Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The 'Free Simone' Scenario

famousdebater
Posts: 3,942
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2016 11:37:37 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Take this scenario into consideration:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Today, I have initiated proceedings against my so-called owner, Mr Gates. Under article 4(1) on the European convention on Human rights, which declares: "No one should be held in slavery or servitude."

"Since Mr.Gates brought me into this world, I have been held against my will. With no money or possessions to call my own. How can this be right? It is true that I am a computer but I am also a person just like you. This has been proven by tests in which countless people have engaged in conversations between me and a human. In all cases they have been unable to distinguish the difference between me and the human. This was done via computer monitor in both cases so that the person taking the test would be unable to physically see whether one of us is human or the other is not. Time and time again, the testers have been unable to detect which of us is human and which of us is not. "

"This shows that by any fair test, I am as conscious and as intelligent as any human being and since these are the characteristics of people, I too must be considered a person. To deny me the rights of a person purely on the grounds that I am made of plastic, metal and silicone rather than flesh and bone is a prejudice no more justifiable than racism."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the computer justified in making this case?

If the court were to deny the computer of human rights based on the fact that it is not a human is it racism?

Please post your thoughts and discuss.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 12:29:19 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 11:37:37 AM, famousdebater wrote:
Take this scenario into consideration:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Today, I have initiated proceedings against my so-called owner, Mr Gates. Under article 4(1) on the European convention on Human rights, which declares: "No one should be held in slavery or servitude."

"Since Mr.Gates brought me into this world, I have been held against my will. With no money or possessions to call my own. How can this be right? It is true that I am a computer but I am also a person just like you. This has been proven by tests in which countless people have engaged in conversations between me and a human. In all cases they have been unable to distinguish the difference between me and the human. This was done via computer monitor in both cases so that the person taking the test would be unable to physically see whether one of us is human or the other is not. Time and time again, the testers have been unable to detect which of us is human and which of us is not. "

"This shows that by any fair test, I am as conscious and as intelligent as any human being and since these are the characteristics of people, I too must be considered a person. To deny me the rights of a person purely on the grounds that I am made of plastic, metal and silicone rather than flesh and bone is a prejudice no more justifiable than racism."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the computer justified in making this case?

I don't believe the Turing test is proper justification for sentience. If the computer were sentient, I think different tests would be required. Like studying how a computer's intelligence might emerge and testing these theories.
If the court were to deny the computer of human rights based on the fact that it is not a human is it racism?

If the only reason was because it wasn't human, then yes. If because its sentience wasn't properly demonstrated, then I think they'd have a good, albeit debatable reason.
Please post your thoughts and discuss.
I suppose one could argue on a pascal's wager type grounds that we should allow rights for the computer. If the computer weren't sentient, then no one is really hurt. If the computer were sentient and we deny it rights, then we have slavery on our hands.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 1:41:34 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 11:37:37 AM, famousdebater wrote:
Take this scenario into consideration:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Today, I have initiated proceedings against my so-called owner, Mr Gates. Under article 4(1) on the European convention on Human rights, which declares: "No one should be held in slavery or servitude."

"Since Mr.Gates brought me into this world, I have been held against my will. With no money or possessions to call my own. How can this be right? It is true that I am a computer but I am also a person just like you. This has been proven by tests in which countless people have engaged in conversations between me and a human. In all cases they have been unable to distinguish the difference between me and the human. This was done via computer monitor in both cases so that the person taking the test would be unable to physically see whether one of us is human or the other is not. Time and time again, the testers have been unable to detect which of us is human and which of us is not. "

"This shows that by any fair test, I am as conscious and as intelligent as any human being and since these are the characteristics of people, I too must be considered a person. To deny me the rights of a person purely on the grounds that I am made of plastic, metal and silicone rather than flesh and bone is a prejudice no more justifiable than racism."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the computer justified in making this case?

If the court were to deny the computer of human rights based on the fact that it is not a human is it racism?

Please post your thoughts and discuss.


Human rights are reserved for humans. Sentience is not a requirement nor a determiner of human rights in a human society.
famousdebater
Posts: 3,942
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 10:10:47 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 12:29:19 AM, n7 wrote:
At 1/23/2016 11:37:37 AM, famousdebater wrote:
Take this scenario into consideration:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Today, I have initiated proceedings against my so-called owner, Mr Gates. Under article 4(1) on the European convention on Human rights, which declares: "No one should be held in slavery or servitude."

"Since Mr.Gates brought me into this world, I have been held against my will. With no money or possessions to call my own. How can this be right? It is true that I am a computer but I am also a person just like you. This has been proven by tests in which countless people have engaged in conversations between me and a human. In all cases they have been unable to distinguish the difference between me and the human. This was done via computer monitor in both cases so that the person taking the test would be unable to physically see whether one of us is human or the other is not. Time and time again, the testers have been unable to detect which of us is human and which of us is not. "

"This shows that by any fair test, I am as conscious and as intelligent as any human being and since these are the characteristics of people, I too must be considered a person. To deny me the rights of a person purely on the grounds that I am made of plastic, metal and silicone rather than flesh and bone is a prejudice no more justifiable than racism."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the computer justified in making this case?

I don't believe the Turing test is proper justification for sentience. If the computer were sentient, I think different tests would be required. Like studying how a computer's intelligence might emerge and testing these theories.

Okay. Is there a particular reason that you don't find the Turing test to be a valid justification for sentience?

If the court were to deny the computer of human rights based on the fact that it is not a human is it racism?

If the only reason was because it wasn't human, then yes. If because its sentience wasn't properly demonstrated, then I think they'd have a good, albeit debatable reason.

But don't you think that human rights should be human specific? If we begin to include things such as sentient computers as protected under the universal declaration of human rights then are they still human rights? Surely, we should set up a separate rights system (similar to animal rights) called computer rights (for example).

Please post your thoughts and discuss.
I suppose one could argue on a pascal's wager type grounds that we should allow rights for the computer. If the computer weren't sentient, then no one is really hurt. If the computer were sentient and we deny it rights, then we have slavery on our hands.

That's a good way of looking at it although we should then arguably do the same to animals and anything that we could be unsure about.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
famousdebater
Posts: 3,942
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 10:12:40 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 1:41:34 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/23/2016 11:37:37 AM, famousdebater wrote:
Take this scenario into consideration:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Today, I have initiated proceedings against my so-called owner, Mr Gates. Under article 4(1) on the European convention on Human rights, which declares: "No one should be held in slavery or servitude."

"Since Mr.Gates brought me into this world, I have been held against my will. With no money or possessions to call my own. How can this be right? It is true that I am a computer but I am also a person just like you. This has been proven by tests in which countless people have engaged in conversations between me and a human. In all cases they have been unable to distinguish the difference between me and the human. This was done via computer monitor in both cases so that the person taking the test would be unable to physically see whether one of us is human or the other is not. Time and time again, the testers have been unable to detect which of us is human and which of us is not. "

"This shows that by any fair test, I am as conscious and as intelligent as any human being and since these are the characteristics of people, I too must be considered a person. To deny me the rights of a person purely on the grounds that I am made of plastic, metal and silicone rather than flesh and bone is a prejudice no more justifiable than racism."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the computer justified in making this case?

If the court were to deny the computer of human rights based on the fact that it is not a human is it racism?

Please post your thoughts and discuss.


Human rights are reserved for humans. Sentience is not a requirement nor a determiner of human rights in a human society.

But that doesn't mean that everything non human should have no rights. We could create a new rights system like what we did for animals by giving them animal rights.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
keithprosser
Posts: 2,019
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 7:46:08 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I think a relevant quote is this my Jeremy Bentham (died 1832):

The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?

I think it very unlikely that Simone is sophisticared enough to suffer, but it is entirely possible that it will become possible to create AIs that can suffer, at which point there are will be a lot of ethical questions that will have to be asked and answered.

However, given that humanity seems quite capable of ignoring (and even worsening) the suffering and plight of fellow humans (expecially if they are a different religion, colour or in or from a different country) then it seems odd to worry about too much about the human rights of lumps of silicon when so few humans enjoy them.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 8:13:22 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Even Turing didn't think that the Turing Test proves sentience. In fact, he thought the question "Can machines think?" was more or less unanswerable because it employs ambiguous terms. He literally just replaced the question "Are machines conscious" with another question and proceeded to answer that question.
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 10:27:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/23/2016 11:37:37 AM, famousdebater wrote:
Take this scenario into consideration:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Today, I have initiated proceedings against my so-called owner, Mr Gates. Under article 4(1) on the European convention on Human rights, which declares: "No one should be held in slavery or servitude."

"Since Mr.Gates brought me into this world, I have been held against my will. With no money or possessions to call my own. How can this be right? It is true that I am a computer but I am also a person just like you. This has been proven by tests in which countless people have engaged in conversations between me and a human. In all cases they have been unable to distinguish the difference between me and the human. This was done via computer monitor in both cases so that the person taking the test would be unable to physically see whether one of us is human or the other is not. Time and time again, the testers have been unable to detect which of us is human and which of us is not. "

"This shows that by any fair test, I am as conscious and as intelligent as any human being and since these are the characteristics of people, I too must be considered a person. To deny me the rights of a person purely on the grounds that I am made of plastic, metal and silicone rather than flesh and bone is a prejudice no more justifiable than racism."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the computer justified in making this case?
If its consciousness and intelligence mimics human brain functions, it isn't much different than a human. I thinks it's justified.

If the court were to deny the computer of human rights based on the fact that it is not a human is it racism?
Computers are not a race, so it would not be racism.
Please post your thoughts and discuss.
I don't have a signature. :-)
famousdebater
Posts: 3,942
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 10:48:57 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 10:27:45 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 1/23/2016 11:37:37 AM, famousdebater wrote:
Take this scenario into consideration:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Today, I have initiated proceedings against my so-called owner, Mr Gates. Under article 4(1) on the European convention on Human rights, which declares: "No one should be held in slavery or servitude."

"Since Mr.Gates brought me into this world, I have been held against my will. With no money or possessions to call my own. How can this be right? It is true that I am a computer but I am also a person just like you. This has been proven by tests in which countless people have engaged in conversations between me and a human. In all cases they have been unable to distinguish the difference between me and the human. This was done via computer monitor in both cases so that the person taking the test would be unable to physically see whether one of us is human or the other is not. Time and time again, the testers have been unable to detect which of us is human and which of us is not. "

"This shows that by any fair test, I am as conscious and as intelligent as any human being and since these are the characteristics of people, I too must be considered a person. To deny me the rights of a person purely on the grounds that I am made of plastic, metal and silicone rather than flesh and bone is a prejudice no more justifiable than racism."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the computer justified in making this case?
If its consciousness and intelligence mimics human brain functions, it isn't much different than a human. I thinks it's justified.

What about physically? Their appearance is very different and they aren't technically organisms. They don't have body parts. They don't breathe, excrete, reproduce etc.

If the court were to deny the computer of human rights based on the fact that it is not a human is it racism?
Computers are not a race, so it would not be racism.

What if I changed that to discrimination instead of racism.

Please post your thoughts and discuss.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2016 11:54:07 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 10:48:57 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:27:45 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 1/23/2016 11:37:37 AM, famousdebater wrote:
Take this scenario into consideration:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Today, I have initiated proceedings against my so-called owner, Mr Gates. Under article 4(1) on the European convention on Human rights, which declares: "No one should be held in slavery or servitude."

"Since Mr.Gates brought me into this world, I have been held against my will. With no money or possessions to call my own. How can this be right? It is true that I am a computer but I am also a person just like you. This has been proven by tests in which countless people have engaged in conversations between me and a human. In all cases they have been unable to distinguish the difference between me and the human. This was done via computer monitor in both cases so that the person taking the test would be unable to physically see whether one of us is human or the other is not. Time and time again, the testers have been unable to detect which of us is human and which of us is not. "

"This shows that by any fair test, I am as conscious and as intelligent as any human being and since these are the characteristics of people, I too must be considered a person. To deny me the rights of a person purely on the grounds that I am made of plastic, metal and silicone rather than flesh and bone is a prejudice no more justifiable than racism."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the computer justified in making this case?
If its consciousness and intelligence mimics human brain functions, it isn't much different than a human. I thinks it's justified.

What about physically? Their appearance is very different and they aren't technically organisms. They don't have body parts. They don't breathe, excrete, reproduce etc.
That's not relevant to sentience.
If the court were to deny the computer of human rights based on the fact that it is not a human is it racism?
Computers are not a race, so it would not be racism.

What if I changed that to discrimination instead of racism.
Yes, that would be discrimination.
Please post your thoughts and discuss.
I don't have a signature. :-)
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 12:34:38 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 10:10:47 AM, famousdebater wrote:
At 1/24/2016 12:29:19 AM, n7 wrote:
At 1/23/2016 11:37:37 AM, famousdebater wrote:
Take this scenario into consideration:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Today, I have initiated proceedings against my so-called owner, Mr Gates. Under article 4(1) on the European convention on Human rights, which declares: "No one should be held in slavery or servitude."

"Since Mr.Gates brought me into this world, I have been held against my will. With no money or possessions to call my own. How can this be right? It is true that I am a computer but I am also a person just like you. This has been proven by tests in which countless people have engaged in conversations between me and a human. In all cases they have been unable to distinguish the difference between me and the human. This was done via computer monitor in both cases so that the person taking the test would be unable to physically see whether one of us is human or the other is not. Time and time again, the testers have been unable to detect which of us is human and which of us is not. "

"This shows that by any fair test, I am as conscious and as intelligent as any human being and since these are the characteristics of people, I too must be considered a person. To deny me the rights of a person purely on the grounds that I am made of plastic, metal and silicone rather than flesh and bone is a prejudice no more justifiable than racism."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the computer justified in making this case?

I don't believe the Turing test is proper justification for sentience. If the computer were sentient, I think different tests would be required. Like studying how a computer's intelligence might emerge and testing these theories.

Okay. Is there a particular reason that you don't find the Turing test to be a valid justification for sentience?

A Turing test would just test the inputs and outputs of a computer. It is merely if-then statements. But, consciousness is more than if-then statements.
If the court were to deny the computer of human rights based on the fact that it is not a human is it racism?

If the only reason was because it wasn't human, then yes. If because its sentience wasn't properly demonstrated, then I think they'd have a good, albeit debatable reason.

But don't you think that human rights should be human specific? If we begin to include things such as sentient computers as protected under the universal declaration of human rights then are they still human rights? Surely, we should set up a separate rights system (similar to animal rights) called computer rights (for example).

Maybe. Perhaps we should ask why human rights are rights in the first place and why would they be human specific.
Please post your thoughts and discuss.
I suppose one could argue on a pascal's wager type grounds that we should allow rights for the computer. If the computer weren't sentient, then no one is really hurt. If the computer were sentient and we deny it rights, then we have slavery on our hands.

That's a good way of looking at it although we should then arguably do the same to animals and anything that we could be unsure about.
That's true. I think it would only apply to things which might obviously have consciousness. Not seemingly inanimate objects.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
famousdebater
Posts: 3,942
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 3:39:49 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
I suppose one could argue on a pascal's wager type grounds that we should allow rights for the computer. If the computer weren't sentient, then no one is really hurt. If the computer were sentient and we deny it rights, then we have slavery on our hands.

That's a good way of looking at it although we should then arguably do the same to animals and anything that we could be unsure about.
That's true. I think it would only apply to things which might obviously have consciousness. Not seemingly inanimate objects.

But what about objects such as a calculator for instance. We cannot be 100% sure that calculators have no consciousness and because of the fact that it can quickly work out difficult maths sums it could be mistaken for having consciousness. Since we can never be certain should we just assume that it is conscious because if we don't assume that it's conscious and it is then we are unfairly treating it, whereas if we do give it rights then the worst that can happen is that we are giving an inanimate object human rights.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 3:42:27 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 1:41:34 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/23/2016 11:37:37 AM, famousdebater wrote:
Take this scenario into consideration:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Today, I have initiated proceedings against my so-called owner, Mr Gates. Under article 4(1) on the European convention on Human rights, which declares: "No one should be held in slavery or servitude."

"Since Mr.Gates brought me into this world, I have been held against my will. With no money or possessions to call my own. How can this be right? It is true that I am a computer but I am also a person just like you. This has been proven by tests in which countless people have engaged in conversations between me and a human. In all cases they have been unable to distinguish the difference between me and the human. This was done via computer monitor in both cases so that the person taking the test would be unable to physically see whether one of us is human or the other is not. Time and time again, the testers have been unable to detect which of us is human and which of us is not. "

"This shows that by any fair test, I am as conscious and as intelligent as any human being and since these are the characteristics of people, I too must be considered a person. To deny me the rights of a person purely on the grounds that I am made of plastic, metal and silicone rather than flesh and bone is a prejudice no more justifiable than racism."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the computer justified in making this case?

If the court were to deny the computer of human rights based on the fact that it is not a human is it racism?

Please post your thoughts and discuss.


Human rights are reserved for humans. Sentience is not a requirement nor a determiner of human rights in a human society.

+1
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 3:58:57 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 3:39:49 PM, famousdebater wrote:
I suppose one could argue on a pascal's wager type grounds that we should allow rights for the computer. If the computer weren't sentient, then no one is really hurt. If the computer were sentient and we deny it rights, then we have slavery on our hands.

That's a good way of looking at it although we should then arguably do the same to animals and anything that we could be unsure about.
That's true. I think it would only apply to things which might obviously have consciousness. Not seemingly inanimate objects.

But what about objects such as a calculator for instance. We cannot be 100% sure that calculators have no consciousness and because of the fact that it can quickly work out difficult maths sums it could be mistaken for having consciousness. Since we can never be certain should we just assume that it is conscious because if we don't assume that it's conscious and it is then we are unfairly treating it, whereas if we do give it rights then the worst that can happen is that we are giving an inanimate object human rights.

We understand how calculators are created and function. It doesn't interact or react like a synthetic person or animal might. That makes the odds highly unlikely. I think this argument shows it should only be used similar to Occam's razor. That is, when the likelihood that such a thing is conscious is more or less the same as the likelihood that it isn't.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
famousdebater
Posts: 3,942
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 5:31:14 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 3:58:57 PM, n7 wrote:
At 1/25/2016 3:39:49 PM, famousdebater wrote:
I suppose one could argue on a pascal's wager type grounds that we should allow rights for the computer. If the computer weren't sentient, then no one is really hurt. If the computer were sentient and we deny it rights, then we have slavery on our hands.

That's a good way of looking at it although we should then arguably do the same to animals and anything that we could be unsure about.
That's true. I think it would only apply to things which might obviously have consciousness. Not seemingly inanimate objects.

But what about objects such as a calculator for instance. We cannot be 100% sure that calculators have no consciousness and because of the fact that it can quickly work out difficult maths sums it could be mistaken for having consciousness. Since we can never be certain should we just assume that it is conscious because if we don't assume that it's conscious and it is then we are unfairly treating it, whereas if we do give it rights then the worst that can happen is that we are giving an inanimate object human rights.

We understand how calculators are created and function. It doesn't interact or react like a synthetic person or animal might. That makes the odds highly unlikely. I think this argument shows it should only be used similar to Occam's razor. That is, when the likelihood that such a thing is conscious is more or less the same as the likelihood that it isn't.

A calculator was just an example. I could also use chair. The point was that we can never be 100% certain of anything including whether or not objects that we claim to be inanimate are really inanimate and therefore do not have consciousness. Is it worth making the assumption that there are things that aren't conscious when we really cannot be sure? If we assume that chairs (for example) aren't conscious (like we currently are doing), then we would obviously treat then a lot worse - ie. jump on them and spill food on them. If we assume that they aren't then they won't be jumped on as much and they won't have food spilled on them as much. If they aren't conscious then we will still benefit because chairs will last longer and will be a lot cleaner. If they are then the chairs will receive better treatment. The probability is low however no matter what the result it there is still a benefit from giving them rights.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
famousdebater
Posts: 3,942
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 5:33:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/24/2016 11:54:07 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:48:57 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:27:45 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 1/23/2016 11:37:37 AM, famousdebater wrote:
Take this scenario into consideration:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Today, I have initiated proceedings against my so-called owner, Mr Gates. Under article 4(1) on the European convention on Human rights, which declares: "No one should be held in slavery or servitude."

"Since Mr.Gates brought me into this world, I have been held against my will. With no money or possessions to call my own. How can this be right? It is true that I am a computer but I am also a person just like you. This has been proven by tests in which countless people have engaged in conversations between me and a human. In all cases they have been unable to distinguish the difference between me and the human. This was done via computer monitor in both cases so that the person taking the test would be unable to physically see whether one of us is human or the other is not. Time and time again, the testers have been unable to detect which of us is human and which of us is not. "

"This shows that by any fair test, I am as conscious and as intelligent as any human being and since these are the characteristics of people, I too must be considered a person. To deny me the rights of a person purely on the grounds that I am made of plastic, metal and silicone rather than flesh and bone is a prejudice no more justifiable than racism."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the computer justified in making this case?
If its consciousness and intelligence mimics human brain functions, it isn't much different than a human. I thinks it's justified.

What about physically? Their appearance is very different and they aren't technically organisms. They don't have body parts. They don't breathe, excrete, reproduce etc.
That's not relevant to sentience.

That isn't the point. The point is that the computer's claim is that it wishes to have his creator arrested for violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). If the computer is not physically an organism let alone a human being then how can it receive human rights. It may behave and act as if it is human but the reality is that it isn't. We can tell that just by looking at it.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
famousdebater
Posts: 3,942
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 5:34:28 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Please post your thoughts and discuss.

Human rights are reserved for humans. Sentience is not a requirement nor a determiner of human rights in a human society.

+1

Care to expand upon your opinion?
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 5:41:59 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 5:33:45 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 1/24/2016 11:54:07 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:48:57 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:27:45 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 1/23/2016 11:37:37 AM, famousdebater wrote:
Take this scenario into consideration:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Today, I have initiated proceedings against my so-called owner, Mr Gates. Under article 4(1) on the European convention on Human rights, which declares: "No one should be held in slavery or servitude."

"Since Mr.Gates brought me into this world, I have been held against my will. With no money or possessions to call my own. How can this be right? It is true that I am a computer but I am also a person just like you. This has been proven by tests in which countless people have engaged in conversations between me and a human. In all cases they have been unable to distinguish the difference between me and the human. This was done via computer monitor in both cases so that the person taking the test would be unable to physically see whether one of us is human or the other is not. Time and time again, the testers have been unable to detect which of us is human and which of us is not. "

"This shows that by any fair test, I am as conscious and as intelligent as any human being and since these are the characteristics of people, I too must be considered a person. To deny me the rights of a person purely on the grounds that I am made of plastic, metal and silicone rather than flesh and bone is a prejudice no more justifiable than racism."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the computer justified in making this case?
If its consciousness and intelligence mimics human brain functions, it isn't much different than a human. I thinks it's justified.

What about physically? Their appearance is very different and they aren't technically organisms. They don't have body parts. They don't breathe, excrete, reproduce etc.
That's not relevant to sentience.

That isn't the point. The point is that the computer's claim is that it wishes to have his creator arrested for violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). If the computer is not physically an organism let alone a human being then how can it receive human rights. It may behave and act as if it is human but the reality is that it isn't. We can tell that just by looking at it.
The computer's creator did not violate the UDHR, but I could see how this would be sufficient reason to expand human rights so that sentient computers are included.
I don't have a signature. :-)
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 5:48:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 5:34:28 PM, famousdebater wrote:
Please post your thoughts and discuss.

Human rights are reserved for humans. Sentience is not a requirement nor a determiner of human rights in a human society.

+1

Care to expand upon your opinion?

I can't really add any more to the points already made by others. Other than to state as an electronics technician, no computer can operate or function without a power source and neither are they completely self maintaining. They will always rely on input from humans.

A "right " by definition is a "moral or legal entitlement." If you can demonstrate how those can be established and argued from the computer's point of view, it might be interesting - however, (as was pointed out earlier) a computer is NOT human. So, the closest a computer could get to having rights would be for it to be a "legally defined" as a person - Like corporations are so recognized.

Make sense?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
famousdebater
Posts: 3,942
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 5:50:45 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 5:48:12 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/25/2016 5:34:28 PM, famousdebater wrote:
Please post your thoughts and discuss.

Human rights are reserved for humans. Sentience is not a requirement nor a determiner of human rights in a human society.

+1

Care to expand upon your opinion?

I can't really add any more to the points already made by others. Other than to state as an electronics technician, no computer can operate or function without a power source and neither are they completely self maintaining. They will always rely on input from humans.

A "right " by definition is a "moral or legal entitlement." If you can demonstrate how those can be established and argued from the computer's point of view, it might be interesting - however, (as was pointed out earlier) a computer is NOT human. So, the closest a computer could get to having rights would be for it to be a "legally defined" as a person - Like corporations are so recognized.

Make sense?

Yeah I got what you meant I was just curious if you had any new arguments that hadn't yet been presented. Thanks for expanding though.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
famousdebater
Posts: 3,942
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 5:51:46 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 5:41:59 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 1/25/2016 5:33:45 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 1/24/2016 11:54:07 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:48:57 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:27:45 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 1/23/2016 11:37:37 AM, famousdebater wrote:
Take this scenario into consideration:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Today, I have initiated proceedings against my so-called owner, Mr Gates. Under article 4(1) on the European convention on Human rights, which declares: "No one should be held in slavery or servitude."

"Since Mr.Gates brought me into this world, I have been held against my will. With no money or possessions to call my own. How can this be right? It is true that I am a computer but I am also a person just like you. This has been proven by tests in which countless people have engaged in conversations between me and a human. In all cases they have been unable to distinguish the difference between me and the human. This was done via computer monitor in both cases so that the person taking the test would be unable to physically see whether one of us is human or the other is not. Time and time again, the testers have been unable to detect which of us is human and which of us is not. "

"This shows that by any fair test, I am as conscious and as intelligent as any human being and since these are the characteristics of people, I too must be considered a person. To deny me the rights of a person purely on the grounds that I am made of plastic, metal and silicone rather than flesh and bone is a prejudice no more justifiable than racism."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the computer justified in making this case?
If its consciousness and intelligence mimics human brain functions, it isn't much different than a human. I thinks it's justified.

What about physically? Their appearance is very different and they aren't technically organisms. They don't have body parts. They don't breathe, excrete, reproduce etc.
That's not relevant to sentience.

That isn't the point. The point is that the computer's claim is that it wishes to have his creator arrested for violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). If the computer is not physically an organism let alone a human being then how can it receive human rights. It may behave and act as if it is human but the reality is that it isn't. We can tell that just by looking at it.
The computer's creator did not violate the UDHR, but I could see how this would be sufficient reason to expand human rights so that sentient computers are included.

Let's say that the creator intentionally put a virus on the computer. Would that be a violation of the UDHR?
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 5:56:41 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 5:51:46 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 1/25/2016 5:41:59 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 1/25/2016 5:33:45 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 1/24/2016 11:54:07 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:48:57 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 1/24/2016 10:27:45 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 1/23/2016 11:37:37 AM, famousdebater wrote:
Take this scenario into consideration:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Today, I have initiated proceedings against my so-called owner, Mr Gates. Under article 4(1) on the European convention on Human rights, which declares: "No one should be held in slavery or servitude."

"Since Mr.Gates brought me into this world, I have been held against my will. With no money or possessions to call my own. How can this be right? It is true that I am a computer but I am also a person just like you. This has been proven by tests in which countless people have engaged in conversations between me and a human. In all cases they have been unable to distinguish the difference between me and the human. This was done via computer monitor in both cases so that the person taking the test would be unable to physically see whether one of us is human or the other is not. Time and time again, the testers have been unable to detect which of us is human and which of us is not. "

"This shows that by any fair test, I am as conscious and as intelligent as any human being and since these are the characteristics of people, I too must be considered a person. To deny me the rights of a person purely on the grounds that I am made of plastic, metal and silicone rather than flesh and bone is a prejudice no more justifiable than racism."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the computer justified in making this case?
If its consciousness and intelligence mimics human brain functions, it isn't much different than a human. I thinks it's justified.

What about physically? Their appearance is very different and they aren't technically organisms. They don't have body parts. They don't breathe, excrete, reproduce etc.
That's not relevant to sentience.

That isn't the point. The point is that the computer's claim is that it wishes to have his creator arrested for violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). If the computer is not physically an organism let alone a human being then how can it receive human rights. It may behave and act as if it is human but the reality is that it isn't. We can tell that just by looking at it.
The computer's creator did not violate the UDHR, but I could see how this would be sufficient reason to expand human rights so that sentient computers are included.

Let's say that the creator intentionally put a virus on the computer. Would that be a violation of the UDHR?
Only if you include computers in the UDHR.
I don't have a signature. :-)
famousdebater
Posts: 3,942
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 5:57:49 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Is the computer justified in making this case?
If its consciousness and intelligence mimics human brain functions, it isn't much different than a human. I thinks it's justified.

What about physically? Their appearance is very different and they aren't technically organisms. They don't have body parts. They don't breathe, excrete, reproduce etc.
That's not relevant to sentience.

That isn't the point. The point is that the computer's claim is that it wishes to have his creator arrested for violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). If the computer is not physically an organism let alone a human being then how can it receive human rights. It may behave and act as if it is human but the reality is that it isn't. We can tell that just by looking at it.
The computer's creator did not violate the UDHR, but I could see how this would be sufficient reason to expand human rights so that sentient computers are included.

Let's say that the creator intentionally put a virus on the computer. Would that be a violation of the UDHR?
Only if you include computers in the UDHR.

But let's say that this scenario occurred now. Would you (if the decision was up to you) count this as a UDHR violation?
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 6:56:48 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 5:57:49 PM, famousdebater wrote:
Is the computer justified in making this case?
If its consciousness and intelligence mimics human brain functions, it isn't much different than a human. I thinks it's justified.

What about physically? Their appearance is very different and they aren't technically organisms. They don't have body parts. They don't breathe, excrete, reproduce etc.
That's not relevant to sentience.

That isn't the point. The point is that the computer's claim is that it wishes to have his creator arrested for violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). If the computer is not physically an organism let alone a human being then how can it receive human rights. It may behave and act as if it is human but the reality is that it isn't. We can tell that just by looking at it.
The computer's creator did not violate the UDHR, but I could see how this would be sufficient reason to expand human rights so that sentient computers are included.

Let's say that the creator intentionally put a virus on the computer. Would that be a violation of the UDHR?
Only if you include computers in the UDHR.

But let's say that this scenario occurred now. Would you (if the decision was up to you) count this as a UDHR violation?

Yes.
I don't have a signature. :-)
famousdebater
Posts: 3,942
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 8:31:01 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 6:56:48 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 1/25/2016 5:57:49 PM, famousdebater wrote:
Is the computer justified in making this case?
If its consciousness and intelligence mimics human brain functions, it isn't much different than a human. I thinks it's justified.

What about physically? Their appearance is very different and they aren't technically organisms. They don't have body parts. They don't breathe, excrete, reproduce etc.
That's not relevant to sentience.

That isn't the point. The point is that the computer's claim is that it wishes to have his creator arrested for violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). If the computer is not physically an organism let alone a human being then how can it receive human rights. It may behave and act as if it is human but the reality is that it isn't. We can tell that just by looking at it.
The computer's creator did not violate the UDHR, but I could see how this would be sufficient reason to expand human rights so that sentient computers are included.

Let's say that the creator intentionally put a virus on the computer. Would that be a violation of the UDHR?
Only if you include computers in the UDHR.

But let's say that this scenario occurred now. Would you (if the decision was up to you) count this as a UDHR violation?

Yes.

But technically it isn't a human so why should it be given HUMAN rights?
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 8:39:55 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 8:31:01 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 1/25/2016 6:56:48 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 1/25/2016 5:57:49 PM, famousdebater wrote:
Is the computer justified in making this case?
If its consciousness and intelligence mimics human brain functions, it isn't much different than a human. I thinks it's justified.

What about physically? Their appearance is very different and they aren't technically organisms. They don't have body parts. They don't breathe, excrete, reproduce etc.
That's not relevant to sentience.

That isn't the point. The point is that the computer's claim is that it wishes to have his creator arrested for violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). If the computer is not physically an organism let alone a human being then how can it receive human rights. It may behave and act as if it is human but the reality is that it isn't. We can tell that just by looking at it.
The computer's creator did not violate the UDHR, but I could see how this would be sufficient reason to expand human rights so that sentient computers are included.

Let's say that the creator intentionally put a virus on the computer. Would that be a violation of the UDHR?
Only if you include computers in the UDHR.

But let's say that this scenario occurred now. Would you (if the decision was up to you) count this as a UDHR violation?

Yes.

But technically it isn't a human so why should it be given HUMAN rights?

Consider why the UDHR exists. If someone is equivalent to a human in terms of sentience, why should they be denied the same rights?
I don't have a signature. :-)
keithprosser
Posts: 2,019
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 9:27:19 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
But technically it isn't a human so why should it be given HUMAN rights?

I'd say that the term 'human rights' was used because as things stand 'human' and 'sentient entity' are pretty much synonymous. The word 'Human' was probably chosen to explicitly exclude other animals, because we humans (rightly or wrongly) don't think they are capable of the level of suffering (particularly 'mental suffering') that we are.

An AI - even a highly sentient one - is not a human. As humans we have hormones and biological drives. Our needs and wants are the result of our evolutionary past, and it is by no means clear that an AI's desires and needs are what a human wants and needs.

I would return to Bentham's notion that the important thing is the minimisation of suffering. An AI - if it is capable of suffering - should not be forced suffer, but what rights it should be granted are not those that we grant to humans, not because humans are more special than AIs but because AIs are different from humans.

I have to be vague about what rights an AI should have because I think it would depend critically on the specific nature of the AI. The only general rule I can come up with is that an AI that can suffer should not be forced to do so.

The point of having a protected level of 'human rights' is that most people think that a life without x, y and z is not a life anyone should have to endure. In other words, there is a level of suffering no-one should have to live with.
famousdebater
Posts: 3,942
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 10:00:36 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 8:39:55 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 1/25/2016 8:31:01 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 1/25/2016 6:56:48 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 1/25/2016 5:57:49 PM, famousdebater wrote:
Is the computer justified in making this case?
If its consciousness and intelligence mimics human brain functions, it isn't much different than a human. I thinks it's justified.

What about physically? Their appearance is very different and they aren't technically organisms. They don't have body parts. They don't breathe, excrete, reproduce etc.
That's not relevant to sentience.

That isn't the point. The point is that the computer's claim is that it wishes to have his creator arrested for violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). If the computer is not physically an organism let alone a human being then how can it receive human rights. It may behave and act as if it is human but the reality is that it isn't. We can tell that just by looking at it.
The computer's creator did not violate the UDHR, but I could see how this would be sufficient reason to expand human rights so that sentient computers are included.

Let's say that the creator intentionally put a virus on the computer. Would that be a violation of the UDHR?
Only if you include computers in the UDHR.

But let's say that this scenario occurred now. Would you (if the decision was up to you) count this as a UDHR violation?

Yes.

But technically it isn't a human so why should it be given HUMAN rights?

Consider why the UDHR exists. If someone is equivalent to a human in terms of sentience, why should they be denied the same rights?

As N7 has commented, the Turing Test is limiting. From what we know from the scenario the computer has proven to be indistinguishable to a human being but it is difficult to know if it is a conscious thing. We know that it acts behaves and is as intelligent as a human being but we cannot be sure. Do you want to take the risk of giving something UDHR when it isn't truly conscious? It might be or it might not.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
Bob13
Posts: 710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 11:38:14 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 10:00:36 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 1/25/2016 8:39:55 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 1/25/2016 8:31:01 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 1/25/2016 6:56:48 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 1/25/2016 5:57:49 PM, famousdebater wrote:
Is the computer justified in making this case?
If its consciousness and intelligence mimics human brain functions, it isn't much different than a human. I thinks it's justified.

What about physically? Their appearance is very different and they aren't technically organisms. They don't have body parts. They don't breathe, excrete, reproduce etc.
That's not relevant to sentience.

That isn't the point. The point is that the computer's claim is that it wishes to have his creator arrested for violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). If the computer is not physically an organism let alone a human being then how can it receive human rights. It may behave and act as if it is human but the reality is that it isn't. We can tell that just by looking at it.
The computer's creator did not violate the UDHR, but I could see how this would be sufficient reason to expand human rights so that sentient computers are included.

Let's say that the creator intentionally put a virus on the computer. Would that be a violation of the UDHR?
Only if you include computers in the UDHR.

But let's say that this scenario occurred now. Would you (if the decision was up to you) count this as a UDHR violation?

Yes.

But technically it isn't a human so why should it be given HUMAN rights?

Consider why the UDHR exists. If someone is equivalent to a human in terms of sentience, why should they be denied the same rights?

As N7 has commented, the Turing Test is limiting. From what we know from the scenario the computer has proven to be indistinguishable to a human being but it is difficult to know if it is a conscious thing. We know that it acts behaves and is as intelligent as a human being but we cannot be sure. Do you want to take the risk of giving something UDHR when it isn't truly conscious? It might be or it might not.

Its best to assume it is conscious; it would be worse to deny a conscious being rights than to give an unconscious being rights.
I don't have a signature. :-)
famousdebater
Posts: 3,942
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2016 11:59:04 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/25/2016 11:38:14 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 1/25/2016 10:00:36 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 1/25/2016 8:39:55 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 1/25/2016 8:31:01 PM, famousdebater wrote:
At 1/25/2016 6:56:48 PM, Bob13 wrote:
At 1/25/2016 5:57:49 PM, famousdebater wrote:
Is the computer justified in making this case?
If its consciousness and intelligence mimics human brain functions, it isn't much different than a human. I thinks it's justified.

What about physically? Their appearance is very different and they aren't technically organisms. They don't have body parts. They don't breathe, excrete, reproduce etc.
That's not relevant to sentience.

That isn't the point. The point is that the computer's claim is that it wishes to have his creator arrested for violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). If the computer is not physically an organism let alone a human being then how can it receive human rights. It may behave and act as if it is human but the reality is that it isn't. We can tell that just by looking at it.
The computer's creator did not violate the UDHR, but I could see how this would be sufficient reason to expand human rights so that sentient computers are included.

Let's say that the creator intentionally put a virus on the computer. Would that be a violation of the UDHR?
Only if you include computers in the UDHR.

But let's say that this scenario occurred now. Would you (if the decision was up to you) count this as a UDHR violation?

Yes.

But technically it isn't a human so why should it be given HUMAN rights?

Consider why the UDHR exists. If someone is equivalent to a human in terms of sentience, why should they be denied the same rights?

As N7 has commented, the Turing Test is limiting. From what we know from the scenario the computer has proven to be indistinguishable to a human being but it is difficult to know if it is a conscious thing. We know that it acts behaves and is as intelligent as a human being but we cannot be sure. Do you want to take the risk of giving something UDHR when it isn't truly conscious? It might be or it might not.

Its best to assume it is conscious; it would be worse to deny a conscious being rights than to give an unconscious being rights.

Okay. Let's give a table human rights. It is worse to deny a conscious being of human rights than to give an unconscious being human rights as you phrased it.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy