you eat dirt'.

User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Andriod morality questions in the 21st Century

Post #5

Post by Neatras »

mgb wrote: He argues, convincingly, that human thought is not algorithmic in the way computers are.
Debatable. We certainly do operate according to algorithmic processes, it's just that a neural network cultivates continuous sensory input that applies consistent alteration to our mood, worldview, and behavior.
mgb wrote: He is right in this, I think. Human thinking has the ability to look ahead and theorize and prove things that computers don't.
That's funny, because computers are getting better at predicting the future than humans are. And it's able to predict human behavior at a rate of 10 seconds prior to the human mind's ability to even react to new information.
Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain wrote: There has been a long controversy as to whether subjectively 'free' decisions are determined by brain activity ahead of time. We found that the outcome of a decision can be encoded in brain activity of prefrontal and parietal cortex up to 10 s before it enters awareness. This delay presumably reflects the operation of a network of high-level control areas that begin to prepare an upcoming decision long before it enters awareness.
Human cognition is remarkably deterministic when you get down to it. If machines are capable of predicting the future, then I'd say that their intelligence is worth meriting discussion.
mgb wrote: He cites Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and Turing's Halting Problem as problems in computing that humans can easily overcome.
"Easily" is nonsense. Human predictive capabilities are dressed in flowery language but are no more impressive than a machine's, and are often even less so. It's influenced by emotion to the extent that the results are often polluted, and confirmation bias rules here. The number of human predictions that fail as a result of the same principles that allow humans to "easily overcome" a problem demonstrates that our algorithms aren't weak enough to allow pathetic human-like traits to pollute the data set.

You give humans too much credit, and for no other reason than because it's the more convenient and psychologically reassuring assertion to believe.

mgb
Guru
Posts: 1668
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:21 pm
Location: Europe
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Andriod morality questions in the 21st Century

Post #6

Post by mgb »

Neatras wrote:Human predictive capabilities are dressed in flowery language but are no more impressive than a machine's, and are often even less so. It's influenced by emotion to the extent that the results are often polluted, and confirmation bias rules here.
I'm talking about mathematical proofs. The Turing machine can't prove there are an infinity of primes but humans proved it thousands of years ago. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem shows how mathematical systems produce statements that can't be shown to be true, but humans can see that they are true. They can see it because they don't have to rely on deterministic algorithms. Humans have creative intelligence which is beyond mere algorithmic processing.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Andriod morality questions in the 21st Century

Post #7

Post by Divine Insight »

mgb wrote:
Divine Insight wrote: 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.
Roger Penrose in his book The Emperor's New Mind makes a case against strong AI. He argues, convincingly, that human thought is not algorithmic in the way computers are. He is right in this, I think. Human thinking has the ability to look ahead and theorize and prove things that computers don't. He cites Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and Turing's Halting Problem as problems in computing that humans can easily overcome.
I'm familiar with Roger Penrose's ideas. The problem is that Penrose is thinking in terms of a digital computer which is indeed totally algorithmic. I actually agree with Penrose that no digital computer will ever become sentient.

But that isn't what a human brain is. Our brains are not digital computers. Our brains are analog computers. And analogy computers are not algorithmic. So this isn't a problem. This is only a problem if a person limits themselves to considering digital computers as a possible path to sentience. I will be the first to agree that this would indeed be a dead end path.

Also, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem has to do with the fact that human mathematical formalism is based on the natural numbers. I totally agree with Godel's conclusions. But that also wouldn't apply to analog computers.

So there's nothing in any of the above that would make it impossible for us to create sentient beings. All the above observes is that we won't be able to do it using digital computers.
mgb wrote:
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.
You are taking literally an alegory that is only meant to be a story about the fall. The serpent is only an image. At any rate God is made to say that he will eat dirt, but that does not mean God will make him do it; it means that this will be a consequence of his own evil. He said 'you will eat dirt' not 'I will make you eat dirt'.
You are wrong on your theological claims.

Genesis 3:
[14] And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
[15] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


It clearly states that this is a curse that is being placed on Satan.

This is also God saying that he will put enmity between Satan and the woman.

It's not saying that this would occur naturally due to Satan's actions.

So your "apologetic interpretations" aren't in harmony with what is actually written.

It's pretty clear that God is the one who is handing out punishments and curses in this literature. He's not saying, "Look at what you have brought upon yourselves".

It doesn't say that at all. To the contrary, if it said those kinds of things it would be an entirely different story.

This is God clearly delving out punishments:

[16] Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

It clearly says, "I will greatly multiply your sorrow".

It doesn't say, "You have greatly multiplied your sorrow"

You are trying to argue that it's a completely different story.

If I could go back and rewrite the Bible I could do a much better job too. But it's too late to be going back trying to rewrite it. It is what it is, and it's not saying what you claim. It's saying just the opposite. God is the one who is delving out these curses and punishments.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Andriod morality questions in the 21st Century

Post #8

Post by Divine Insight »

mgb wrote:
Neatras wrote:Human predictive capabilities are dressed in flowery language but are no more impressive than a machine's, and are often even less so. It's influenced by emotion to the extent that the results are often polluted, and confirmation bias rules here.
I'm talking about mathematical proofs. The Turing machine can't prove there are an infinity of primes but humans proved it thousands of years ago. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem shows how mathematical systems produce statements that can't be shown to be true, but humans can see that they are true. They can see it because they don't have to rely on deterministic algorithms. Humans have creative intelligence which is beyond mere algorithmic processing.
I actually agree with all of this.

But you are ignoring the fact that analogy computers exist too. In fact, humans have even built analog computers. And that is indeed what our human brains are. Our brains are biological analogy computers. They are NOT digital computers.

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. :D

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.

So your objections do not take into consideration all possibilities.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Andriod morality questions in the 21st Century

Post #9

Post by Neatras »

[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.

mgb
Guru
Posts: 1668
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:21 pm
Location: Europe
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: Andriod morality questions in the 21st Century

Post #10

Post by mgb »

Divine Insight wrote:It clearly states that this is a curse that is being placed on Satan.
Yes, but is the curse from God? It doesn't say God cursed him. He is, no doubt, cursed by his own actions. There is no need for God to punish anybody; people are cursed by their actions.

Post Reply