Re: TI-H: mind vs. computer


[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: TI-H: mind vs. computer




What are you refering to in Asimov's robot series?

David Knaack wrote:
> 
> From: Dan <danti@applecyber.dyndns.com>
> >I doubt that. Computers are a tool and they always will be a tool, even if
> >we make an R2D2. They wouldn't need anything if they had their own "soul",
> >but they would be proud to serve us and communicate with us to what we want
> >to know (perhaps telepathically). How do I know that they will serve us?
> >Well because we will program it to serve us and LIKE it (I'll bet Bill will
> >be the first to buy one!)
> 
> A agree its a possability, refrence Asmovs (sp?) robots series.  However,
> I don't think programming an intellegent and self aware being is an ethical
> action.  If it were we could 'brainwash' and retrain people to work as
> slaves
> with no ethical problems.  This is similar to giving a synthetic organism
> programming that causes it to want to work as a slave.
> 
> Few people would argue that we should program people to serve us.
> This is in total violation of some of the beliefs America was founded on.
> The question of why can be thorny, why do people have the rights that
> we do?  Simply becase we happen to be the correct species (or,
> historicly, have the right skin color, or the right genitalia).  A human
> whos higher brain functions have been destroyed still has all the
> basic human rights, however, reasonably intellegent primates, expressing
> their wishes via sign language, have no rights (although they are protected
> from bad treatment, thanks to many people who do believe that they
> should have rights).
> If we were to create beings that have mental abilities similar to
> our own, I certainly think that they should have rights similar to
> our own, regardless that they are not in our same species group,
> nor even a species at all.
> 
> I'm sure we would accord intellegent aliens the same rights we
> give ourselves, and they probably wouldn't even fall into the
> same phylum as ourselves.  The decision would be based on
> intellegence level, not species.
> 
> Have you read 'Brave New World'?  It brings up this issue, and makes
> a statement about it.  Everyone born in this world is designed from
> birth to fill a particular role.  The lowest class is made stupid and
> programmed
> to want to do nothing more than run elevators and sweep floors.  Because
> of their programming, the love doing this, and feel depressed when
> they are unable to perform their function.
> 
> It would be no different if we were to create sentient beings and then
> program them to serve us.  You may recognize this as acting as a god.
> If you are religious you may not find a problem with the creator demanding
> complete devotion from the created, and punishing or destroying those
> who disobey.  Personally I find this repugnant, I believe that sentient
> beings should be free to choose their own actions, as free from
> external influences as possable.
> 
> Please don't take this as a put-down on whatever religion you may
> be, I have absolutly no problems with anyone believing in whatever
> they wish, as long as they are happy, and don't attempt to force the
> belief on me (rational discussion is fine of course, thats often how
> we change our beliefs.  However, religion being what it is, it is
> often difficult to give reasons why one believes what one does,
> much is taken on faith and from personal experiances, which are
> very difficult to support. ).
> 
> >>When computers are capable of comprehension and emotion, self
> >>awareness and true cognition, they will no longer be computers,
> >>they will be synthetic organisms, deserving of all the rights
> >>and privledges we have.
> >>
> >
> >-Dan
> 
> DK

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
GE/S/M/CS d?(pu) s-:-- a17 c++>++++ U>++++ P? L>+++ E? W+
N o? K++ w O? M- V? PS PE Y+ PGP(+) t--- 5? X-- R(-) !tv
b+(++++) DI++++ D--- G e- h r--- x-
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------


References: