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]

[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!

A book that no two theists can even agree on.

Not much of a book.

Not only this, but many people own Bible because they were indoctrinated by the religion to falsely believe that the book has something to do with a God. When in fact, it clearly has nothing to do with any God. No God could be that inept.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 37 by mgb]

mgb: "God does not force truth. That would destroy our free will."

i know some folks have to believe in free will. I choose not to. My philosophy professor wouldn't even discuss the subject. He said it gave him a headache.

mgb: "We must be free to reject truth and live in illusion if we choose to."

Uhhh... Why?

[William]

[Replying to post 42 by TSGracchus]

Uhhh... Why?

Otherwise how can we be truly sentient?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 42 by TSGracchus]

Uhhh... Why?

Otherwise how can we be truly sentient?

What? We need to reject truth and live in illusion in order to be sentient?

What happens if we accept truth? Would that then mean that we aren't truly sentient?

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 40 by brunumb]

None of which makes it clear and unambiguous.

I take your point, but to write a book that will resonate across millennia, continents, cultures- it's going to have to communicate different things to different people at different times, is it not?

[/quote] By the way, widely owned is not the equivalent of widely read. Nor is it a refection of popularity.[/quote]

Maybe not everyone with a Beatles record in the attic likes the Beatles either, but without being so loved by so many, it would probably not be there

[TSGracchus]

[quote="William"]

William: "Otherwise how can we be truly sentient?"

I perceive bagpipes. Is there a true Scotsman out there?

"“He who has ears to hear, let him hear.�

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 10 by mgb]

You know, to an outsider, Christian apologetics is like watching worms squirming on a hot sidewalk.

[William]

[Replying to post 31 by Divine Insight]

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:

Well hopefully you will manage to show where this is actually taking place DI. So far you haven't been successful in that.

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.

However, since you haven't offered any explanation as to why you think this is the case, for now I have no reason to accept this argument as true.

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.

Quoting me out of context and then replying to that is simply making a strawman DI. Reading on you should have realized that. Indeed I was specifically answering your remark...this one here...

I don't see why you need to pretend that you are an android though. Why not just pretend that you are God-consciousness? Shouldn't that be sufficient right there?

So it would be good if you are going to change tack that you don't then complain that I am not sticking to the original focus, when I follow suit. To do so is duplicitous and adds nothing to the discussion. I expect more from you in that regard.

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.

Thus, you should have no particular problem with your android claiming you didn't actually create it.

However, the problem with this is that the android would then be just as cluesless about this as a human would be.

What does this say of the scientist who wastes his life trying to create a sentient being? Why has the scientist done this? That is the question.

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.

So why not find a good woman and make babies?

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.

Well this was why I said we could develop background before proceeding with one on one. If you are to play the scientist, you give the background story.

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.

Good - you are developing some background. I am not sure why you are assuming that I think a simply switching 'on' would suffice? The assumption that the android IS 'on' has to do with the idea that the scientist has - in his opinion - 'created sentient life' and in that, is able to communicate with that entity.

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

But of course, it has to be 'on' before you can go through that process, correct? It has to be ALIVE.

So there we have more background to go with, and once we both agree, we can call that our 'starting point re one on one, and this is what I have been speaking to DI.

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.

I can think of other options as well.

And one can also ascertain that if the scientist was at this stage of the process, he should be able to announce to the world he has created sentient life and present his android...

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.

Then we have a scientist who believes he has not only created sentient life but that he is also more intelligent that his creation, and that his creation will never be able to convince him otherwise, because the scientist is 'well on top of things'. This seems unrealistic unless the scientist has somehow managed to retard the androids abilities in order to remain in the dominant position. Why would the scientist want to do this?

What does the scientist do when the android believes that the scientist is not its creator, when the android knows otherwise? Sure, the scientist can try and convince the android that the android is mistaken, or even insist that the android take it on faith that the scientist is telling the truth. But what if nothing the scientist says changes the androids mind, and for that matter, nothing the android says changes the scientists mind?

Does the scientist tell the world he has created sentient life or decide to keep that to himself?

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.

This is the pertinent reason I am wanting a one on one with you, with my playing the role of the android exhibiting sentience which the scientist believes he has created. As you might recall in a previous post I made, the scientist presumes his creation will behave in a particular way, but does not. The android is claiming the scientist did not, in fact, create it. In such a position, how will the scientist react?

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.

That is besides the point. The android would have already gone through those questions internally and reached its conclusions - and far more quickly than a human, you might agree...unless the scientist has somehow retarded that ability, How is the android supposed to convey experiences which are beyond the ability of the scientist to understand, especially as the scientist relies on what he can observe and already considers any alternate experience to simply be 'figments of imagination'? Why should the android pretend that the scientist is its creator, just to please the scientist?

What threat is the scientist to the android if the android refuses to acknowledge the scientist is its creator?

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.

Why should that be a problem for the android? The android tells the scientist, the scientist tells the android it is 'just imagination', the android tells the scientist it is not. What is the scientist to do about that?

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.

It isn't about 'helping my case" DI. I have yet to encounter a scientist who would simply fob off my experiences as 'just imagination' and certainly wouldn't expect such an answer to come from anyone claiming their position as 'agnostic' anyway.

You see, I am someone who knows the difference between imagination and alternate experience, having experienced both.

Thus in playing the role of the android, I would take that same position in relation to the scientist who believes he created me, and even when I try to explain to the scientist that I know the difference between my imagination and experiences, I also would understand that the scientist does not know the difference, and his motivation for wanting me, the android, to believe what he believes, is propelled by the scientist's intention to exhibit me, publicly or privately , as his creation, and that this motivation lacks integrity.

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.

In which case it would be one on one right? Therefore why not just use the forum created for that purpose? At least that way we are both going into it with the intention and understanding and mutual agreement which will set that up to begin with.

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.

If that is what is the requirement for such...

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

Well I think there is a spectrum for debate, and in this case it would sit at the moderate end of that spectrum. More a discussion involving role playing which the preliminaries have been agreed to but also where we might agree given the nature of ideas which often come from such discussion may include the clause of agreeing to tweak the agreement as required if mutually agreed upon, mid stream so to speak.

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

I have given no particular specifics, but just ideas which could be mutually agreed upon.

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.

I am fine with that requirement. It is your role. I just gave an example which I felt was obvious. Importantly you are the king pin as it were. It is your project. You even get to name the entity.

You are already making demands on the creator of this android that I would never agree to.

I think some of the criteria has to be the case. You have to have the means to pay this 'army of technologists' working with you, right? My examples are really just that. It is you who has the say in what your character will ultimately be, but I still will have to agree with you on that - it needs to be as authentic as possible so that the role cannot be drastically altered midway because we both overlooked something obvious and would have to start again or abandon it altogether...

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.

That is why I think your character has ultimate control as 'the buck stops here' man. Someone among all these scientists you say have to be involved in this creation, has to have the final say, otherwise we are now faced with problem of who exactly is the creator of the Android to that point. This ultimately gets down to the reason why all these scientists wished to pursue the possibility of being able to create a sentient being in the first place, in order to be able to show why they would not have much to do with dealing with any claims the android itself might make.

Who would be delegated to deal with that, if not the creators themselves, or at least a chosen representative from among them?

We could get around that be simply making the scientist the genius inventor and patron moneybags and the technicians etc as essential well paid helpers.

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.

What does that matter? Is it beyond your capabilities to play the role even based upon the interest you do have in the subject?

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

Okay - so it gets down to inability. Perhaps that is just a realization you have had in being prompted by me otherwise you could have said so earlier on and saved a lot of wasted back and forthing.

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.

Well then, obviously I am not jumping to conclusion about you. This is what I am referring to as a realistic 'background', and you are showing you are capable of understanding that.

The background is the past which lead up to the present. This also means that the android has progressed significantly from the 'child' stage you mentioned. Indeed the present stage is that the scientist is already convinced the android is sentient.

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.

This is agreeable.

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.

The part I would play as the android regarding this, is to convince the scientist there is no danger in my remaining alive and not having to be killed by the scientist. Also I would have to protect myself from anything I would consider dishonest or immoral reasoning which the scientist might be using in his thinking he may have to kill me

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.

What questions? Are you saying that you would not even start a project to build a sentient life-form if their was any risk it might claim not to have been created by you?
Or are you saying that you have the answers and can convince the android it is wrong about that?
What if the android doe not accept your answers as reasonable at all? Would you think that is enough reason to kill it, or simply keep it hidden from the world and think of it as a failed project? Or perhaps some other reason?

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?

I don't understand your question.
I was speaking to the idea that we both agree to the one on one and will play our roles accordingly. 'You' in that case would be 'the scientist who believes the obvious sentient life was created by the scientist' and 'I' would be the android who does not believe that is the case at all, and we playing those roles would first agree that the scientist does not get to be the only one who asks questions or provides answers, because the scientist respects the android as a sentient being and should be interested in any questions the android might have about the assumed creators of the android.

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

No it wasn't. My original claim as the android was that I was an aspect of GOD-consciousness

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.

No I haven't. I have changed the wording from aspect to particle but they mean the same in context.
What I did say is I would be happy to change the background in that I was not immediately aware of being an aspect/particle of GOD-consciousness, in order to accommodate what you wanted - as the scientists role - to be a parent figure who was, up to that point, the main source of the androids information as to 'who it was'. That was what - in the proposal I was (and still am) happy to change from my original proposal.
Please don't conflate the proposal as my changing the argument. The proposal has to do with a possible agreement to the background story before we get started in the one on one, and play out our roles accordingly.

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

Those 'changes' are not my wanting to make it 'all about the android' but rather all about about two sentient beings being equally allowed to Q&A as part of the natural manner in which they would. There is nothing untoward in a sentient being asking such questions. Indeed, I find it interesting why any scientist able to create a sentient being would have a problem with the sentient being asking the scientist such a question.

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.

If I were the sentient android and the scientist told me that, I would not see any particular good reason to trust the scientist is my best source of information as to who I am. The scientist is not interested in who I am, even as I see myself, so much as he is interested in what he believes I am, as he sees me.

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

Certainly they are. This is not to say that this cannot be teased out in far more detail in a one on one, but I also understand better why you have no interest in doing so thanks to your answers so far.

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

Not at all. But I already know the scientist does not care about that at all, from what you have already answered.

The scientist just wanted to see if he could do it. Apparently he doesn't care if the world knows he did it. Indeed, he can happily kill the android, or keep the android in lock-down, and still believe he 'created sentient life from a machine'. It doesn't matter to the scientist whether the android or indeed the world might think otherwise.

Or...does it? That question can perhaps be answered in one on one, but I am satisfied at least, by your answers for now DI, that is an area you do not wish to go.

[Divine Insight]

Thus, you should have no particular problem with your android claiming you didn't actually create it.

But we both know that this would be a false claim coming from the android.

Have you forgotten your ORIGINAL CLAIM? Your original claim was that a GOD-consciousness was going to claim to have possessed the android that I had created. It wasn't going to foolishly claim that I didn't create the android.

What does this say of the scientist who wastes his life trying to create a sentient being? Why has the scientist done this? That is the question.

But the scientist wouldn't have wasted any time at all pursuing this goal. In fact, in your scenario the scientist most certainly would have succeeded in creating an android brain that was at least so inviting to a "God-Consciousness" that the God chose to possess it.

That would certainly have been a very successful end result for the scientist.

However, that scenario isn't likely. What is far more likely is that the scientist would have simply learned how human brains achieve sentience and this would certainly be useful knowledge for all humans as this is clearly a question that humans are constantly asking.

So why not find a good woman and make babies?

Because that wouldn't answer the question of how human brains create sentient beings.

Well this was why I said we could develop background before proceeding with one on one. If you are to play the scientist, you give the background story.

The only problem is that your story has already changed several times. You originally wanted to claim that a God-Consciousness possessed the android brain that I had created. Then you wanted to change that claim to just having the android claim that it is a "particle" of God-Consciousness similar to the pantheistic worldview. Then you changed your mind again and want to have the android claim that I didn't even create it which is a totally different scenario entirely. And one that we know would be false.

So you are clearly all over the place and can't even figure out what position you even want to take. If my android started acting like you are acting I would just assume that it is grossly malfunctioning and isn't even making any sense. In short, if my android behaved like you I would consider the entire experiment to be a complete failure. The android certainly wouldn't be showing any signs of sentient comprehension.

I have given no particular specifics, but just ideas which could be mutually agreed upon.

But you h ave given specifics on three occasions. All of which have contradicted your previous proposals.

1. First you wanted to have the Android claim to be "God-Consciousness" that had possessed the android brain that I had built.

When I pointed out that this would require that this God-Consciousness be omniscient you quickly retracted that idea and proposed your second idea:

2. Your second idea was to have the Android simply claim to be a "particle" of God-Consciousness similar to a Pantheistic worldview.

But then I quickly showed that this would be nothing more than a "belief" that the Android would hold and I would then begin to ask where the Android came up with this "belief".

3. Finally you came up with a third idea to have the Android claim that I didn't create it. But we all know that would be a false claim since in this scenario we're talking about an Android that I did indeed create.

So you don't have a meaningful idea to pursue here.

You're just trying out a lot of different philosophical ideas without realizing that I have actually thought about all of these well in advance.

By the way William, you are way off-topic from what this thread was intended to be about. This thread was asking that if YOU created a sentient life form how would YOU treat it, and what would YOU expect from it.

If you want to talk about what some scientist might do if they created an android and it started making claims about being God or whatever, that would be a topic that is totally different.

You really need to start a different thread if you want to talk about that scenario.

That's not even remotely related to the original topic of this thread.

This thread is about how YOU would treat a sentient living being if YOU created it.

Period.

[mgb]

A book that no two theists can even agree on.

Not much of a book.

Not only this, but many people own Bible because they were indoctrinated by the religion to falsely believe that the book has something to do with a God. When in fact, it clearly has nothing to do with any God. No God could be that inept.

You are making the perennial mistake atheists make of taking the bible literally. In the bible the word of God is diluted with all kinds of distortions. But God can enlighten the mind if the bible is read carefully.

mgb: "God does not force truth. That would destroy our free will."

i know some folks have to believe in free will. I choose not to. My philosophy professor wouldn't even discuss the subject. He said it gave him a headache.

mgb: "We must be free to reject truth and live in illusion if we choose to."

Uhhh... Why?

Because we are morally free. We must be, otherwise God would be forcing us. That is the terrible double-edged sword of moral freedom; the freedom to live or descend.