If somehow, I unknowingly befriended an android… ahmmm… wow, how stupid would I have to be… but, then I would NOT see them as having been murdered… their destruction would be no different than turning in my Ford truck for scrap metal.
WOW! I can only envision gamers reaching this type of logic. I would spend more time and effort defending earthworms and bees than even one iteration of this super special simulation that you envision. By your logic, then pulling the plug on comatose humans should also be perfectly fine (regardless of what the family feels) because they are after all no longer sentient, right?
Well… you can change the goal post and call it art if you want. Your original statement was not about the ethical considerations of destroying art. So, I’m going to respectfully decline all debate about the maintenance of your digital terrarium under the guise that it is now art and not a life form.
And I don’t understand what you don’t understand. I do not view electronic devices as living creatures, no matter how advanced they are or they look. They are electronic devices.
Where are you going to school? Have your instructors told you that electronic processes or electromechanical object are in fact alive?
What do they eat?
What do they excrete?
Describe their reproduction process (and spawning new threads does not count).
Please provide a cite that describe homo sapiens as electromechanical machines? This is new to me. If I were an atheist, I would be upset at this statement for many different reasons.
As far as I’ve ever understood, most homo sapiens are biological creatures (e.g. carbon based life forms). checks belly button nope, no power supply adapter there?
None of them told me that. What they did say was that if it moved, grew, ate, excreted, breathed and reproduced- then it was alive. As no simulation or robot did all that yet, no teacher ever told me one was alive.
They don’t do any of those things- yet.
I need to provide a site for that? Seriously? How are we NOT electrochemical machines?
[/QUOTE]
As far as I’ve ever understood, most homo sapiens are biological creatures (e.g. carbon based life forms). checks belly button nope, no power supply adapter there?
[/QUOTE]
Nope. You get power from food, water and air. You convert that chemical energy into electrical energy, heat, and kinetic energy.
Even an android as apparently self-aware and capable of human interaction as Data out of Star Trek or Bishop out of the Aliens movie (or Ash from the original or Call from the fourth movie)? Science fiction certainly but I don’t think its that unlikely that we’ll have such humanlike artifical beings in the future given enough progress.
Ironically according to the Colonial Marines Technical Manual synthetics like Bishop aren’t considered self-aware by the powers that be but among their other duties they help fulfill the function of a benign authority figure and neutral arbiter in the squad group dynamics.
I do think though that problems would arise as human beings, emphatic creatures that we are, would risk their own neck to save a damaged synthetic on the battlefield even if the android itself was protesting that its only a machine!
As I said above if through magically advance future technology we manage to create an entity that to all intents and purposes is indistinguishable from a human then we should treat them as one whether that entity is running on software, silicon or by some other means we can’t really envisage at the moment.
We’re ‘only’ biological machines after all based on material elements, there’s nothing special about humans, at least physically, our minds are qualitively magnitudes more capable than even the smartest animals. (I’m not a misanthrope, I think humans are pretty damn nifty but I don’t think its absolutely impossible that we’ll some day know enough about how we and our minds function to be able to create artificial versions of ourselves)
(I’m not a Star Trek fan but I’ve picked up enough about Data through cultural osmosis to be aware that he’s considered a person in the Star Trek universe)
My error on that one. I mis-read your electroCHEMICAL. Without a defined distinction between electroCHEMICAL and biological, I’m going to use the term biological for simplicity.
I haven’t equated biological and electroMECHANICAL. In fact, I believe they are different and that you can scrap any electroMECHANICAL device/process at will without any ethical implication.
Yup, I’d have no problem recycling any of them, even the great Data himself.
Then I suggest that you gather up some of these materials and build a genuine human (not a robot or android, but a genuine human replica with nervous system, same digestive tract, same immunology, etc). Once you’ve don that, then you can publish about exactly how non-unique biological life is from the electro-mechanical machinery that would run your proposed simulation.
I personally don’t want public policy (e.g. definition of murder) set based on science fiction. And, unless I’m mistaken, Data’s status as an android (only a machine) is repeatedly used in the story lines of Star Trek. Just because the crew on the star ship like him, that does not make him of the same status. I don’t remember any episode where anyone was prosecuted for the murder of Data or any other android.
Hence, I’ve opted to use the term BIOLOGICAL instead of electrochemical.
For the sake of keeping the discussion focused, I am comparing biological creatures to (now) electroMECHANICAL (in fairness, we should be still sticking to computer based simulations, but if you want to add mobility, that is fine)
And I would have NO problems with powering them down, recycling them, causing them to dive off a building just to see if they bounce… they are not alive in the sense that they have rights that can be protected. They may have value, the same as my truck has value, but that implies rights for their owner, not the object itself.
Because by your definition, it is electroMECHANICAL and in MY opinion, I do not agree that the term “alive” can be applied to electroMECHANICAL devices.
You have yet to show any instance where a non-fiction electromechanical device has been referenced as “ALIVE” in the same sense as deserving of rights in the way that a biological creature has rights. (e.g. humans have a right to not be murdered, animals have a right to not be abused, etc)
As I said, there are none- yet. But I honestly don’t understand how you can use ‘we have not built one yet’ as an argument for ‘if we did build one it would not be alive or deserve rights’
Well, there you go. I’m not up on my Science FICTION.
No one has presented anything that has caused me to reconsider my position and I’m not going to run down the rabbit hole of debating various fiction stories…
It is clear that you (and those who feel as you do) should not engage me to baby sit your young androids.
I might check back to see if there are any other stronger arguments, but failing that… I’m going to stop posting on this thread because it isn’t producing any new information at this point.
I have not said that… I have said that electromechanical devices should NEVER be considered alive. I have explained that my opinion is based on the fact that I reserve the term alive for biological creatures.
You have provided the treatment of fictional characters and your opinion to support your argument.
So, effectively the only reason you think electricalmechanical devices are alive is “because you do”. Not exactly much stronger
No, I’ve said that the definition of living thing is anything that eats, excretes, breathes, grows, moves, and reproduces. I have further said that any thing that meets that definition should be considered alive.
By this definition, any computer based simulation cannot be alive, as they are processes running on computers that do not move, breath or reproduce.
Again, I’m not up on science fiction, but I don’t recall any android eating and excreting. Also, why would androids be designed to reproduce when it would be more efficient for the manufacturer to produce additional androids of the same make/model.
Why would androids be designed with a growth process that would require them to obtain and install added materials (e.g. longer cable runs, extending exoskeletons, etc). Why wouldn’t they be manufactured at their desired size?
Biological creatures breath (excepting some bacteria) as part of their process to burn the food they consume and carrying on the biological processes (e.g. cells, growth, etc). Why would an electromechanical android breath? Aside from air sampling (not the same as breathing where there is an exchange of oxygen/CO2) why would androids care one way or another what the atmosphere is, so long as it isn’t corrosive to their exterior?
The creation of an electromechanical device that carries on these activities would be wasteful. There for it is unlikely that any android will ever reach your definition of alive and your OP is a moot point.
Why participate in a thread where the question is: If simulations gained the characteristics of sentience, is it ethical to turn them off?
Your participation in this thread could have been limited to “I reject the premise of this thread that simulations could ever have the characteristics of sentience.”
Instead, your repeated comparisons to Roombas and existing video games are pointless, and your use of all-caps and derisive comments about those who wish to discuss the topic as “gamers” indicate that your goal is not discussion of the thread topic.
I haven’t rejected that they can reach a state of sentience… I’ve stated that even if they do, they are still no better than a roomba or my F250. They are objects, not biological creatures.
You started a thread in “In My Humble Opinion (IMHO)” asking a question. I answered the question in a way that you do not agree with. You have provided no argument to support your belief/opinion that I find convincing. I am fine that you do not agree with my opinion that something must be a biological ‘something’ to be considered alive in a way that there should be any ethical consideration given to terminating it.
I guess I just don’t form emotional attachments to inanimate or electro-mechanical objects. Sorry. I’ll be happy to power them down and even send them to recycling every time.
