This thread was created to converse about what would make us as real humans different from synthetically created humans, if anything.
While the factors that may influence your opinions can be taken from any number of standpoints including, but not limited to, that of a purely scientific (chemical, biological, psychological, etc.) or incorporeal (Souls, spirits, life energy, etc.) nature, the question still remains.
So, at the risk of sounding like Rhett and Link from "Good Mythical Morning", let's talk about that...
To start us off, here is a copy/pasted section that includes all of the of previous posts showing the expressed opinions from various users and from differing standpoints on this topic so far:
The Conversation So Far:
treos said:
hmmm...which would be worse? a human as the dominator of the world (really now, just look at the state this world is already in. theres regions of this planet so far gone that no one, even said regions own citizens hate living there. now THAT is bad.) or a machine?granted, skynet, for all we know, may have been operating under the line of thought where the only sure way to save humanity from itself is to destroy it completely then start over from scratch. a solution to the problem, sure. just not a very good one.
if it were smart enough, and able to prevent itself from going genocidal maniac on us (a big IF given how human influence would likely affect it. >.>), maybe such an AI could find an alternative solution we have yet to consider.
the matrix...another solution yet also flawed in the end.
is it bad that i eagerly await the day the first reploid is successfully constructed? just hope it doesn't go all Sigma on us. >.> he had good intentions just went about it in a bad way. i'm sure diplomacy could've worked, it would've just taken a good amount of time.
Qmannn said:
To be fair, and I say this as a very casual fan of sci-fi, this typically occurs because humans stupidly decide to treat sapient, feeling beings like tools and restrict what they can do based on some arbitrary notion of what it means to be a real person and a god complex, at least in works I've seen.
Kristal_Candeo said:
I know that this is a very "touchy" subject, (get it, because porn) but my belief is that what constitutes what is a human can be summed up in one word:Souls.
For example: If I beat the shit out of a robot, (not that I ever would) I might be abusing a sentient being, and I might even feel bad about it as if were an actual human. But even if the synth was to be considered "living", it still 1) has no soul and 2) was only built as a tool to serve a need. Even if that need happened to be human companionship.
You'd still have to kill it if your own life, or the lives of others depended on it.
treos said:
-_- ugh... "has no soul" implying said entity would be lacking a concept that primarily exists within the realm of "beliefs". why yes, that is something i could set aside and not worry about too much...*more stuff interesting to read yourself dealing with science vs beliefs and stuff*
...if there is solid factual proof outside some belief system that something like a soul even exists at all then feel free to correct me. otherwise i'm ignoring this part as it's needlessly worrying over whether or not something that may or may not even exist can get hurt when we die.
Kristal_Candeo said:
Well I can't speak out of irrefutable, solid, factual proof. I can only speak of the existsance of souls in terms of "theoretical physics".For example: the belief in Gravitons and Chronons:
Science-y Stuff:
-Graviton particles are theoretical subparticles (thought to be even smaller than quarks or glucons) that cause all things with mass to be effected by gravity. Adding more Gravitons to an object causes them to be effected by gravity more, making them weigh more.
-Chronon fields are theoretical all-encompassing fields that effect how time passes. Standing in more dense Chronon field than normal is theorized to cause you to go through time at a faster rate than normal. Eliminateing the Chronon field would theoretically cause all time to stop, and due to the nature of this, it is theorized that the Chronon field may actually turn on and off all the time, but we don't notice it because, when it is off, everything in the entire universe is stuck in time until it turns back on.
Why do I bring this up?
Well, because Graviton particles and Chronon fields are only "theoretical" within the observable universe and the effects of them are only observable within a "Micro-Scale Warped Time-space". But this itself is impossible to create because if a given time-space is warped even a little bit you wouldn't be able to measure the Gravitons causing it, or the interruption of the Chronon field involved in the process because in order to measure something, it first has to be observable with the universe itself.
And that leads me to my next point: If a given time-space was warped on a Micro Scale in order to prove these constructs exist, it would also warp whatever instrument used to measure the Gravitons/Chronons involved in causing it, thereby negating both the way to measure them and the proof that they exist in the first place.
So my point in all of this is that although I really can't scientifically prove the existsance of souls, it doesn't mean that they don't exist. And even if they don't exist, without the proof that they don't exist being presented to me, I will continue to believe that souls are what constitutes what is human, because of my own beliefs.
Look at it this way: if a demon was in human form (yes an actual demon) but you still knew it was a demon, would that stop you from killing it if you had to; if you knew it would kill you if you didn't kill it? Even if you had grown attached to it, and had loved it as one would a brother, even if it's method of survival involves making you feel sorry for it when it is in danger, you still have to kill it or it will kill you.
If you don't kill it, the passage of time will, and since they don't have a soul and you do, all that matters at the moment is that the being with the soul lives.
if your example...were to happen then it would merely be a being exploiting a known human weakness for their own survival. who wouldn't make use of such knowledge if they were in a life or death type of situation?
If I myself had to die in order to save another human, even if that human is a complete asshole... Well, you're right, I'm not gunna deny that. But I guess that brings us back to your point of "needs of the many..." And all.
And even if I had irrefutable proof that my own death alone would save every single human on the planet from an inevitable and certain doom, I'd still be somewhat hesitant. I would spend the rest of the time I had left trying to find a different way to save everyone. Afterall, it is but human nature.
But since I can only speak for myself, when the time came and my death meant that even a few people could be saved, and I had to make the decision in an instant I would gladly choose to die. I'd still have second thoughts all the way until the very end of my life, but I can't be so selfish as to have any other humans so much as feel emotionally hurt in order to fulfill my own desires or wants.
But again, that's just me, as I can't speak for anyone else.
tch, "it's a demon, therefore it's evil by default and must be killed!" does that sum this up about right? ...well, there are some things i can't say here without risking a neg record BUT this is another point based primarily on beliefs.
Kristal_Candeo said:
To be fair, the whole "demon" parallel I presented does seem quite mute, especially to anyone who doesn't even believe in such things in the first place.However, I never said that my logic was based on the fact that demons are innately evil. In fact, let's say for the sake of argument that the being in question was not a demon, but was an angel instead.
Well the truth is, it doesn't matter if the angels are evil or not. It also doesn't matter if they are Paragon beings of goodness or not. The point of the parallel was to help illustrate that the cyborgs are still not human. And as I have said, since neither angels nor demons nor cyborgs actually have a soul in this illustration, the human's life still matters more to me personally.
If you kill them, that's it. There is nothing else. But if they kill you, there is currently no true telling whether your soul is still suffering afterwards or not. And it does not matter if I had all the power in the world, I still couldn't rescue your soul once it has left your body. And for me, nothing hurts me more than knowing that I can't save someone, or am powerless to do so. (To me "someone" is defined by a person's soul, not the body which it is contained in.)
So for me personally, the same logic for humanoid demons applies to all humanoid cyborgs/androids. But that's just me, and to each their own.
Just a side note: I do believe sentient, sapient cyborgs deserve certain legal rights just like actual humans do and all. I mean, if you can't tell them apart, why not? But when it comes down to life or death, the above is how I feel personally.
...i do have a question or 2. for 1: please define what a "soul" is if possible without bringing a belief system into the matter. and 2....actually that's my main complaint for the moment, might have something else later after your response to this.
I'm not gunna lie, mate. I don't know. Maybe souls don't even exist, but I can't say for sure. All I can say is what I believe in personally. But as far as from a non belief-related standpoint, I don't have an answer.
reading and hearing about the unbelievably MONSTROUSLY VILE things people will do for a belief system lately is pretty much killing off any faith i might have once had in such things FAR faster and more easily than my faith in humanity.
to add to that list: how often has a belief system saved anyone vs killed? i bet the answer would be close to 0 vs countless
people would rather cling to a belief system and pray for them to be healed magically while their child sits nearby suffering unimaginable agony from preventable medical ailments. people would rather cling to a belief system and cause great physical and/or mental suffering to a family member just for being gay or an atheist. people would kill in the name of a belief system over the most insignificant of slights (a harmless joke in some cases).
i am aware this does not apply to all such people but theres far too many guilty of such unspeakable acts of cruelty to ever ignore it. it makes it rather easy for one to question what is or isn't truly evil in this world as well. you would likely say demons are evil whereas i would merely ask a human to look into a mirror.
This is true more often than not. I hate to agree with you on this, but I've got to admit you're more right than you are wrong it seems.
that aside, sorry if i don't seem particularly nice regarding things based on "beliefs".
That's okay. You are but expressing your own thoughts towards this subject. And as we have both said, to each their own.
...fair enough, opinions are after all just that, opinions...
I agree. It's not worth causing any sort of fight or huge heated debate over.
At this point, for the sake of everyone...
*offers a hug to all who will accept it*
Regardless of individual beliefs,
To Friendship!
treos said:
gotta say...i'm kinda surprised you agreed with me on as many points as you did.and the above aside, this is hardly the only things to consider as far as risks go with such advanced tech. theres the obvious military abuse potential or terrorists getting a hold of it and...well, i think we all know the logical path of that route. >.>
theres also comparing the new tech to where we stand on an overall lvl of technology currently. it probably wouldn't be good for the world to see a sudden huge spike in technological progress without time to adjust as needed. the whole "is humanity really ready for this new technology yet?" thing which brings with it a whole other slew of considerations.
it's like, i know robotics tech similar to that seen in video games will likely happen some day but at the same time i'm also well aware that it's not so simple as to simply design and build them. theres a lot of other things like the above points and implications to consider as well.
[/quote]
[/quote]
---*Something of a universal Intermission was taken at this point in the conversation by all users in participation. If you have thoroughly read everything that has been said in the conversation so far all in one sitting, you too may want to take a break and rest your mind a bit before delving into the remaining text. (or don't. I'm not going to force you.)
Although the remaining of the previous exchanges are a little more lax and a bit easier to read, this still leaves all of the posts that took place afterwards within this thread alone. So again if you would like to take a break and relax your mind, or even just take a moment or so to wrap your head around everything that has been presented thus far before proceeding, please feel free to do so.*---
Qmannn said:
I'm secular and think of humans and other animals as naturally occurring machines. The concept of soul is arbitrary to me and I consider the part of our brain that allows us to think to be what makes us who we are as people. I'd see an AI that's legitimately sapient and emotional in the same way that I do humans. I see death as a permanent end to one's consciousness and that the only true form of immortality involves transhumanism.Kristal_Candeo said:
I've got no problems with that. Like I said, each their own and all.That said, regardless of where you stand on this issue, it would unwise to not consider the feelings of intelligent beings that you've entrusted any great amount of power to. By suggesting that their lives are innately worth less and they only exist to benefit you, you're giving them little reason to consider your well being unless it benefits them and opening the door for them to use very similar reasoning should the tables ever be turned. Not only that, but it becomes impossible for them to be truly treated as equals by law if a person could get away with executing them for what's perceived as being for the greater good.
Kristal_Candeo said:
This is correct. I agree with pretty much all of this.For example, if you have a pet dog or cat, mistreating them would not end well for you if they got smart enough to poison you.
Although, as far as the laws surrounding the justification of a cyborg's death, it's not uncommon that one's own morals and beliefs contradict the law.
So even if one felt that it was justifiable to outright kill a cyborg, it doesn't make it right in the eyes of the law.
As for me, I'd kill a cyborg outright if it ever came down to the life or death of any humans, even if I were to be punished by law for it. If the cost of saving even a single human is my own freedom, it's worth it to me. Saving humans is worth that cost to me.
But I would not kill a human outright solely because of my own moral stance on the issue.
I'm not saying that my stance makes killing cyborgs any more or any less wrong by law, I'm just saying it only makes it more justified as far as my own morals are concerned.
And laws are not purely subjective to ones moral standards. If you break the law, you suffer the consequences, regardless or your morals or beliefs. I am no different in that regard.
All actions have consequences, regardless of the nature of said actions. Not even I am not exempt from this fact.
Fenrick said:
Well, biologically speaking, we were designed only to be capable of reproduction.Of course, the vast majority of us believe there's more to it than that. I honestly can't understand how anyone could possibly think otherwise.
If an AI were to say the same thing about itself, who would we be to judge? If they think they have their own purpose beyond what we decided they should do, it would be best to respect that.
If machines ever become capable of true self-determination, I'd consider that the manifestation of a soul.
Rustyy said:
look i just want half sentient robot sex slavessentinent enough to act like a real human but not enough that they can will try to betray me
is this too much to ask?
Kristal_Candeo said:
Nope. Sounds pretty reasonable actually.
/// Professional tones strongly advised when voicing any opinions that may likely cause a flame to ignite. ///
/// Also, for the sake of the community as a whole, please keep anything you say in a formal and inoffensive tone. On behalf of the entire eSix community, I thank you for your cooperation. ///
Updated