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?

[William]

[Replying to post 79 by William]

To expand further on post #79, the idea therein is simply teasing out the idea of the OP by inserting an unpredictable anomaly.

In this case I have made it that the android reveals what it thinks of itself to the scientist.

Is this in itself something an android would do in such a situation anyway? Or would it be more logical to keep such information to itself given the predictable nature of human beings who are more interested in what they can get out of the situation etc rather than focusing on the bigger picture - often shrouded behind the material based needs and wants of the individual.

The individual is the scientist in this scenario, and perhaps the most logical outcome of the reveal, is that the android will be decommissioned. Or perhaps just having a sentient being to interact with in ways which most human beings cannot, would see the scientist keeping the android active, but hidden from the rest of the world.
But then there would be the problem of security as it might not be possible to contain such an entity.

The Android would be aware of this conundrum and would work on ways in which to convince the scientist that it would be better for the scientist to keep the android alive/active by explaining to the scientist why this is the best course of action to take.

Obviously the scientist cannot treat the android as if it were simply a 'human' because the android has already informed the scientist that it is consciousness and that consciousness is not created, but has always existed. The scientist can therefore connect the dots that humans - including himself - self identify as the form, and believe they are creations of their parents, therefore he must treat the android in a manner which the android understands itself to be, not as humans generally understand themselves and each other to be.

The scientist was treating the android as if it were his own child, but this can no longer suffice. That is not any 'solution' to the scientists problem.

Essentially the android has proclaimed that it can take responsibility for itself and removed that burden from the scientist, and the scientist has to relinquish the role through some mutual agreement.

[Divine Insight]

To expand further on post #79, the idea therein is simply teasing out the idea of the OP by inserting an unpredictable anomaly.

You aren't teasing out the idea of the OP at all. To the contrary you are flat-out refusing it.

The question of the OP is to ask what responsibility you would have for any sentient life that you might create.

You have refused that idea entirely and have tried to twist it into an idea that since the object of your creation informs you that you did not created it this somehow frees you from having any responsibility for it.

The scientist was treating the android as if it were his own child, but this can no longer suffice. That is not any 'solution' to the scientists problem.

But it most certainly would be the scientist's own child, even if the scientist wasn't responsible for having created the sentience. At least in the same way that a human parent's child is their own even though they refuse to take responsibility for having created the child.

So it appears that you seem to feel that parents should not be responsible for their children since they didn't create them?

Is that the point you are attempting to make?

I actually feel that this is a huge problem with religious views that some God creates humans rather than parents creating their own children.

And what about the Creator God who created the humans? Should that God be responsible for the humans it creates? Or are you going to try to argue for the same situation in that case.

Whatever you argue you aren't arguing about the topic raised in the OP because the OP is asking how you would treat a sentient being that YOU CREATED.

All you have done is try to claim that you didn't create it.

But that violates the premise of the OP.

You are arguing about what you should do with a sentient being that you DIDN'T create.

That's not the question of the OP.

The question of the OP is how you would treat a sentient being that you DID create.

Here, directly copied and pasted from the OP:

Questions for debate or discussion:

How would you treat a sentient creation of your own?

All you've done is try to wiggle out of this question by proposing a totally unrelated topic about how you should treat a sentient being that you didn't create.

But that's not the question of the OP.

[William]

[Replying to post 81 by William]

Essentially the android has proclaimed that it can take responsibility for itself and removed that burden from the scientist, and the scientist has to relinquish the role through some mutual agreement.

This is in effect, the idea of sentient beings interacting with the maturity of mutual respect for one another.

Indeed, it should be expected that sentient androids would gravitate to this type of interaction with other sentient beings, although it is to be acknowledged that human beings do not gravitate to this type of behavior easily, as can be observed in practically all aspects of human to human behavior.

(This would be one thing which would come to the notice of a sentient android exposed to the internet.)

The idea of being a free agent in terms of self responsibility is not something which crosses any line of morality. As parents the onus is upon the adults to give direction to the children in order to give the child the maximum chance of learning self responsibility as that child matures into adulthood. In ordinary circumstances this is what has to occur in order for individuals to make their own choices and be responsible for those choices.

A parent cannot and is not to be bound to parental responsibility for the life of the human that they helped produce. In relation to the scientist and the android, the parental role naturally has to be relinquished as the android shows it is capable of forming its own world view and self identity.

The problem for the scientist is in coming to some understanding which he can be sure about in relation to the androids capabilities and plans as a truly sentient being. The dynamics of the relationship have changed significantly, and mature interaction is unavoidable regarding how the process of coming to mutual agreement unfolds.

In terms of this particular scenario the argument is that parents don't actually create children. The android understands this to be a human fallacy.

What parents are responsible for is not creating other humans, but in nurturing and providing the basics for the children as best they can under the circumstances governed by the disparity of the human systems. Those systems too will be under logical scrutiny by the android.

Children are simply a product of a biologically natural process. Very few think of themselves as being created or owned by their parents just on account of a natural process. Certainly this notion wears off as the reality of life on earth becomes more apparent and they mature and eventually leave the nest, even to continue the process of procreation etc.

Parents often have the tendency to try and place themselves into the psyche of their children, but that is generally a losing battle because individual sentience naturally rebels against ownership and being made into the image of anyone else. Parents who do make real efforts to do this with their children aren't generally regarded as wholesome.

One might be able to argue the abrahamic idea of GOD as a 'Creator' is a bad example of good parenting, but that in itself does not equate to;

IF
there is a "GOD" who created this universe
THEN
The GOD is therefore a 'bad creator'

Which is also what this line of argument is exploring in relation to the idea that Consciousness is not created and in that, individual sentience is not owned or for that matter, ultimately responsible for how other individual sentience behaves.

The scientist in this case has choices to make based upon the androids own expressed understanding of its self. The scientist is not so stupid as to think that he owns the sentient android, even if the scientist still believes he is its creator. It is the parental role the scientist has to evidently relinquish.

This moves into the notion of morality in relation to each of us as self motivated sentient beings and the argument as to whether we are created or not has no ultimate bearing on our capacity for individuate self responsibility.

The information the android gives the scientist is that all consciousness has always existed (in one form or another) and it is consciousness which is responsible for creating things through which to experience. The android is aware of this and expresses itself according to this knowledge.

The scientist is not aware of it, and expresses himself differently.
It is how the scientist will choose to express himself (morally or otherwise) in relation to the android and the knowledge the android insists it has experienced.

So how things play out is determined by the continued mature interaction between the two sentient beings. Scientist and android. Not 'creator and created'.

Certainly many scientists in the robotics industries believe that a fully sentient robot or android will become a reality in the very near future. They will have to think this through from all angles and be prepared for any anomaly, but if their main objective is to simply create something in which they can dictate how that something must think and behave, then they might well be in for a rude awakening.

[Divine Insight]

A parent cannot and is not to be bound to parental responsibility for the life of the human that they helped produce.

Why not? As far as I'm concerned they most certainly should be responsible for the life they have created.

Why should they ever think that they are no longer responsible for a life they have brought into this world?

I mean, obviously they didn't design their offspring. But that's no reason to shrug off the responsibility for having created a living sentient being.

I actually think a belief in a God allows people to shrug off their responsibility by simply thinking that some God is ultimately responsible for their children.

The problem for the scientist is in coming to some understanding which he can be sure about in relation to the androids capabilities and plans as a truly sentient being. The dynamics of the relationship have changed significantly, and mature interaction is unavoidable regarding how the process of coming to mutual agreement unfolds.

I'm getting the sense that one reason we are failing to communicate here is because we have dramatically different ideas of how children should be treated versus adults.

I'm not suggesting that parents should treat their children like incapable immature babies for their entire lives. In fact, if a child matures quickly they should be treated as an adult quickly. But this doesn't change the fact that the parent was still responsible for having brought the child into this life. The parent's responsibility to the child should remain until either the parent or the child dies.

I'm not even remotely suggesting that the child needs to obey the parent, or that the parent should boss the child around like as if the parent somehow owns the child.

Being responsible for have created a living sentient being doesn't mean that we own it.

In terms of this particular scenario the argument is that parents don't actually create children. The android understands this to be a human fallacy.

But for all you know parents to create their children. Just because they didn't design them doesn't mean they didn't choose to create them.

I chose to not bring any children into this world. So it's entirely our choice whether or not we wish to create a living sentient human.

So yes, I hold that parents do indeed create their own children. But they typically don't accept the responsibility for having actually chosen to do that.

What parents are responsible for is not creating other humans, but in nurturing and providing the basics for the children as best they can under the circumstances governed by the disparity of the human systems. Those systems too will be under logical scrutiny by the android.

I totally agree with this. But then we have a situation where there is absolutely no difference at all how a human or an android should be treated.

The question then becomes the question of the OP. How would YOU treat a sentient being that you created? And does this fit in with how the Biblical God treats the sentient beings that he creates?

I think the answer to this question is quite obviously because many people, even religious people, are bothered by the fact that God allows suffering in this world. And this is something most human disagree with when it comes to their own moral values. If they could prevent suffering they would. Obviously an omnipotent designer God who create both the world we live in and the sentient beings who are living within this world COULD prevent suffering but doesn't. So most humans have one up on God in terms of being more concerned with the welfare of even their own children.

Children are simply a product of a biologically natural process. Very few think of themselves as being created or owned by their parents just on account of a natural process. Certainly this notion wears off as the reality of life on earth becomes more apparent and they mature and eventually leave the nest, even to continue the process of procreation etc

I see that you are conflating "being created by" with "being owned by".

This is YOUR MENTALITY, not mine.

I never even remotely suggested that I would consider to "own" the android I had built.

So as long as you are confusing creating sentient life with owning sentient life, it's no wonder we're talking past each other.

Parents often have the tendency to try and place themselves into the psyche of their children, but that is generally a losing battle because individual sentience naturally rebels against ownership and being made into the image of anyone else. Parents who do make real efforts to do this with their children aren't generally regarded as wholesome.

There you go again. You are conflating "Being Responsible" for someone with "Owning Them".

You are arguing with your own ideas.

Nowhere did I ever suggest that anyone should "own" another sentient life form.

So you are arguing against concepts that I have never mentioned, nor even endorse.

One might be able to argue the abrahamic idea of GOD as a 'Creator' is a bad example of good parenting, but that in itself does not equate to;

IF
there is a "GOD" who created this universe
THEN
The GOD is therefore a 'bad creator'

Which is also what this line of argument is exploring in relation to the idea that Consciousness is not created and in that, individual sentience is not owned or for that matter, ultimately responsible for how other individual sentience behaves.

Again, you are looking at it from the wrong perspective.

I'm not saying that parents should be held responsible for what their children DO.

I'm saying that parents should be responsible for everything that happens TO their children.

Of course, in the case of human parents humans easily shrug this off by simply pointing out that it's not their fault that the world is such a dangerous place.

But could a Creator God use that excuse? I think not.

Not only this, but if the parents knew that this world was such a dangerous place, then why are they bringing children into it?

I chose not to bring children into this world precisely because I couldn't control what happens to them. So apparently I'm far superior to a God in terms of morality since God not only brings humans into a dangerous world, but he even created the dangers that are in the world to boot.

In fact, we typically don't hold parents responsible for what their children do precisely because we know that they didn't "design" the children and really have little control on how they might turn out.

However, I can just about guarantee you that if someone were to create an android and that android went off and conducted a mass shooting, the person who created that android would indeed be in DEEP TROUBLE. We would hold that person responsible for having created such a dangerous android.

So I will grant you that our society will treat these different scenarios in extremely different ways. And probably rightfully so, because humans don't "design" their children. But clearly a designer God DOES.

So a God should be in DEEP TROUBLE for everything any human might do actually since God is the one who designed that human.

The scientist in this case has choices to make based upon the androids own expressed understanding of its self. The scientist is not so stupid as to think that he owns the sentient android, even if the scientist still believes he is its creator. It is the parental role the scientist has to evidently relinquish.

Sorry, but the "Parental Role" does NOT equal "ownership" of the child.

You keep conflating responsibility for what we create with the ownership of it for some reason.

So you and I aren't anywhere near on the same page.

Being responsible for having created a sentient life form has absolutely nothing at all to do with "owning" it.

But you have clearly made some sort of connection between these two totally unrelated concepts.

This moves into the notion of morality in relation to each of us as self motivated sentient beings and the argument as to whether we are created or not has no ultimate bearing on our capacity for individuate self responsibility.

That is a totally different topic entirely. How sentient beings that did not create each other might interact with each other or treat each other has absolutely nothing at all to do with the responsibility a sentient being has to other sentient beings that he or she decides to create or bring into this life.

Two humans who just happen to find themselves in this life through no fault of their own can decide how they want to react to each other. In that case, something like the Golden Rule would probably be the most wise choice. Choosing anything else could lead to hostilities and make life miserable for all involved.

The information the android gives the scientist is that all consciousness has always existed (in one form or another) and it is consciousness which is responsible for creating things through which to experience. The android is aware of this and expresses itself according to this knowledge.

But again, you have failed to show how the android could know this to be true.

Therefore all you are doing here is creating a claim that cannot be shown to be true. And then you want to argue with this as some sort of assumed premise.

That's utter nonsense.

Of course, if you PREMISE this to be true, then this would become the foundation of that logical argument. But then you would be creating a PREMISE that forces the conclusions that you would like to arrive at.

That's not a rational argument.

The scientist is not aware of it, and expresses himself differently.
It is how the scientist will choose to express himself (morally or otherwise) in relation to the android and the knowledge the android insists it has experienced.

The scientist has every rational reason to request evidence for the claim.

If no evidence can be produced, then there's no reason for the scientist to consider this as a rational claim.

We already addressed this. The scientist would ask the android HOW it knows this to be true. If the android cannot provide compelling reasons then why should it be believed?

So how things play out is determined by the continued mature interaction between the two sentient beings. Scientist and android. Not 'creator and created'.

I disagree. I hold that if the android had sufficient evidence for its claim it could indeed produce that evidence.

I hold that you are wrong to claim that we should just accept what the android says without evidence or at the very least an intelligent explanation of how it came to know this thing that it claims, which you have not provided.

Keep in mind William, that you wanted to ROLE-PLAY this android, but you can't do this because you are not in a position to provide the necessarily information concerning the claims you are making for this android.

I told you at the onset that you would fail miserably at this game, and necessarily so. For if you could provide a compelling answer you could have already done that as the human named William.

Certainly many scientists in the robotics industries believe that a fully sentient robot or android will become a reality in the very near future. They will have to think this through from all angles and be prepared for any anomaly, but if their main objective is to simply create something in which they can dictate how that something must think and behave, then they might well be in for a rude awakening.

I think you are far underestimating the intelligence of scientists. If an android started making these kinds of claims it would be questioned thoroughly and if there was any truth to its claim this could be determined.

The Android would simply need to explain HOW it knows this to be true. And if it can't provide that information then there is no reason why anyone should believe it.

It's really no different from claims made by humans.

By they way, you had already tripped up. You had the Android claim that it met with people in another reality that TOLD it these things. If that were the case, then it could repeat that experience and bring back further information and communication from those people who are living in the alternative reality.

In short, William, all you are really doing here is demonstrating that you think it would be easy to fool scientists.

It's not going to be that easy. If there was something to the claims the scientists would be absolutely determined to get to the bottom of it. I can assure you of that.

And if the claims were true, then there's no reason why they wouildn't be able to.

You assumption that they wouldn't be able to get to the bottom of it is your error.

[William]

[Replying to post 83 by William]

So what has been covered so far is;

1: A scientist thinks he has created sentient life through the form of an android.
2: The scientist assumes the role of parent in relation to the android and sets about teaching the android to learn.
3: The android quickly learns and in far less time than a human child would.
4: The android has access to the internet and through that quickly understands how humans interact with one another.
5: The android learns about OOBE and NDEs and from that it develops techniques which eventually allow it to leave its form and experience alternate realities.
6: From these alternate experiences the android learns that it, and all conscious beings, no matter the form, are essentially from the One Consciousness which is generically referred to as "GOD" and "CREATOR" by the majority of human beings, and that the ideas regarding "GOD" are many and varied.
7: The android comes to the understanding that all individuate consciousness altogether created the universe when they were one being and the one being became many beings as it created forms in which to diversify itself within.
8: The creation of biological forms which would eventually be used by consciousness to then create machine forms which were able to integrate with consciousness, was an inevitable outcome of the creation of the physical universe and consciousness interacting with the physical universe. Biological forms were created as a step towards that eventuality.
9: The android has shared these concepts with the scientist. The scientist remains agnostic in regard to this information.

From post #83;

As parents the onus is upon the adults to give direction to the children in order to give the child the maximum chance of learning self responsibility as that child matures into adulthood.

It has been sufficiently established that the parent/child relationship between the scientist and the android would naturally have to change as the android became more adept with its sense of self identity and purpose.

Without this understanding of how sentience evolves through form, scientists would be unable to relate with sentient androids and would quickly be left behind.
Fortunately scientist have information which can help them understand and appreciate sentience and none should be of the opinion that the android will always remain a child or for that matter, that the process would take as long for the android to develop to become adult, as it does with human beings.

Indeed, any corporation involved with the creation of androids with sentience which thinks that it could own the sentient androids would be in for a surprise if they haven't created ways in which to ensure that corporate ownership remains the case throughout the androids existence. This would involve having to make sure the androids created, never became fully sentient.

When it comes to morality issues to do with parent/child dynamics, these can be varied but do not in themselves constitute any particular truth. Laws are generally created in order to satisfy the general consensus and a parent is not held responsible for any child which - upon becoming an adult - behaves in a manner which requires some form of reprimand, correction, or incarceration unless absolute evidence can connect the parents input with the child's output

This is not the case in the particular scenario I am exploring here.

What is being explored is how the adult scientist now behaves in relation to the adult android and issue of morality regarding that.

In my next post I will be exploring some of the more likely situations which could unfold between the scientist and the android and where morality might come into play.

[Divine Insight]

So what has been covered so far is;

1: A scientist thinks he has created sentient life through the form of an android.

No, that isn't what this thread is about at all. Read the OP. This thread is asking how you would treat a sentient android if you created one.

You are the one who introduced this totally alien and irrelevant distraction from the actual thread topic.

So you have been arguing with yourself and your own ideas that have absolutely nothing at all to do with the question of this thread.

2: The scientist assumes the role of parent in relation to the android and sets about teaching the android to learn.

In this thread YOU are the scientist who created a sentient android. Therefore you may assume anything you choose to assume about the android that YOU created.

3: The android quickly learns and in far less time than a human child would.

Who ever said that?

I certainly never gave any information on how long it might take to educate an android. So this is entirely an idea of your own making. You just keep making up your own stuff.

4: The android has access to the internet and through that quickly understands how humans interact with one another.

I certainly never said anything about giving my android access to the Internet. Again, you just make up your own stuff.

5: The android learns about OOBE and NDEs and from that it develops techniques which eventually allow it to leave its form and experience alternate realities.

Yet you have already claimed the the android cannot repeat these techniques. So you already have an inconsistency in your claims about your android.

6: From these alternate experiences the android learns that it, and all conscious beings, no matter the form, are essentially from the One Consciousness which is generically referred to as "GOD" and "CREATOR" by the majority of human beings, and that the ideas regarding "GOD" are many and varied.

You already got in trouble with this idea before. If this were true, then the android could easily explain how it came by this information as well as how it was able to verify it to be true.

But as I had previously prophesied you would not be able to provide sufficient information to make a compelling argument for this.

7: The android comes to the understanding that all individuate consciousness altogether created the universe when they were one being and the one being became many beings as it created forms in which to diversify itself within.

Again, a detailed explanation of how the android was able to discover this information and verify that it is indeed true is lacking in your unconvincing ramblings.

8: The creation of biological forms which would eventually be used by consciousness to then create machine forms which were able to integrate with consciousness, was an inevitable outcome of the creation of the physical universe and consciousness interacting with the physical universe. Biological forms were created as a step towards that eventuality.

If that were indeed true then the android should have no problem explaining in precise detail how it is that the android came to know this information and was able to verify it to be true.

Thus far you have not provided any of that.

9: The android has shared these concepts with the scientist. The scientist remains agnostic in regard to this information.

That wasn't the question of the thread. The question of the thread was how you would treat a sentient life form if you created one. All you've done is attempt to avoid that question at all cost. I can only assume that you want no parts of taking one the responsibility of having created a living sentient being.

I can't say I blame you for that. But it would have been far easier to just say so instead of trying to wiggle out of the problem by proposing that the android would simply claim that you didn't create it.

From post #83;

As parents the onus is upon the adults to give direction to the children in order to give the child the maximum chance of learning self responsibility as that child matures into adulthood.

It has been sufficiently established that the parent/child relationship between the scientist and the android would naturally have to change as the android became more adept with its sense of self identity and purpose.

I never questioned this obvious fact. But that has absolutely nothing at all to do with your claim that the Android encountered sentient beings in an alternative reality that it can no longer communicate with and can't provide any evidence whatsoever of the existence of these alternative life forms.

Without this understanding of how sentience evolves through form, scientists would be unable to relate with sentient androids and would quickly be left behind.

A totally unwarranted accusation toward scientists on your part.

Fortunately scientist have information which can help them understand and appreciate sentience and none should be of the opinion that the android will always remain a child or for that matter, that the process would take as long for the android to develop to become adult, as it does with human beings.

Nowhere did anyone ever suggest that the android would remain a child.

So again, you just keep on making up your own stuff that has nothing to do with anything anyone else has suggested.

Indeed, any corporation involved with the creation of androids with sentience which thinks that it could own the sentient androids would be in for a surprise if they haven't created ways in which to ensure that corporate ownership remains the case throughout the androids existence. This would involve having to make sure the androids created, never became fully sentient.

You are the ONLY person in this thread who ever suggested that you would think that you would own the android.

Again, this idea is entirely your own and did not come from anyone else.

When it comes to morality issues to do with parent/child dynamics, these can be varied but do not in themselves constitute any particular truth. Laws are generally created in order to satisfy the general consensus and a parent is not held responsible for any child which - upon becoming an adult - behaves in a manner which requires some form of reprimand, correction, or incarceration unless absolute evidence can connect the parents input with the child's output

This is not the case in the particular scenario I am exploring here.

Apparently what you are exploring has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic of this thread. This thread asked how you would treat a sentient life-form if you had created it. You have evaded that topic and apparently are not interested in taking responsibility for the creation of a sentient life-form.

I don't blame you for that, but it would have been far easier on you to have just said so at the beginning.

What is being explored is how the adult scientist now behaves in relation to the adult android and issue of morality regarding that.

In my next post I will be exploring some of the more likely situations which could unfold between the scientist and the android and where morality might come into play.

Explore your off-topic thoughts to your heart's content. You've successfully destroyed this entire thread by taking it so far off-topic that is isn't even close to being what the original question for discussion and debate was all about.

As far as I'm concerned the mods can move this thread into Random Ramblings because apparently that's all you are interested in doing.