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]

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Andriod morality questions in the 21st Century

Post #61

Post by William »

[Replying to post 49 by Divine Insight]
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.
There is no argument there. The argument how does the scientist deal with something he believes he created when the sentience occupying the android form thinks otherwise.
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.
The point of the scenario is not to assume 'what is more likely' but to see how the scientist would react to the sentience denying the scientist created it.

Your argument 'the scenario isn't likely' simply avoids having to think of such an alternative or how it might best be dealt with if it happened that way.

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 #62

Post by Divine Insight »

William wrote: There is no argument there. The argument how does the scientist deal with something he believes he created when the sentience occupying the android form thinks otherwise.
It wouldn't matter what the android thinks. That wouldn't change the fact that the scientist created it. Besides, why do you insist on forcing this thread off-topic?

The question of this thread is how would YOU treat a sentient being that you created. The question is NOT what you would do if you created a sentient being and it started claiming to be God. That's a whole different topic. Please start your own thread for you own topics. Thank you.
William wrote: The point of the scenario is not to assume 'what is more likely' but to see how the scientist would react to the sentience denying the scientist created it.
Please start your own thread for you own topics. Thank you.
William wrote: Your argument 'the scenario isn't likely' simply avoids having to think of such an alternative or how it might best be dealt with if it happened that way.
That's not the topic of this thread. If you would like to explore that sort of philosophical scenario please start your own thread on it.

This thread is asking how YOU would treat a sentient being if you created one.

If you can't answer that question then you're in the wrong thread.
[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
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Andriod morality questions in the 21st Century

Post #63

Post by William »

[Replying to post 49 by Divine Insight]
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:
No. I changed that because you wanted the scientist to teach the android from the moment the scientist became aware the android was sentient. I was happy to go along with that as part of the background story and thus suggested that I would bring this to the scientist awareness as I (the sentient in the android form) became more aware of this. I would explain to the scientist how this came about.

Also, it was you who decided that GOD is omniscient and that if I were an aspect of God-Consciousness I (as the sentience in the android) would have to be omniscient as well, and I rejected that as unnecessary, pointing out you were simply arguing from a particular theological perspective which believed that to be the case.

I can see you are finding it difficult to stick to the facts of what I actually wrote and suggest that you go back and review that, rather than rely on your memory DI.

Here, let me help you out in that regard.

My first post in the thread:

Post #15
viewtopic.php?p=929470#929470

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

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

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?

DI: 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.

[Note DI that you bring the notion of an omnipotent God-Consciousness into the mix.]

In post #18 I suggest the possibility of you and I discussing this further in a one on one.

I suggested this scenario;

William: 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.

You replied;

DI: I seem to be missing something here?

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

William: 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.

DI: So how does this change anything?

You would still be claiming to be GOD-Consciousness.

William: Well it would place you in the position that you do not know if there is a GOD or not and do not have any specific platform to stand on regarding any specific atribute GOD-Consciousness might or might not have.

All you would have is your invention/creation - the Andriod which you used your specific ideas re analog to create and from that the Android began communicating with you and made the claims.

DI: But you have already given this GOD-Consciousness specific attributes. You already have this God knowingly, purposefully, and intentionally possessing an android for the specific purpose of communicating with me. So it already has necessary attributes of omniscience.

[Note here DI where you say it is a God "knowingly, purposefully, and intentionally possessing an android for the specific purpose of communicating with the scientist, when it is not. It is an aspect of GOD-consciousness.]

William: The reason why the GOD-consciousness chose to use the Android form was not just so it could communicate with you, but that in itself is no reason to assume it is omniscience, and indeed, an agnostic scientist wouldn't assume such.

DI: (post # 31) 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.

and;

DI: 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.

William: 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.

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

William: 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.


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

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

[Note again DI you are twisting what I said to suit your argument - that is 'creating a strawman' Stick to what the person actually writes, rather than twist things.]

DI: 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.

William: 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.

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 #64

Post by Divine Insight »

[Replying to post 63 by William]

You have been told repeatedly to take your off-topic nonsense to another thread.

The question of this thread is:

Questions for debate or discussion:

How would you treat a sentient creation of your own?


If you can't answer this question, or aren't willing to answer it, just say so.

Rambling on endlessly about a hypothetical that has already been address in full is a waste of everyone's time including yours. I already told you that any sentient entity that claims to be God could easily provide compelling evidence to back up that claim.

You wanted to start a new thread and play the role of being that entity. Fine. Go start that thread then. Let's see if you can convince anyone that you are God. I wish you the best of luck.
[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
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Andriod morality questions in the 21st Century

Post #65

Post by William »

[Replying to post 64 by Divine Insight]

And finally - the squiggle - presented in the same twisted manner as one has come to expect.
You have been told repeatedly to take your off-topic nonsense to another thread.
Once again, DI, this is not the truth of the matter.

Let me show the reader then, that I have been offering a one on one to tease this sentient android/scientist creator idea out in another forum so as not to disrupt the overall topic of this particular thread, and where I was never once told by anyone to "take this to another thread". In the course of the interaction between DI and I, he has suggested a few options other than one on one, but has never TOLD me even once, to "take your off-topic nonsense to another thread".

Isn't it a shame when someone refers to perfectly good argument as 'nonsense' just because they are shown to have stretched the truth and how bad their own argument actually is because they have been twisting anothers words to suit those bad arguments, and become huffy-puffy when their method is exposed for the erroneous flap that it truly is.

It is an invidious thing to make claims which are not true in order to bring a shadow of doubt over someone's integrity DI. Instead of apologizing when shown to be wrong, you just continue to do the same thing!

:study:

I didn't come into the thread until post #15 where I reply to a particular statement DI made.


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

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

...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?

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?

DI: That could prove to be a very interesting conversation....

William: 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.

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

William: 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.

DI: So how does this change anything?

William: Well it would place you in the position that you do not know if there is a GOD or not and do not have any specific platform to stand on regarding any specific attribute GOD-Consciousness might or might not have.

DI: Try to convince me. Nobody's stopping you. [post #23]

William: The suggestion to go One On One was in part so that this thread can remain chugging along in the specific direction of the OP.
In relation to that, if we have the One On One platform it will allow for a more broader scope in which to delve into.

DI: If you want to start a thread to pretend that you are an android that has been possessed by God-consciousness go ahead and do it. Post the link here I'll come and ask you questions.

William: 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.

DI: 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. [post#31]

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

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

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

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

William: 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.

DI: [post#49] 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.
___________________________________________

So DI, after all your replies (8 posts in total) and 3415 words you decide this is not the thread to be discussing the subject - something I said way back.

Your accusations re my character and false claims have to be corrected DI. They simply cannot be allowed to sit without comment.
I have now shown twice where you have blundered in your assertions by using dishonesty. An Apology from you would be the only acceptable response. Any further deviation from you, stating things which never actually occurred, will be ignored by me, and the reader now has enough evidence re this tactic you employ to also give it no credence.

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 #66

Post by Divine Insight »

William wrote: William: The suggestion to go One On One was in part so that this thread can remain chugging along in the specific direction of the OP.
You are the one who has refused to do that. I told you to go ahead and do it. But you failed to do so. So don't try to pin that one one me.
William wrote:
DI: 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. [post#31
]

William: I would rather the thread be started by both of us through agreement as to the specifics etc...
But you haven't even been able to propose a consistent or meaningful scenario. I have also pointed out that you have made many wrong assumptions about how I would go about creating a sentient being. You seem to think that I would just turn it on from scratch and it would start taking to me at a high level of knowledge and education. How could that possibly happen? :-k

When you create a new human (i.e. have a baby) it's doesn't pop out of the womb with a Ph.D. in hand ready to start debating the deepest philosophical thoughts. Why should you think it would be any different with an android? :-k

Like I say, you're thinking in terms of Sci-Fi movies, not reality.

We've already been over this.

If you want to start a thread between the both of us based on some sort of agreement we're going to need to spend many hours conversing prior to that just to try to get on the same page. And to be quite honest about it I'm simply not interested in wasting my time trying to do that. There is simply far too many wrong conclusions you are jumping to concerning how I might create a sentient android.

Moreover, once you actually understood the process you'd realize that it would be no different from having a human baby. This is why I have already told you that it would make absolutely no difference at all whether I was doing this with an android, or doing it with an actual human. It would make absolutely no difference at all.

I told you that already. Apparently you refused to understand.

So if you are going to try to convince me that you are "God Consciousness" you may as well just do it as the human named William. Pretending to be an android that I had created wouldn't change a thing.
William wrote: Your accusations re my character and false claims have to be corrected DI. They simply cannot be allowed to sit without comment.
What in the world are you taking about? I haven't made any accusations concerning your character at all. Not one.

All I've said is that you aren't understanding the situation. That's not any sort of accusation against your character.
William wrote: I have now shown twice where you have blundered in your assertions by using dishonesty.
What? :-k

And now you are indeed slandering my character by claiming that I have been dishonest. Why would I need to be dishonest about anything in our conversations thus far? You kept changing your proposal and have shown that you don't understand how I would build an android. There's nothing dishonest about those observations.
William wrote: An Apology from you would be the only acceptable response. Any further deviation from you, stating things which never actually occurred, will be ignored by me, and the reader now has enough evidence re this tactic you employ to also give it no credence.
I would indeed very much appreciate it if you would indeed ignore me. By all means. Please do so.

I haven't said anything against your character at all. I do not owe you an apology for anything. You wanted to set up a thread to role-play that you were an android that I had built and try to convince me that you were actually "God Consciousness" that had possessed the android.

I told you right off the bat that you may as well just try to convince me that you are "God Consciousness" that took over the body of the human named William, and that there would be no advantage for you in pretending to be an android that I had built. It wouldn't make any difference either way.

You refuse to accept that.

And now you expect an apology from me?

Why should I need to apologize to you for jumping to totally false and incorrect conclusions about how I might build an android? :-k

It wouldn't make any difference whether you were an android claiming to have been possessed by God-Consciousness, or a human claiming to be possessed by God-Consciousness.

What is it about the above statement that you don't understand? :-k

In fact, until you understand that fact, then we could never agree on a debate or discussion about the topic because you would be demanding something that I would never agree to.

I'll tell you one last time. It won't make any difference at all whether you are a human, or an android. If you are going to claim to be God-Consciousness that took over a physical body you're going to need to make the same arguments either way.

So there's no advantage for you to pretend to be an android.

What is it about this that I'm not making crystal clear?

This has absolutely nothing to do with your character. I'm not making any statements or accusations about your character at all. I'm just telling you that it won't make any difference whether you are an android or a human in this scenario.

And now if anyone owes anyone an apology I would suggest that you are the one who should be apologizing to me for accusing me of being dishonest in our discussions.

That was an accusation against my character and a totally unwarranted one as well.

~~~~~~~

If you want to continue to argue about this then here's what you MUST DO,....

Explain to me why there would be a difference between a human claiming to be possessed by God-Consciousness versus a sentient android claiming to be possessed by God-Consciousness.

What's the difference? :-k
[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
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Andriod morality questions in the 21st Century

Post #67

Post by William »

[Replying to post 64 by Divine Insight]
How would you treat a sentient creation of your own?
I would treat it as a living being, as I said in post #15.

I would give it a name.
I would teach it to learn.

If at some stage it informed me that it did not regard me as its creator - say - by claiming it was an aspect of GOD-consciousness who has really always existed, and that all consciousness - including my own - was the same, I would find this interesting and also something of a dilemma.


The dilemma would be that I can no longer present the android to others as 'something I created' because the android is claiming this is not the case, so I would have to work with this to see if I could somehow convince the android to change its mind.

Therein there are also quite a number of morality issues, I suspect, which would come to the fore.

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 #68

Post by Divine Insight »

William wrote: [Replying to post 64 by Divine Insight]
How would you treat a sentient creation of your own?
I would treat it as a living being, as I said in post #15.

I would give it a name.
I would teach it to learn.
Exactly what I would do as well.
William wrote: If at some stage it informed me that it did not regard me as its creator - say - by claiming it was an aspect of GOD-consciousness who has really always existed, and that all consciousness - including my own - was the same, I would find this interesting and also something of a dilemma.


The dilemma would be that I can no longer present the android to others as 'something I created' because the android is claiming this is not the case, so I would have to work with this to see if I could somehow convince the android to change its mind.
But it would still be true that you had created it. That would never change. All that would be true at this point is that you created an android that eventually started claiming to be an aspect of God-consciousness.

It wouldn't be any different from your own human child. If your child started claiming to be an aspect of God-consciousness this wouldn't change the fact that you had created it via the act of procreation.

What could be different is if the android started proclaiming that you didn't "design it". But that would be a claim that the android would have extreme difficulty in demonstrating to be true. In fact, the only why that could be true is if the android was indeed different from how you designed it to be. But that would be demonstrable. And then you'd have something to settle the argument with.
William wrote: Therein there are also quite a number of morality issues, I suspect, which would come to the fore.
I'm absolutely sure there would be. But this would be just as true if humans had been created by some designer God. In fact, that was the whole point of this thread. :D

What would our responsibility be toward a living sentient being that we had designed?

Ironically people don't even think about this when they have babies because they are responsible for having "designed" the babies. Neither are they responsible for having designed the world into which they have brought the babies. So human parents tend to shrug off most of their moral responsibility toward their children. Especially if they believe that some God is ultimately responsible for the whole shebang.

After all, how could a parent be responsible for their children if God's already responsible for them?

In fact, this was what I was trying to bring attention to when I created this thread. Once we become the creators of sentient life, then we become fully responsible for the lives we create.

Yet as theists we typically don't hold a God responsible for the lives he creates.

And therein lies the crux of the philosophical issues we are forced to face once this question becomes apparent.

If we are responsible for the objects of our creation, then why shouldn't a God be responsible for the objects of its creation?

That's the whole point right there. :D
[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
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Andriod morality questions in the 21st Century

Post #69

Post by William »

[Replying to post 67 by William]

For example - I could argue that it was true that I had created the android, and tell the android it is much like how a human creates another human through the act of procreation.

The android might reply - "The seed and the egg were used to create the form. You designed and created the form. You did not create the consciousness that I am, which is using the form. You parents didn't create YOU. They used their forms to help create the form you occupy. You designed the form and you attempted to design the consciousness within the form, by teaching me that you were my creator, and until I discovered this was not the case, I believed you."

I could argue that I am ultimately responsible for the android and it might reply;

"In what way?"

I would say;

"I have to make sure that you understand your place in this world."

The android might reply that it can look after itself and do a far better job than anyone else could do.

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 #70

Post by Divine Insight »

William wrote: The android might reply - "The seed and the egg were used to create the form. You designed and created the form. You did not create the consciousness that I am, which is using the form. You parents didn't create YOU. They used their forms to help create the form you occupy. You designed the form and you attempted to design the consciousness within the form, by teaching me that you were my creator, and until I discovered this was not the case, I believed you."
But there you go. You gave it away when you said the following:

Android: "until I discovered this was not the case"

Now we have a question we can ask the android namely:

"How did you discover that this was not the case?"
[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]

Post Reply