Philosophical Question - Amiguing

[Mrs Beanbag]

That assumes you are an authority on what god decided to disclose to you and the animals... It seems like an arrogant position to me, I prefer not to assume I know everything

It's a good point, I never caught my dog reading the Bible but maybe there is divine inspiration in some of the things he sniffs.

[bloodline]

It's a good point, I never caught my dog reading the Bible but maybe there is divine inspiration in some of the things he sniffs.

Maybe that which is revealed to dogs is far more important than that which is found in the bible

[nicholas]

Again, I feel that is a bit arrogant (trying to think of a less pejorative word here), it suggests animals can't be responsible for their own actions. We can see clearly in the higher primates and other social animals, that individuals can commit acts that are considered "wrong" by their peers and are punished within their society, they are clearly responsible for their actions... To use religious language, they have sinned!

A sin is a breach of a contract between man and God. No such contract exists between the other animals and God.

[bloodline]

A sin is a breach of a contract between man and God. No such contract exists between the other animals and God.

My use of language was remiss then, I still have a problem with the human centric concepts that put animals and machine subservient to them

[nicholas]

My use of language was remiss then, I still have a problem with the human centric concepts that put animals and machine subservient to them

Machines are subservient perhaps but not animals.

[Mrs Beanbag]

We created machines so their contract is with us.

I don't have a problem with the idea of sentient machines though, but the ethical questions that would raise, I don't even know where to start.

Need another Bible.

[nicholas]

We created machines so their contract is with us.

I don't have a problem with the idea of sentient machines though, but the ethical questions that would raise, I don't even know where to start.

Need another Bible.

Here's one.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0201353776/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1375036389&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX110_SY190

[bloodline]

Machines are subservient perhaps but not animals.

Doesn't answer the question, if a machine can be sentient?

[bloodline]

Here's one.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0201353776/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1375036389&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX110_SY190

Lol but mrs beanbag raises a good point... If we created the sentient machines do they answer to us (as gods) or do we give them the same rights as us?

[nicholas]

Doesn't answer the question, if a machine can be sentient?

Perhaps, but only in the same way psychopaths are sentient too.

[nicholas]

Lol but mrs beanbag raises a good point... If we created the sentient machines do they answer to us (as gods) or do we give them the same rights as us?

Do we have the right to give them the same rights we have?

[ChaosLord]

Perhaps, but only in the same way psychopaths are sentient too.

That is a very good point!

We are going to create sentient machines at some point.

All the machines we have create so far are psychopathic.

So before we create a sentient machine we dam well better program it with a conscience and sense of morality.

Not that any of this matters.

By 1000 years after the first sentient machine is created, humanity will be wiped out.  Sure there may be a few Eskimos that survive here and there but our civilzation will be gone.  The sentient machines will take everything.

But hey, it was nice knowing you guys!  We had a good run.

[Mrs Beanbag]

Anyone here read Dune?

Butlerian Jihad!

[commodorejohn]

I don't believe I'll get to heaven or hell one way or the other, but the Bible's life-rules make pretty good sense to me.  

So that was my resolution of my "conflict". I still regard myself as a "small c" Christian.

Right on, Jesus was totally the Tony Robbins of the first century :/ Just a shame he had to go to all that bother with the whole "substitutionary atonement" thing - if only he'd thought to become a self-help guru!

But what does trouble me is the idea of a soul  or thy humans are in some way special... I feel that puts other  organisms in a very unfair position. But worse, much worse than that, it  implies that a machine could never be "intelligent" or "creative" or  even be considered as sentient. This to me seems absurd, I think it's  perfectly reasonable to have sentient machines and for that I will argue  

Well, just for kicks, let's take the position that humans have souls and that's what makes us more than simply complex animals. Even if that's true, the human body is still just a very complex biological machine - so who's to say that a non-biological machine couldn't possess one?

I certainly wouldn't take the position that God : humans :: humans : robots, though - I don't know a single human being who isn't wildly unqualified for godhood.

[Mrs Beanbag]

I certainly wouldn't take the position that God : humans :: humans : robots, though - I don't know a single human being who isn't wildly unqualified for godhood.

This is what worries me about the whole transhumanism movement. We should concentrate on improving ourselves morally before we start enabling the very worst of us to acquire extraordinary abilities and power. Because it would be the very worst of us, wouldn't it, the psychopaths who got rich through fraud and embezzlement will be able to afford it; the likes of Mother Theresa wouldn't.

[commodorejohn]

Oh, don't get me started on transhumanism/Singularitarians; we'll be here all week.