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?

[Clownboat]

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

By revelation. Religion is a distortion of revelation.

So when I ask how a god offers truth/reveals truth, you tell me, "by revealing it".
Clearly I am asking how this god reveals. He reveals by revealing is a non answer.
Perhaps you should have said 'I don't know'? Unless you do know, but then don't hide the answer from us.

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.

I asked how you came about this knowledge. You failed to answer this question as well as the last.

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.

Please define what you mean when you say 'Bible' and also what you mean when you say 'God's word'.

It should be read with intelligence and wisdom.

Judging by your replies, I'm thinking you might lack these requirements.

God can use it to reveal His truth. He can use all kinds of things to teach.

Sounds like empty platitudes to me.
Please provide examples of how the gods reveal their truth.

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

Actions have consequences. I'm not judging anybody.

I didn't say actions don't have consequences and I didn't say you were judging. I said you appear to be blaming the victims.
How is it that you read my words, but then respond to things I have not asked?

If people reject truth that is their choice.

Derp. Another obvious statement that did not need to be typed.
This does bring up a question though: Do you claim to have some truth claim that you think escapes the rest of us?

[Divine Insight]

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.

But this is demonstrably false.

There are many people who read the Bible carefully. In fact many of them are atheists for good reason.

The ones that remain theists can't even agree with each other on what the Bible has to say. So your claim here is demonstrably false.

[Divine Insight]

If people reject truth that is their choice.

Do you claim to have some truth claim that you think escapes the rest of us?

Exactly my question too.

Show us a truth that we are unaware of and demonstrate that the thing that you are claiming to be truth is indeed true.

Until then you have nothing but empty accusations to offer. That hardly qualifies as a meaningful argument.

[mgb]

So when I ask how a god offers truth/reveals truth, you tell me, "by revealing it".
Clearly I am asking how this god reveals. He reveals by revealing is a non answer.
Perhaps you should have said 'I don't know'? Unless you do know, but then don't hide the answer from us.

Howard Storm says it nicely but I can't locate his quote. He says, correctly, that if we read the bible, God, by inspiring our minds, can make us see His Will through the words on the page. The only way mankind can know truth is to be told it. There is no other way. People must listen to God.

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.

I asked how you came about this knowledge. You failed to answer this question as well as the last.

This teaching has been revealed to many people such as Agustine. It is a very prevalent religious argument. It is also implicit in the understanding of God that has emerged down through the ages. Clearly, an all powerful God can force us to obey but does not. Why?

Please define what you mean when you say 'Bible' and also what you mean when you say 'God's word'.

It should be obvious what the bible is. As for God's word. It permeates the bible and all true religions. But this is why we must read the bible with care and attention to God. God can enlighten us as to what is His Will as revealed in the bible: avoid wickedness, walk in the way...any sensible person can be open to what is good in the bible. But it takes reflection and enlightenment from God to understand. Even apart from religious writing we must still be told what God wants of us. We must listen.

Do you claim to have some truth claim that you think escapes the rest of us?

How can I know what escapes anybody? Truth comes from God. Understanding comes from God. It must enter the mind. There is no other way.

But this is demonstrably false.

There are many people who read the Bible carefully. In fact many of them are atheists for good reason.

The ones that remain theists can't even agree with each other on what the Bible has to say.

So your claim here is demonstrably false.

You are confusing details with essentials. The essential truth is simple. Live righteously by God's Will. Avoid wickedness. Listen to God's guidance.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 54 by mgb]

He says, correctly, that if we read the bible, God, by inspiring our minds, can make us see His Will through the words on the page. The only way mankind can know truth is to be told it.

From that we can deduce that those who read the Bible carefully and do not see through the words on the page were not inspired by God. Why would God pick and choose like that? In reality, it is not a matter of rejecting or accepting the truth, it is all about the fact that the truth has not been established. People who accept the Bible as truth have merely accepted what they have been told. That is the power of indoctrination, the teaching of someone to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. After that, those same people spend all of their time making excuses for the obvious discrepancies in their belief.

[mgb]

[Replying to post 54 by mgb]

He says, correctly, that if we read the bible, God, by inspiring our minds, can make us see His Will through the words on the page. The only way mankind can know truth is to be told it.

From that we can deduce that those who read the Bible carefully and do not see through the words on the page were not inspired by God. Why would God pick and choose like that? In reality, it is not a matter of rejecting or accepting the truth, it is all about the fact that the truth has not been established. People who accept the Bible as truth have merely accepted what they have been told. That is the power of indoctrination, the teaching of someone to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. After that, those same people spend all of their time making excuses for the obvious discrepancies in their belief.

That is a very simplistic view of belief. Belief is much more complex than that. People believe for many excellent reasons. The bible is only part of it. But I agree, people should be more discerning about the bible; it is only a sketch and a distorted one at that.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 56 by mgb]

That is a very simplistic view of belief. Belief is much more complex than that. People believe for many excellent reasons. The bible is only part of it. But I agree, people should be more discerning about the bible; it is only a sketch and a distorted one at that.

I can't see how it is possible to accept belief in Christianity without reference to the Bible. Could you please share some of those excellent reasons that do not involve the Bible. I have yet to encounter anything compelling enough to cause my brain to accept any form of theism as a valid position.

[mgb]

[Replying to post 56 by mgb]

That is a very simplistic view of belief. Belief is much more complex than that. People believe for many excellent reasons. The bible is only part of it. But I agree, people should be more discerning about the bible; it is only a sketch and a distorted one at that.

I can't see how it is possible to accept belief in Christianity without reference to the Bible. Could you please share some of those excellent reasons that do not involve the Bible. I have yet to encounter anything compelling enough to cause my brain to accept any form of theism as a valid position.

Religion is only a sketch of the spiritual life. Spirituality emerges from guidance by God. The bible is only a 'signpost', it should not be taken literally.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 56 by mgb]

That is a very simplistic view of belief. Belief is much more complex than that. People believe for many excellent reasons. The bible is only part of it. But I agree, people should be more discerning about the bible; it is only a sketch and a distorted one at that.

I can't see how it is possible to accept belief in Christianity without reference to the Bible. Could you please share some of those excellent reasons that do not involve the Bible. I have yet to encounter anything compelling enough to cause my brain to accept any form of theism as a valid position.

Religion is only a sketch of the spiritual life. Spirituality emerges from guidance by God. The bible is only a 'signpost', it should not be taken literally.

It would appear that you are unable to provide any of those alleged excellent reasons for belief. It is very telling that calling out rhetoric invariably leads to side-stepping and dodges. The fact is that there are no compelling reasons for believing in gods or the supernatural. Spirituality emerges from the imagination. It is all perpetuated by endless indoctrination from generation to generation. The specifics of any belief are determined by what society you are born into. The evidence for that is all around you.

[William]

[Replying to post 49 by Divine Insight]

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.

I have already explained the change, so there is no point in my entertaining the dead horse you are beating in that regard.

Obviously you conflate the android form with the android sentience. There is no claim from the self aware consciousness using the form, that the scientist did not create the form.