Are humanoids real people?

[GreatAugustus]

In this thread, we will attempt to discuss the difference between human life and robotic counterparts.

As far as I know, "I think, therefore I am." So how can I, GreatAugustus know that I am a person, not a natural form of computer existing in reality? How can I determine that this android-humanoid entity can not have a consciousness? Would it be a replicated consciousness or the real thing?

What would this mean for us? How would we deal with this realization? Would it solve the question of what is the meaning and purpose of life? Would society breakdown to a lack of a reason for existence?

Here is an interesting and some what far-fetched theoretical scenario: The year is around 2100 AD. Android-humanoid robots have totally replaced the labour workforce. With innovation, U.S. Robotics, leading manufacturer of advanced robotics, is at the center of a multi-million dollar case in the American Supreme Court. At the prosecution is the representatives of the Robotic Resistance League, a organized group of NS-5 stock, a new and radical design of robot with 'synthetic' brains made up of quantum computers and other advanced nanotechnology. By refusing to work one day, they are suing U.S Robotics, demanding liberation from slavery.



If you could, would you give robots human rights or some kind of equivalent? Would you treat them differently?

[Enzo]

There's something called the Turing test if a robot or whatever can fool a human into thinking its an ordinary human then it would be sentient. If you could make something like and there isn't anything spiritual involved then what you would have there is decent proof for the purely material origin of consciousness. We would know how it would work, how it's formed and how to replicate it through physical means. We currently have no clue of how to make any such thing and it's possible that we never actually will.

[Irishman]

There's something called the Turing test if a robot or whatever can fool a human into thinking its an ordinary human then it would be sentient. If you could make something like and there isn't anything spiritual involved then what you would have there is decent proof for the purely material origin of consciousness. We would know how it would work, how it's formed and how to replicate it through physical means. We currently have no clue of how to make any such thing and it's possible that we never actually will.

That actually isn't the point of the Turing test. The Turing test doesn't produce a POSITIVE result that the machine would be sentient, just that we would have no principled reason to say the machine wasn't. Turing's point is that we should have a more principled reason to deny intelligence to a machine than just that they are machines.

Turing's article can be read here:
http://www.csee.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf

Pure science fiction anyway as conscious is not purely the result of any kind of physical process we understand it will be under the action and influence of God, the part of reality we don't see.

Convenient to point to an explanatorily impotent being to explain phenomena

On the topic of thinking machines, this is rather relevant and is VERY interesting:

[Enzo]

Convenient to point to an explanatorily impotent being to explain phenomena

It's a little more complex than that, the physical body you see is sheathed in a "semi-fludic or subtle form of matter invisible to the naked eye" but this can be subjectively experienced. Books like this one describe how to go about doing that and there are subtle references to it in the Bible and other religious texts, in Hinduism they call it the subtle body.

On the topic of thinking machines, this is rather relevant and is VERY interesting:

Non-organic machines won't as far as I know be fully sheathed in the etheric body therefore I don't think they can be conscious. Our own bodies wouldn't be conscious without it either, they would be dead. My hypothesis with Jesus Christ is that he managed to "re-sheath" himself around his original body bringing his body back into some form of life, not quite the same as it was before.

[GreatAugustus]

Interesting. I shall research the Turin test.

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

A robot is a computer without a soul.A lifeless machine that needs something other than food to move.It can not love or feel like we do.It does not have our emotions.I would destroy a machine easily when its use is up.If I can kill a cow that is a life form and eat it I can do whatever I please with a robot.The movie AI was like the vision of the future you have.

They replaced there son with a robot clone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=sqS83f-NUww

[Himster]

If it talks like a human, feels like a human, thinks like a human................. it must be a fish.
But seriously the blurry test is like Theseus' ship, if a human being had every single molecule replaced with an artificial version is it still the same person, if not: at which molecule does it cease to be the same person?
Also Enzo was referring to the Turing test, saying Turin was deliciously ironic. lol.
Everyone should watch Battlestar Galactica.

[GreatAugustus]

A robot is a computer without a soul.A lifeless machine that needs something other than food to move.It can not love or feel like we do.It does not have our emotions.I would destroy a machine easily when its use is up.If I can kill a cow that is a life form and eat it I can do whatever I please with a robot.The movie AI was like the vision of the future you have.

They replaced there son with a robot clone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=sqS83f-NUww

Paraphrasing here but emotions are physiological reactions to events. If you are conscious then surely you can develop emotions. Can't you?

I haven't seen AI. I have seen I, robot though.

[Hazzard]

But seriously the blurry test is like Theseus' ship, if a human being had every single molecule replaced with an artificial version is it still the same person, if not: at which molecule does it cease to be the same person?

In my opinoin when you start affecting hormones, chemicals and thought processes.

To me it would come down to if you had machines that intelligent they would need to be restricted, destroyed or sent off somewhere, like maybe put them on another planet. Maybe keep them on several planets and see how they react.

[Himster]

In my opinoin when you start affecting hormones, chemicals and thought processes.

You think those things will never be synthesizable?

EnzoTo me it would come down to if you had machines that intelligent they would need to be restricted, destroyed or sent off somewhere, like maybe put them on another planet. Maybe keep them on several planets and see how they react.

I don't think it'll matter, when the point comes when we can't tell the difference between "artificial" people and "real" people the difference won't matter, it's called the technological singularity (it's pretty much our evolutionary destiny), our minds will be probably be downloadable into machines, we will be immortal: Our posthensile hands will stretch out through the cosmos and know all.

[Enzo]

Pure science fiction anyway as conscious is not purely the result of any kind of physical process we understand it will be under the action and influence of God, the part of reality we don't see.

[Mangalore]

Pure science fiction anyway as conscious is not purely the result of any kind of physical process we understand it will be under the action and influence of God, the part of reality we don't see.

Opposed to an reality we don't see?

[Irishman]

It's a little more complex than that, the physical body you see is sheathed in a semi-fludic or subtle form of matter invisible to the naked eye but can be subjectively experienced. Books like this one describe how to go about doing that and there are subtle references to it in the Bible and other religious texts, in Hinduism they call it the subtle body.

Not really more complex in a substantive way. All you did was add a whole bunch of supernatural concepts onto God which serve no real explanatory purpose.

Non-organic machines won't as far as I know be fully sheathed in the etheric body

Why not?

This is the problem with supernatural explanations of consciousness, they don't really explain anything, they just add to the complexity of consciousness by positing terms like 'semi-fluidic form of matter' or 'etheric body'. Posits like this do nothing more than complicate the question.

Your explanation is equivalent to saying that you cannot be conscious without a soul, therefore machines can't be conscious. While this is a substantive statement, it is completely void of any explanatory power.

[Enzo]

Not really more complex in a substantive way. All you did was add a whole bunch of supernatural concepts onto God which serve no real explanatory purpose.

It just serves the purpose of explaining how all this operates beyond your own physicalist point of view. You do you know you only represent 2% of the worlds population in what you believe? What I'm describing here is just the mainstream ordinary belief of your regular Joe. In slightly more eccentric detail than people are normally used to but it's the exact same thing. You have the world you see and the world you don't see, though I think they're both part of the same world.

Why not?

Because it's just inert fixed form physical matter. It isn't organic or alive.

This is the problem with supernatural explanations of consciousness, they don't really explain anything

Neither does the supposed non-explained alternative which is just an assumption you have. You don't know it works the way you think it works. Also it kind of fits better the theist/religious view if you think about it. The idea is that God exist and is the source of all life, creation and consciousness. It's not meant to be just a bunch of chemical reactions and , free will, good and evil and all that sort of thing. The resurrection of Christ as well that's kind of a big deal in Christianity if you think about it. So that's what it's meant to explain.

they just add to the complexity of consciousness by positing terms like 'semi-fluidic form of matter' or 'etheric body'. Posits like this do nothing more than complicate the question.

I think what you have in mind would make life more complicated, where did the universe come from, where did life come from and whats meant to happen when we die? It's not like you can erase yourself from your own subjective existence. You will always be wherever your consciousness awareness exists as it is individual subjective perception centred. Now assuming physical death would end that and your awareness can only ever flow in one direction through time, well this is complicated. What I'm suggesting would be easier, it would also explain the nature of NDEs and other mystical experiences.

Your explanation is equivalent to saying that you cannot be conscious without a soul, therefore machines can't be conscious.

Pretty much much yeah.

While this is a substantive statement, it is completely void of any explanatory power.

It has plenty of explanatory power, particularly when combined with a religious faith which most people have. Nothing wrong with that.

[Biggieboy]

These will be THE biggest problems to ethics and morals in the future. Imagine if you can program a robot to feel pain, to be afraid, to love,... Things that happen in, or because of, the brain. Why would we still make a distinction betweens humans and humanoids? Sure, the robots or humanoids can be programmed, but aren't we sort of programmed too, through evolution, genetics, upbringing,...

It will be a very interesting time indeed.

[TNZ]

Does one’s individual consciousness' result from having a soul or does one’s soul result from our consciousness itself? The idea being that you cannot have a soul without consciousness, so can you have consciousness without a soul?

[Irishman]

It just serves the purpose of explaining how all this operates beyond your own physicalist point of view. You do you know you only represent 2% of the worlds population in what you believe? What I'm describing here is just the mainstream ordinary belief of your regular Joe. In slightly more eccentric detail than people are normally used to but it's the exact same thing. You have the world you see and the world you don't see, though I think they're both part of the same world.

Why would the average Joe have any great insight to the inner workings of the mind?

Also, it really doesn't EXPLAIN anything, it just posits this spirit as an explanation for consciousness without any supporting evidence or argumentation.

Because it's just inert fixed form physical matter. It isn't organic or alive.

Well now you've made a very big leap to claim that ONLY biologically living organisms can be conscious. What basis do you have for this claim?

Neither does the supposed non-explained alternative which is just an assumption you have.

Exactly. I'm not claiming to know the answer. All I'm saying is positing a spirit or ethereal sheath does no good in actually answering any questions.

It has plenty of explanatory power, particularly when combined with a religious faith which most people have. Nothing wrong with that.

But all you did was posit an unobserved, unsubstantiated property which essentially REPLACES consciousness. It just shifts the questions about consciousness back to the ethereal sheath. Just like God offers no explanatory value to the creation of the universe. Supernatural explanations of the gaps in scientific knowledge only serve to provide psychological comfort, they don't offer an explanation of the way things work,

[Blau&Gruen]

Are humanoids real people?

In one version of wikipedia you will find under Humanoid an article about Grey, the alien.
Grey the alien is a wonderful example for incomplete properties in relation to a definition.

Greys are possibly a kind of people but not real, probably.
In fact, one needs to see that not being real seems to be a property for Greys.





Now, the intended question of the thread.

If you could, would you give robots human rights or some kind of equivalent? Would you treat them differently?

If robots were real people, they deserved human rights or rights that are appropriate to robots that are also humans because we assume with reasons that human rights and other basic ethical rules remain valid independant to whom we apply them within the range of their definition. However, the same question as with Grey arrises. Are the properties complete and do robots fall under the definition human? Greys would if they were real.

[Hazzard]

You think those things will never be synthesizable?

I think they will eventually, and then immediately have heavy restrictions on how you can make them and what you can do with them.

I don't think it'll matter, when the point comes when we can't tell the difference between "artificial" people and "real" people the difference won't matter, it's called the technological singularity (it's pretty much our evolutionary destiny), our minds will be probably be downloadable into machines, we will be immortal: Our posthensile hands will stretch out through the cosmos and know all.

And at that point I will be glad I'm dead and not have to deal with it.
The thing is with these downloading mind things, you have no way of proving that it is the same person, it could be an exact copy and you can't tell if it's the origanal or not.
Like you could give me a text file that said "We must free them from their torment"
I could cut the file and then paste it again. It is not the same file, it is an exact copy, but you can't tell that.

[Hazzard]

You think those things will never be synthesizable?

I think they will eventually, and then immediately have heavy restrictions on how you can make them and what you can do with them.

I don't think it'll matter, when the point comes when we can't tell the difference between "artificial" people and "real" people the difference won't matter, it's called the technological singularity (it's pretty much our evolutionary destiny), our minds will be probably be downloadable into machines, we will be immortal: Our posthensile hands will stretch out through the cosmos and know all.

And at that point I will be glad I'm dead and not have to deal with it.
The thing is with these downloading mind things, you have no way of proving that it is the same person, it could be an exact copy and you can't tell if it's the origanal or not.
Like you could give me a text file that said "We must free them from their torment"
I could cut the file and then paste it again. It is not the same file, it is an exact copy, but you can't tell that.

I don't think that you can ever place two species of life, artificial or otherwise on the exact same level.

For starters you can break into an artificial's "mind" a lot more easily than an organics, because you could use a computer to get into the artificial's files and edit it with Notepad.