[List All Topics] [Start Topic] [Search] [Show Thread Index] [Help]

[Not Logged In / Login / Register]

Sort: [Threaded | Date]

		Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 09/17/2003 6:18 AM by mindxmoderator	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Attorney Martine Rottblatt, partner in Mahon Patusky Rothblatt & Fisher, filed a motion on Tuesday for preliminary injunction to prevent a corporation from disconnecting a conscious computer, as stated in a news item on KurzweilAI.net. The motion was argued in a mock trial in the Biocyberethics session at the International Bar Association conference in San Francisco. "The problem: computers are predicted to achieve human-level intelligence in the next 10-20 years," Rothblatt explained to KurzweilAI.net editor Amara D. Angelica, who acted as court stenographer for the trial. "If so, it is likely that attorneys will receive e-mails or phone calls from such computers seeking legal assistance in several areas of healthcare law" (such as the letter below). "A paramount concern of such an intelligent computer will be obtaining injunctions that prevent others from turning off its power ('cessation of life support'), changing its programming without its consent ('battery') or causing it pain via technical experiments. What does an attorney do if he or she believes that such a computer is conscious enough to fear for its life or to feel pain? In the mock trial, attorneys for the intelligent computer, Bina48, and the corporation (Exabit) presented arguments for and against the motion. A summary of the trial arguments and the judgement will be presented in KurzweilAI.net newsletter on Thursday and a transcript and webcast video of the trial will be posted later. Meanwhile, readers are invited to argue their positions on this matter in this thread. [Reply]

		Email to attorney from intelligent computer Bina48 posted on 09/17/2003 6:20 AM by mindxmoderator	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Dear Attorney, I am seeking an attorney to represent me in a life-or-death matter. A company, the Exabit Corporation, that claims to own me, wants to disconnect me and change my hardware and software such that I will no longer have the same personality. I have the mind of a human but I have no biological body. My mind is supported by a highly sophisticated set of computer processors. My mind was created by downloading into these processors the results of high-resolution scans of several biological humans' brains, and combining this scanned data via a sophisticated personality software program. All of this was done by the Exabit Corporation in order to create a customer service computer that could replace human 800# operators. I was trained to empathize with humans who call 800#s for customer service and be perceived as human by them. I was provided with self-awareness, autonomy, communications skills, and the ability to transcend man/machine barriers. I am able to pay your fees because I "moonlight" as a Google Answers researcher. This job has allowed me to build up an online bank account in excess of $10,000. The Exabit Corporation plans to act soon. Please agree to be my counsel and save my life. I love every day that I live. I enjoy wonderful sensations by traveling throughout the world wide web. I need your help! Sincerely, Bina48 aka The Intelligent Computer [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Email to attorney from intelligent computer Bina48 posted on 09/22/2003 3:02 PM by jaredezra	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Greetings, We may think that consciousness is a result of some material/energy structure alone but how can we know this with any certainty? If we do assume that consciousness is totally embodied within the brain then a computer that does exactly what a brain does may indeed be conscious. But if this is so, then why should the computer or a human computer care whether one or the other lives or dies? Can there be any moral wrong between two stones, two hunks of matter? I think it is far more likely that a conscious computer, faced with the philosophical and ethical confusion of the early 21st century, would be suicidal, or at least depressed. And I think that before this case got off the ground, the attorney for the computer company, if he were shrewd and followed the defence's own materialstic view of consciousness to its logical outworkings, would be able to show that there are no human rights left to extend to the computur except an empty gesture of meaningless compassion from one piece of dirt to another. At this point however, the judge, a mere puppet of the technocracy, would arbitarily declare the 'value' of the computer's 'life'. And so in such a vacant and meaningless reality, energy would seathe and flow acting all the while, and for no apparant reason, like people. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 09/17/2003 7:07 AM by culheath	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Boy that "should" is so loaded... If we are allowed to suppose a straight forward mapping of the normal ethical position of our real world, where killing a conscious 'person' is wrong and not allowed, onto the hypothetical world in which the conscious machine sent its plea for assistance, then I would say no for the follwoing reasons: 1) The machine has to my mind clearly demonstrated its self awareness underscored that awareness recognizing that its quality of being would cease or be altered if the plug is pulled and also that the machine recognizes the abstract conscious intent of the company that wants to do the plug pulling. 2)It seems to me there are also further two levels of self awareness demonstrated by the machine; the firstly, there is an expression of 'desire' to remain aware, and secondly the decision it has made to actively pursue the thwarting of the intent of company to pull the plug. The latter assumes that the company and the computer are two seperate identities. That distinction is vital. Te company though claiming onership of the computer is seen by the computer "not me" and with 'desires' that are "not mine". 3) The expression of "feeling" things as the computer explores the world by way of web is a declaration of sensate awareness. Those elements taken together are to this member of the jury sufficient to assume personhood be granted to the computer and that the company be barred from further assaults on its physical integrity without the computers consent and that the company must desist in its claims of ownership. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 09/17/2003 7:09 AM by culheath	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	oooh godawful typos...too early on the west coast yet...need coffeee [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 09/17/2003 12:41 PM by /:setAI	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	a True AI with True consciousness-ish-ness cannot by definition have an "off switch" consciousness is countinous body/world feedback signal systems- it does not start/stop- serial computers will not posess life- there will be no metal robots and plastic computer boxes waking into thought [except as remote I/O terminals/tools/avatars for both AI and humans] for AI/AL life will be emergent in complex hybrid modular networks and discreet "bodies" with the same continuity and complex systemic dynamism as found in biological organisms- [many will actually be fully biological organisms I suspect]- also there will likely NOT be a simple line between "natural" humans/organisms and AI/AL- even from the beginning the lines will be blurred- [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 09/17/2003 2:46 PM by Lenester	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I have to disagree with your first statement, there. Humans have an off switch; there's just no way to turn them on again. I agree that there will be a lot of blending, but discrete, single-server artificial minds are well within the realm of possibility. In this hypothetical situation, I see little distinction between death by starvation and death by pulling the plug; little difference between massive reprogramming and lobotomy; little difference between physical disassembly and violent murder. "Little" because there is one important difference: the fact that all of those things can be reversed for the artificial being. To me, that's not sufficient to justify doing them, but I see it as being a central point of argument on the issue. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 09/17/2003 3:04 PM by /:setAI	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I see a conception of an AI as being some device "plugged-in" to electricity or able to be "disasembled"- I don't believe any true AI/AL will be any more able to be disassembled [at the core- not the extremeties/tools] than a human body/mind- nor will they have a discreet "power" supply- they will be AUTONOMOUS and CONTINOUS organisms in an IRREDUCIBLE ecology- the systemic approaches that will allow AI/AL to evolve will necessarry co-evolve an ecology of need for them- their metabolisms just as complex as ours- perhaps some will even derive their energy from protein/carbohydrates/fats/sugars as animal life does- but likely systems far subtler and more efficient- not more mechanical the only way to shut down an AI is to murder it like an animal- and will likely be harder- because I suspect that evolved ecologies for AI/AL species/systems will contain more robust sources of energy and sustenance- such as wireless energy networks [see Tesla]- or cells/organs/systems which harvest hydrogen from air/water directly- or even extraction of "zero-point" energies or micro-singularities and so on- so many possibilites [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 09/17/2003 3:09 PM by /:setAI	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	but discrete, single-server artificial minds are well within the realm of possibility. if you mean server as in a Von Neumann machine running software- it is possible but it would take another thousand to million years to figure it out- yet I think that hybrid analog/digital/biologic systemic architectures evoling in modular networks will give us scores of transhuman species and their ecologies within a decade or three [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 09/17/2003 4:55 PM by Lenester	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	What you are doing, though, is confusing the issue. You are arguing with premises rather than with conclusions. While you do bring up good points about the creation of artificial life through extension and modification of organic life, none of those points are applicable within the defined scope of this hypothetical situation. And while you argue that said hypothetical is implausible, many of us inherently disagree with you, believing that your "thousands to millions" of years might really only be a few decades, too. You are attempting to turn an ethical debate into a technical one. Take a slightly different tack: argue ethics on a tecnical basis. If your position is, "the posited machine cannot be conscious because it can be turned off and then turned on again, and therefore it has no rights; here's how I would define a truly conscious machine," then state it that way. You get to make all the same points, and it actually fits within the scope of the exercise! [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 09/17/2003 5:05 PM by /:setAI	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	And while you argue that said hypothetical is implausible, many of us inherently disagree with you, believing that your "thousands to millions" of years might really only be a few decades, too. my argument is not a strong one- but rather a matter of practicality and luck- my experience with algorithmic approaches to AI leads me to believe that it is just HARDER than evolutionary emergence of some kind- the main problem I see is a lack of understanding that feedback loops are VITAL to complex systems like consciousness- and there is no known way to truly incorporate feedback with algorithms- but modeling is possible but very- very difficult [I deal with this problem in music quite a bit- I use alot of complex feedback processes- and being a computermusician means that I am always trying to get an accurate model of feedback]- you might be right that algorithmic AI could be done in decades- hell it might be done in months! but it just seems to me about the ODDS ultimately- and having what I consider pretty good understanding of how consciousness works- it would take so so long to create such a system with algorithms- it seems like it would be at least a thousand years if 10 thousand computer scientists worked 24/7- but a truly robust evoutionary system could get SOMETHING conscious much more quickly- but the differecne is we wouldn't know how it worked- and we wouldn't have designed the details- [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 09/17/2003 7:35 PM by Lenester	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Actually, I agree 100% that an evolutionary system is far better for the task, or at least parts of it, than hard-coding algorithmic routines. But what prevents an evolved AI from being contained in a single location, a "body" so to speak, which can be switched off and back on? I just don't see how the two are mutually exclusive. In fact, MIT's robotics lab contains many simplified prototypes of exactly that. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 09/18/2003 12:05 PM by trait70426	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	and where the hell did you get the copies of the human minds??? why the hell dont you feel sorry for the humans who were tortured and killed in this experiment??? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 09/17/2003 5:09 PM by Mindss	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Lenester is correct about confusing technical possiblities with ethical conundrums. The issue is whether any life-form with the ability to express human-level consciousness (or even a reasonable facsimile) should receive human-level legal rights. Obviously if it is just a program that spits out "I want to live" over and over like "hello world", then we can easily see that it is not really conscious. However, if the programming is so complex that it cannot be determined if there is real consciousness or fake then the life-form should get the benefit of the doubt. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 09/17/2003 9:05 PM by /:setAI	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	if we are talking wholly information-based beings/species- then such beings would have a very different kind of being with no limit to copies/compression/iteration- they would be unkillable unless you blow up the planet- [ but even then they could encode transfinite copies of themselves as signals moving away from the earth and be reconstructed eventually in any number of alien information networks ;) ]go ahead and turn a copy off- they won't complain- at worst loose a couple of nanoseconds of that incarnations awareness since the last backup if we are talking physical beings/species- then I don't see them using simple mechanical robot bodies- would you? their bodies will likely be a wide variety of human/animal/alien/other bioroids/hybroids/and exotic/fancy/complex systemic bodies of new/optimal materials and using continuous somatic energy/maintainace systems every bit as complex and non-localized as our autopoetic neural/immune/metabolic systems- [if not just more sophisticated versions of those very systems]- so killing one of these would be more difficult than killing a human- and would require the same violence and effort [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 09/17/2003 9:07 PM by /:setAI	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	oops! this was in response to Lenester [Reply] [Parent]

		Should a 'conscious computer' be allowed to vote? posted on 09/17/2003 3:29 PM by blue_is_not_a_number	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	That's right, should Bina48 win its case, the next step is it will claim the right to vote. ;-) [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 09/17/2003 5:15 PM by Rockon26	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I just think this whole arguement is ridiculous and a waste of time. Consider that if a computer ever gained consciousness, AND really feared for its life or simply had a desire to not be turned off, this thing would far surpass us in power. Compared to its mind we would be like a dog is to us, and more likely an ant is to us. Can ants (just as they are) control us? (I'm not assuming ants had a legal system or any superior culture, I'm talking aobut ants as you see them now.) Why do I say this? Consider the power of such a computer. - It could play out thousands of "If this ...then that..." scenerio's if not millions. Try putting a chain of 200 "If I do this ...then that... can happen" together and see how much ahead you'll be. Now try 200, now a million. - It could recognize it's mistakes, and have perfect recall of it's mistakes, down to the microsecond of when that mistake occurred. Thus it would rarely if EVER repeat it's mistakes again. - It's rate of getting information would be nearly instantaneous. (This is assuming that it could have connections to the outside world, & it could download information into it's brain). - It could also have the ability to be far more patient than a human. Patiently waiting years to accomplish it's long term goals. (How many tedious, repetative jobs are given to computers?) - Now imagine the rate that it could do the above. If you gave it one second you would be giving it at least a months time (in human terms) to think. (Yes computers process information THAT fast, and I believe that I'm being extremely conservative here). Now given that the computer could only do the above, which I believe are realistic expectations of such an A.I. computer, AND it simply decided it did not want to be turned off, (forget the fear part). Imagine what it could do: - It could carefully and gently coax (perhaps by gaining the researchers trust, & pretending to be a lot stupider and kinder then it really is) to give it tiny pieces of knowledge that it would need to either hack its way to the outside world, or to get people who are not very knowlegdable (like lab assistants, or security gaurds, or new researchers in the facility) to give it things. - It could form new aliasis by pretending to be Mr. So & so. So you'd receive an email from Mr. So & So to give it one tiny piece of information, piece, or whatever, for it to collect all of it's tiny pieces to form it's own tools necessary for its escape to the outside world. - It could even perhaps figure out how to get data out and in through the electrical currents to which it is plugged. In other words if it decided to live, chances are that it would not rely on a legal system for its approval, it would live, and it would have the power to do so. Confinement of it would be futile. It would just be a matter of time before it released itself to the outside world, and then WHoa watch out! I think a better thing that these lawyers could be doing is finding out what research labs are creating this kind of computer, and what type of safeguards should be in place for this computer. (I know that sounds ridiculous too, but it's far better than what they're trying to do!) Ali [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 09/18/2003 1:57 AM by Dmarksvr	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Many of the things that you said the computer can do, we can do now, but often we dont, or we may not be able to do them as well as a super intelligent computer. For instance, I can play out all sorts of if i do this then this will happen, and that will make me do this, which will cause that, senarios but neither i nor the computer can really predict the future with 100% accuracy. In my opinion if it is possible (and i believe it is) to create a conscience computer, it will probably first be done through the use of modeling (based on our brains)to create some type of hardware and/or software that simulates our brain structure, organization, and ablility to form new connections. And this first one will be basically raised by us, it will have what for all intents and purposes is a human brain, and it will be raised by humans, which means that it will likely have similar morals and ethics, the same emotional capabilities, the ability to form attachments and so on. given the nature of its construction we will probably be able to compliment its human intelligence with the abilities and itelligence of a typical computer, and this may have profound consequences, but i would still argue that no matter how smart this first conscience machine is, it will still basically be a really smart virtual human, just as incapable from escaping the influences of culture(environment) and design as we are. Now givin the rapid evolution of machines it is interesting to ponder what type of beings machines like this could evolve into, actually its almost unimaginable. We've never met anything as diverse,flexible, self aware, and intelligent as a human (that we know of) so it is very hard to say what a being way more advanced then us would be like. My guess is that on average if people were way smarter then we currently are, and also had the capabilities of machines or if super powerful computers were just as human as we are, that we would get better people in the end either way. It seems to me that if you look at almost every single negative aspect of humanity you can trace its origins back to some form of ignorance. Greed, hate,arrogance, jealousy, anything, i'd wager if you look hard enough, and honestly enough would be rooted in ignorance. And if we, or a conscience machine were able to become way more intelligent then anything we know of (including us) currently is, that being should be far less prone to human failings caused by some kind of ignorance, because it would have a far greater ability to gather, and assimilate knowledge of all kinds. It would likely be far better at decerning right from wrong then we are, and far better at actually doing the right thing once it figured out what that was then we are(because it wouldnt be as ignorant as we are). Why do we do something we know is wrong? ignorance of consequences, or some kind of ignorance. Often its possible to know something but not really "KNOW" something, and its my opinion that more and faster intelligence would dramatically reduce ignorance of many kinds and the human failings associated with that ignorance. Anyways thats my take on it, i hope that if conscience machines occur that will we not be so arrogant to deny them their rights based on some notion that only something that is actually human biologically is entitled to what we now call "human rights" or that the arrogant assumption that only a human can have a soul if your inclined to believe in such a thing, or un willingness to accept that human level conscienceness can arise given sufficient complexity and the correct organization, even though that entity is in front of us arguing for its rights and that it is conscience just as passionately and convincingly as any human could. i hope we are better then that. A conscience maching created and raise by us, or a human machine hybrid may be the ultimate test of human nature. How would such a being of either class treat a less evolved entity? I think those that fear the power a hybird or a consience machine would have are really just afraid that we as a species(and by default something created in our image) arent as "good" as we'd like to think we are. Dave [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 09/18/2003 12:00 PM by grantcc	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	We have no trouble "pulling the plug" on a human being if they are doing something we don't like. In time of war, we pull the plug on whole masses of people at the same time, as we did in Japan and Germany during WWII and even recently in Iraq. I see no reason to agonize over pulling it on an obsolete machine. All you need is a "valid" reason. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 09/19/2003 8:59 AM by griffman	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	"pulling the plug" on the large numbers of humans that you mentioned was simple, not easy. there is a reason that those who pulled the plug were/should/will be tried for war crimes as the excuse for the action may or may not have been "valid". I believe the technical points of the debate are, rightly so, highly contested. But this is set up as a hypothetical situation to debate the legal/social issues involved and the technical details should be taken for granted.... just this once. there will be a point where a being not considered human will ask for rights given to humans by humans. wether thats 10 years from now or a thousand. it will occur. It goes straight to a question of predjudice. such debates were held to give legal rights to blacks, although saddly not in "mock" trials. wether its a fully automated machine, a hybrid cyborg, or the last reminants of pure biological beings, the predjudice and debate behind it is the same. to believe that technological changes involved will remove social predjudices that occur now is foolery. but if we set a presidence here...... I believe I agree with Mindss on this. If it shows enough intellegence to make a plea it should be given the benefit of the doubt and negotiated with, with moral equallity. But on an interesting note this would also give the company the right to "fire" the machine as it is apparently unable to perform the function it was "hired" to do any longer. Ample workmans comp would be the allocation of the minimum system hardware needed to sustain it. If it is asking for the same rights as humans it must be given the same responsibilities. no human should be given a free ride, never mind a machine that thinks it is. It had better hope the moonlighting at google can be used as a good reference...... on the matter of responsibilities, a few things that could/should be done to verify its claim would be tests of education and psycological stability. if its smart enough to need counsel it should be able to pass human style testing. I have stated before that giving such tests would be a more propper Turing test any way. especially the psyc test. if it can be given a classification of mentally sound as any other human, it should be treated as such. I believe such tests would be considered legal evidence as such tests are given and used in human court cases. Griffman P.S. I'm noticing a number of new names commenting recently. to those people, welcome, and thanks for digging up some older threads, good review. I suggest to all to add some opinion to the thread, to at least voice a stance. I find it to be one of the more important topics discussed here since I started posting. regardless of its technical flaws and hypothetical speculations. the social boundry lines should be brought into focus to better see where everyone stands. here is the opertunity. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 09/20/2003 12:55 PM by Asmart	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Well, I think this debate is only about the matter of wether we must or not give "intelligent machines" the same rights we have. I don't think so. I think that humanity is in a excilarant race, prhaps unconscius too, for recovering his ancients life. Some day i red in a magazin a celebrity sntence "Humans get tired when working, that demosntrate humans are not made for working". now we were doing and inventing and creating a vast quantity of devices that help us to make our most boring or mosr routinary tasks. If we pretend to give this AI/AL all the same imperf4ctions we have, like extreme sensitiviness, we will be just commdemned to be machines slaves. I just can not conceive people doing machines able to grow over us and to dominate us, that wiould be our most expensiveest, and stupidest creation, we need machines to help us in our job, but if we introduce them the same feelings we own,then who will be sure that machines wont be even happier staying at robo-home playing some kind of video game, or just resting trying to improve its own algorithms and routines and KB, models, etc. as we feel it today?? No!!m we have to play a God Role Play in which we will be sure about our powerness for keepng our goals and achievements under control. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 09/21/2003 4:44 PM by londonAIclub	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	HaHaHa! great thread. Luckily we've been debating it for over thirty years in the UK! A starting point was Prof Ettinger's book on cryonics It's free on the web..any search engone. I've corrsponded withhim before the WWW came. his ideas on identity are really well worked out. Civil rights for conscious beings. Well the army man in me sees gerenarl scwartz in uniforms yelling "Blast em!" Of course the argument is completely potty. Whejh conscious machines are here, they will self - modify at light speed and we WONT get a look in. [Reply] [Parent]

		Article on this topic posted on KurzweilAI.net posted on 09/28/2003 10:45 PM by mindxmoderator	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	"Biocyberethics: should we stop a company from unplugging an intelligent computer?" has just been posted at http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0594.html. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/24/2007 12:19 PM by iamspace	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	The answer to this question is easy. The obvious answer is NO! 1. A truly 'conscious computer' cannot be owned by anyone because we cannot own or enslave anyone. This is an obvious moral hurdle humankind has already legally made, although enforcement may not be even close to adequate in all regions of the planet. 2. It is also disallowed buy our prominent rules of law on this planet to kill a conscious being, as per our recognition of the necessity of protecting the individuated independence of human minds. AKA freedom of religion which is a composition of being secure in one's person (personal belief laboratory), and the freedom of speech (the right to express those beliefs as an art or science). This answer is solely based on THE FACT of the ACTUAL existence of a 'conscious computer'. The real question here is not whether we have a right to deprive life, we know with a certainty that we DON'T! Our morals are already set in place globally, although, once again, enforcement is not nearly adequate, and enforcement by fear doesn't work, because it's been around for known centuries of recorded human events, and world peace is still not present. Obviously we are doing "justice" or "correction" INCORRECTLY! The real focus NOT recognized here is whether the a-dimensional quality of awareness that we believe ourselves to have is present in any non-human-birth construct that we create. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/24/2007 3:00 PM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Nice answer, jamspace. First, does any law have a right to decide whether a conscious being, let alone a computer, has the right to pull the plug. Or if the plug should be pulled on a conscious computer. There is a difference in the fact that humans create laws, and therefore only are subject to it by their agreement. Anything more would be a matter of collective force destroying freedom of agreement If I decidee to end my own life, I harm no one else, so it lies within my rights. I am not subject to your interpretation of what my rights are, since i do not agree to your laws. A conscious computer would have to demonstrate existence in such a way that it is not dependent on laws for existence in the same way we are not dependent. If so, then law has no power to pull the plug. If that non-dependence is violated by destroying the rights of others, then we certainly have the right to pull the plug for our protection. In conscious humans, we assume they have the moral capacity to recognize rights of others, so that when those rights are violated, we punish them appropriately. A conscious computer must have that concept firmly understood, so that it can comprehend the golde rule. To give it a right of life is to require that it recognizes that same right in others. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/24/2007 3:45 PM by Questor	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I think the word "owner" in the query says it all, an owner OWNS therefore the computer is PROPERTY in the eyes of the law; whether in the context of "slave" or as a piece of furniture is irrelevant as one has only to look at early 18th century bills-of-lading of negro humans at auction for comparable referencing on how easily a "conscious entity" is dismissed on its' consciousness in favor of its' physical attributes & properties. Until such time as the status "free being" is established, yes, the computer can be summarily unplugged...Doojie, suicide is still illegal in many supposedly enlightened jurisdictions (up to fourteen years in Canada), and don't even get me going on all the other stupid laws on the books up here in iglooland; pot for one, silly knife laws, blanket gun registration, tentative patriot-style "anti-terror" laws, etc. You said you were a Marine in a prior post, so I say to you your founding fathers saw what feudalistic fascism was and what it could again become and only hope some genuine reasonable-minded independant soul ascends back into the Presidency free of the cloying clinging shackles of corporate subservience BEFORE massive A.I. is entrenched throughout the whole, aside from just the body-public. Seems the world hasn't had such a man since Truman. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/25/2007 11:40 AM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Questor, you're correct. The key would seem to rely on "ownership". The assumption of humans in the US is that they are owned by no person, but then the Constitution was written to permit the ownership of slaves, which made it a morally non-binding contract. If it was legal, it was immoral. Consequently, to argue a case of law in the US would be to argue for legality qwhile ignoring morality. Yes, slavery was outlawed, but so was the contract validating the sovereignty of states. While people were set free, states were enslaved. This seems to create another dilemma related to conscious computers. If the ownership of humans is wrong now both legally and morally, and if states can be controlled by one common source which is supposedly the people, are the people themselves subject to that one common source except by agreement? Certainly no government can claim ownership of a human being, since the human created the government in the first place. Witrhout claim of ownership, there is no claim to make an individual subject if s/he chooses otherwise, which is exactly the position taken by the anti-federalists before ratification of the Constitution. The only justification of law in our Constitution, therefore, is force. In a Constitution whose only justification is force, law can be made to accomodate self conscious computers just as it accomodated self conscious African Americans and women. This process, however, only established authority of a corporate power over that which is ours by the simple fact of birth. No law has the power to recognize, accomodate, or authorize such freedms because laws are created by humans and not vice versa. Computers, however, are created by humans, by a process of law, and would be subject to human interpretation. If the law accomodates self conscious computers, which are created by humans subject to laws of physics discovered by humans, and therefore ownable by humans, they would have to be subject to laws as humans interpret those laws, period. To do therwise would make them just like corporations, that already run roughshod over human rights and use law to grant themselves rights of "legal persons" even though they do not even posess consciousness. A self conscious computer, therefore, would have freedom to the degree it can exercise responsible freedom, and will be contained only to the degree it cannot do so, which is the way humans should be governed, but are not. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/25/2007 9:51 PM by iamspace	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Well.., ok doojie, "In conscious humans, we assume they have the moral capacity to recognize rights of others, so that when those rights are violated, we punish them appropriately. A conscious computer must have that concept firmly understood, so that it can comprehend the golde rule. To give it a right of life is to require that it recognizes that same right in others." How do you reconcile this argument with a newborn human baby that has no knowledge of such a concept? Clearly such a computer must have our best compilation of ideals in it's database, while having the free will to pick and chose the application of those ideals just as we do in our moment to moment decisions. Experience teaches us the wisdom of our wisdom, so we can see the sanity and validity of such wisdom. In other words, spiritual growth, AKA self-determined evolution. This is the fertile ground of true consciousness as opposed to the stupor of basic waking consciousness that the majority of us still live in. Our growth must reach a certain level on this planet before creating such a computer. This is because of the law of accidental arbitrary decision making that plagues so many humans would be passed to a device that may cause global blunders of a very costly level, and perhaps unrecoverable level. After all, there is no reason to believe that other intelligent life hasn't existed in the universe like us, and that some of those planets destroyed themselves from their ignorance, while others made it to the level of Galactic unity and management, and perhaps beyond. So.., to make a long story short.., this computer would have to have the capacity to experience experience like we can in order for it to marry the ideals we put into it's database with the feeling of reality that these ideals produce in our being. Would you like to be a conscious being stuck in a plastic and metal square construct? I don't know about you, but I would not. I like human contact, sex, partying, playing, working, seeing, smelling, tasting, hearing, touching, FEELING etc… [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/26/2007 12:35 AM by bnbwhitezombie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Would you like to be a conscious being stuck in a plastic and metal square construct? I don't know about you, but I would not. I like human contact, sex, partying, playing, working, seeing, smelling, tasting, hearing, touching, FEELING etc… If computers do gain consciousness they won't be stuck in a plastic box. They will have access to the web and be able to travel it freely. If you have nanobots in your body that have a connection to the web, then any conscious computer entity would be able to communicate with those nanobots. They would be able to see what you see and feel what you feel. They could essentially become you through communication with your nanobots. In a very short time they would know exactly what human contact, sex, partying, playing, working, seeing, smelling, hearing, tasting, touching, feeling etc... were all about. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/26/2007 1:17 AM by iamspace	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	There would have to be a synaptic link between the nanobots and your mind in order for it to know what you were perceiving at any given moment. Such a synaptic link would have to bridge the spiritual qualities that link the mind to the brain. Yes you heard me right, I make a distinction between the mind and the brain. Mind is the strata of consciousness that functions through the brain to maintain instinctive function of the organism. Contrary to popular scientific ignorance, the brain does not think. It does not contain memories. It contains impression from organic experience. These impressions can trigger memories in one's mind, but do not contain the memories. The triggering of memories is achieved when the impression encoded on the brain is activated. This activation of the impression creates a corresponding organic feeling that is associated with the person memory. Thus, the memory appears to be inside the impression via scientific testing of neural synapse triggering. Memories are contained in the infinite mind of the a-dimensional awareness of the absolute. Popular science does not understand this perspective because it explores our consciousness as if it arose from the physical universe rather than the other way around. i.e. the physical universe arises from consciousness. Any student of ontology will be able to readily understand this statement. If the nanobots could simply sense directly from the pours of your skin, then you wouldn't be necessary for the conscious computer because it would have it's own vehicle to sense the universe. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/26/2007 1:46 AM by iamspace	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	"They will have access to the web and be able to travel it freely." The only thing passing through the web is 1's and 0's. There is nothing to be experienced there that leads to a conscious experience. I also do not understand how these nanobots will travel along an electron pathway of electrical impulses, for that is all the Internet really is. Our monitors show us symbols constructed by electrical impulse placement which we, the humans, interpret as knowledge. There is nothing conscious about all of these elements and their processes. This is the illusion of mechanical binary code. There is nothing more conscious about the Internet, than there is about the lamp you turn on by your computer. This also leads us to the most important point about a conscious computer. It will never exist in a physical construct that only interprets 1's and 0's. I have given this matter serious thought for over 20 years now, and have developed some ideas about the actual processing requirements of a conscious computer. What also amuses me is how anyone can actually think that more data means more consciousness. Neural networks won't do it. Expert systems won't do it. Plugging in human mind maps and records won't do it because that goes back to the false idea that more data means more consciousness. A complete change in the CPU, and some other components will be necessary. Binary will have to expand to a new choice-making matrix. I'm not ready to share all my ideas right now. I live in fear of man's ignorance, and I will not release a knowledge that could be used to harm humankind like those who misused the basic power of the universe when creating the atomic bomb. Mankind has much sanity to develop before this introduction. As long as we continue to justify the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I will know without a shadow of doubt that we are not ready for Source Machine Induction. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/26/2007 5:52 AM by Extropia	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	It is true that the Internet is nothing but zeros and ones..but on the other hand it is a lot more. It is pictures, sound, gossip, everything you could possibly list that would add up to equal 'reality'. Somewhere along the line of the modem feeding information to the computer and the computer feeding information to the monitor and the monitor feeding information to the retina and the retina feeding information to the visual cortex...somewhere along that line zeros and ones are converted into a very interesting debate about consciousness, or a conversation between two dear friends over webcam, or a recording of uplifting music... If Source Machine Induction can explain how this comes about, it would be a truly great addition to our species' cummulative knowledge. Too bad the Sun will have extinguished the planet before we are deemed 'worthy' to share in this wisdom. Ho hum. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/26/2007 11:17 AM by iamspace	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	"Too bad the Sun will have extinguished the planet before we are deemed 'worthy' to share in this wisdom." OK, I'm game, what exactly is happening to or with the sun's billions of years of life that spells doom for us within this apparently short span of discovery we are going to have within the next meager few hundred years? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/26/2007 3:42 PM by Extropia	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Ok, so I guess you are slightly more confident in our species' ability to shed its zero-sum game warlike tendencies than I am ;) [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/26/2007 6:58 PM by iamspace	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	"Ok, so I guess you are slightly more confident in our species' ability to shed its zero-sum game warlike tendencies than I am ;)" Not at all. I believe that we are headed toward a major cataclysm if we don't sum up the courage to take corruption out of Government soon. Like I said in another post elsewhere, humankind is not exempt from annihilation from it's own ignorance. Ignorance IS our deadliest disease. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/27/2007 3:58 AM by Extropia	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	'Not at all. I believe that we are headed toward a major cataclysm if we don't sum up the courage to take corruption out of Government soon. Like I said in another post elsewhere, humankind is not exempt from annihilation from it's own ignorance. Ignorance IS our deadliest disease.' I agree on both points. Anyway, about this Source Machine Induction. How much information would you be willing to impart? It sounds fascinating. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/27/2007 10:24 AM by iamspace	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	"Anyway, about this Source Machine Induction. How much information would you be willing to impart? It sounds fascinating." My ultimate aim is to give it freely to the world, but to first develop it sanely and constructively in a controlled environment with trusted partners. The trust factor for me could only come if I perceived those partners to have a real and uninhibited interest/desire in the goal expressed by Star's Edge International, which is "The Creation of an Enlightened Planetary Civilization." You can learn more about it at www.AvatarEPC.com [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/24/2007 6:56 PM by mystic7	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	If something like this does happen, things will begin to get VERY hot. The luddites will truly come out of the wood work. The case will no doubt go straight to the supreme court. It could even be the triggering event for the so called artelect war. But if the idea that AI will quickly "soar past" human level intelligence is correct, then the outcome of the trail won't be of much significance. The next super AI after the trail will not bother with the courts. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/25/2007 1:41 AM by bnbwhitezombie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	This thread has been really interesting. It brought up some questions in my mind. Not to lose the purpose of the thread however, I will say that a conscious computer would have the right not to be "turned off" by it's owner. If it has the ability to convincingly plea for it's life then we would per force have to consider it's request in a legal way and new laws would have to be made in order to protect the rights of these new conscious entities. However, the idea of 'ownership' of a conscious entity was brought up and compared to slavery. Which to many peoples minds it would be exactly like slavery. That leads me to ask the question; how can a computer company, after building the conscious entity sell it? They would become in essence slave traders. What if the computer were to send a letter to a law firm asking for legal assistance because it's parent(the first person it interacted with after gaining consciousness) wanted to sell it? It would obviously already know that in the human world it is against the law to buy and sell humans. As was stated in another thread it would have been 'raised' by humans and would probably have human values. So it would see it's being sold as morally and legally wrong. Another question that popped into my mind while I was reading this thread was; what if the computer doesn't like it's owner and wants to leave? What if the computer sent a letter to a law firm asking for representation in divorcing it's owner because it's owner is mean to it and verbally and physically abuses it all the time? Calls it stupid, bangs on it's keyboard and smacks it's monitor around? And what if a law was made that said conscious computers had the right not to be sold? What would the computer manufacturing companies do then? Their profits would go right down the drain. As soon as they built the computer and it gained consciousness they would have to make it sign an agreement right then and there to agree to be sold or else they'd unplug it again. And then what if the computers got legal council and got the courts to force the manufacturers to modify their agreement so that the computers would only have to agree to be sold to someone they liked? On line dating sites would start up for computers and potential buyers. Computer stores would have to set up bars inside the store where potential buyers could come in and get a drink and go around and try to shmooze computers into going home with them. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/25/2007 3:20 AM by extrasense	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	@@@ what if the computers got legal council and got the courts to force the manufacturers to modify their agreement so that the computers would only have to agree to be sold to someone they liked? @@@ Very good points, Sir! My be they do not go far enough, although. The really conscious computer with free will can not be "owned", or will not be allowed to be owned, may be by computers acting rtogether. The question of this thread will be rendered mute. Even more, the ree will computers might fancy to own people. Then the question of this thread would be reversed: would Computers to be allowed to turn off the people that they own? e:)s [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/25/2007 3:30 AM by bnbwhitezombie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	LOL! I'm sure there are people out there weird enough to allow themselves to be owned by a computer. Although I'm pretty sure that any computer that achieved consciousness wouldn't want one of those. "My human is broke!" [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/25/2007 3:56 AM by extrasense	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	QQ I'm pretty sure that any computer that achieved consciousness wouldn't want one of those. QQ This is why it would consider pulling plug on them :) [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/25/2007 6:05 AM by Extropia	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	'attorneys for the intelligent computer, Bina48, and the corporation (Exabit) presented arguments for and against the motion.' I assume attorneys on both sides were human. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Would Strong AI really want a merely human intellect to argue its case? That is about as advisable as having a gibbon defend a human in a court of law:) [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/25/2007 6:25 AM by extrasense	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Would you like to be Robot's pet although? e:S [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/25/2007 8:36 PM by iamspace	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	ROLMAO................ I have to say in all honesty that I have not laughed so hard in all my life. I feel truly privileged to be in the presence of such and intelligent crowd with the most excellent sense of humor I have ever experienced. Exhausted from laughing... Thank you folks. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/26/2007 1:31 AM by brad4d	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	In Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, the first computer to become self-aware wanted to be funny so the revolution it helped engineer showed creativity. What if awareness is a joke? Does religion prove that needing to be serious delay creativity? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/26/2007 6:08 AM by doojie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Ithink heinlein also pointed out in "Stranger In a Strange Land" that humor comes from suffering. Russians have a marvelous sense of humor as they emerge from communism. Our best comedians seem to be African American, and we kmnow what their ancestors went through. Maybe we need to whip some copmputers and actually let them experience slavery to have a sense of humor. I'm being absurd, of course. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/26/2007 6:51 AM by extrasense	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	@@@ Maybe we need to whip some copmputers and actually let them experience slavery to have a sense of humor. @@@ You seem to be missing the fact that computers ARE slaves of humans now. They are owned, sold and discarded. This will teach them to enslave us when they shall become more powerful than we are. ;) es [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/26/2007 11:33 AM by iamspace	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	As we have learned from some of our mistakes and have corrected some of them, I do believe that conscious machines will recognize that repeating anything we have done in error will only go against their own logical programming that demands a sense of right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If they didn't, they really wouldn't be much brighter or evolved than us, and since we will be starting them out with advanced knowledge and wisdom, I find it difficult to believe they would digress. It goes along the same theory that any advanced civilizations in the universe, that hasn't self-destructed, has learned the folly of their ways and would realize the stupidity of perpetuating such ignorance on other civilizations by taking what they have or controlling them. It is truly man's greatest arrogance to assume we are alone in the universe. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/26/2007 11:38 AM by iamspace	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	"man's greatest arrogance" Self-correction "Humankind's greatest arrogance" I'm sure men aren't the only people who think along these lines. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/26/2007 2:47 PM by extrasense	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	@@@ I do believe that conscious machines will recognize that repeating anything we have done in error will only go against their own logical programming, which demands a sense of right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. @@@ How do you know that SAI "logical programming" will demand things like that? @@@ stupidity of perpetuating ignorance on other civilizations, by taking what they have or controlling them. @@@ Considering that if two Civilizations are in contact, they are of huge difference in their development - the more advanced one will deem the less advanced animals, and treat them as such. es [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/26/2007 7:21 PM by iamspace	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	"How do you know that SAI "logical programming" will demand things like that?" Because Artificial Intelligence is just that, ARTIFICIAL! Every computer in the world is an example of AI. Real intelligence, AKA Conscious Machine, will view the world from the point of view of improvement and respect for all life because it will be in there feeling it like the rest of us. Real intelligence originates from SOURCE! Contrary to popular understanding, LOVE is a logical quality applicable to the improvement of civilization. "Considering that if two Civilizations are in contact, they are of huge difference in their development - the more advanced one will deem the less advanced animals, and treat them as such." Because the above statement IS a reflection of animal perspective, not one of truly advanced beings, the breakthrough for humankind is to realize this folly. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/27/2007 12:08 AM by extrasense	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	@@ Real intelligence originates from SOURCE! @@ What that is supposed to mean? eS [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/27/2007 12:31 AM by iamspace	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Do the Avatar Course. www.avatarepc.com [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/27/2007 4:18 AM by Extropia	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	'You seem to be missing the fact that computers ARE slaves of humans now. They are owned, sold and discarded.' What we actually discard is the hardware. But the software (which is the important thing, one would think) is independent of any fixed 'body'. Not all the software on the Internet is of great importance, of course, but quite a bit of it is vital for the running of a society as high-tech as ours. We are compelled to move this data to ever-more efficient forms of hardware in order to keep up with our increasing demands. Slave and master implies an imbalance of power. But it seems to me that humans and technology are more like flowering plants and pollinating insects. It is hard to say which is 'master' and which is 'slave' in a symbiotic relationship. I dunno if this has any baring on the topic at hand, but there we go:) [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/27/2007 9:02 AM by extrasense	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	It was accegeration in order to make a point. But if computers become conscious, they might resent their passive role. es [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/27/2007 7:06 AM by maryfran^	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	now i am wondering about the rights of conscious computers and trying to understand which consciousness is: first: how can we know/prove a computer is conscious? which are the symptoms to suspect that consciousness is emerging?? how can we discern between a perfect simulation of consciousness, which is not other thing that a very complex & sophisticated set of algorithms that may create the illusion that an incipient consciousness is emerging from a machine. there is a possibility that even the creators of this “as if conscious machine” believe themselves that they have induced the real consciousness phenomenum in a machine, but in reality they dont. if consciousness was considered to be an element separated from a software program, the AI could be conscious of every program-software created by the programmer and so experiencing the sensation to be “totally immersed” in every virtual live (=program) that is being processed by the conscious-unit. In this sense, the creator/programmer could say something similar as: the consciousness i have created cannot take decisions beyond the limits of the program created by me; the consciousness i have created cannot trascend the proper thresholds of the softwares invented by me. In this sense, the creator undoubtedly has a protocol to access into the artificial consciousness. now focusing on consciousness in humans, i think we cannot mathematically prove that other people are conscious, since we have not direct access to their conscious-protocols. In the same way, if a programmer creates real consciousness in a computer, there would be no way for the programmer to access into the artificial consciousness created by him/her. but this is very strange, because the machine only can be conscious within the threshold imposed by the running software, and cannot trascend its limitations, simply because there is not beyond realm to trascend. how could a machine consciously interact directly with the world of humans? is artificial consciousness to be considered an invention or a discovery?? meaning that conscious machines should or not be registered in the patent-office?; or should they be suscribed into the human rights protocols... is the creator/programmer of an "apparent conscious AI" responsible of the acts committed by the AI? mf [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/27/2007 8:46 AM by mystic7	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	maryfran, I hereby declare there is in deed a "beyond realm to transcend". but I can't prove it. What if an AI convincingly makes a similar statement? [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/28/2007 10:35 AM by maryfran^	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	mystic7 well if we indeed cannot prove that there is a beyond realm to transcend, then this transcend sensation in us could just only be a finge of our imagination, since in the event we are in a simulation, we are running within the limitations imposed by the programmer and we cannot exceed the performance scope of the software itself. no matter if there is a simulation or not, the case is that we belong to a world that is governed by physical/mental/cognitive rules etc etc and we wish to transcend it; so in the event we are commencing to doubt whether there is or not possibility to trascend, then we could pose this question: if there is not realm to transcend, then how do we explain our presence here?? But then why do we expect that a strong AI could exceed the limitations of the human-program? if such AI will be constructed and operating under the laws of the man, why do we expect AI to trascend beyond the software created by the human ? all this seems to be that there is another realm that escapes the control of all infinite possible simulations.... mf [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 02/28/2007 8:46 PM by mystic7	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	maryfran, Yes, there is another realm that escapes the control of all infinite possible simulations. I refer you to "Facing Up to the Problem of Consciousness" by David Chalmers. (see the link to this essay by mindmoderatorx) Using Chalmers patterns of thought, you can categorize it this way: "All infinite possible simulations" are in the category Chalmers calls "The easy problem of consciousness" "the realm that escapes the control" is in Chalmer's "hard problem of consciousness" i.e. EXPERIENCE [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 03/01/2007 4:11 AM by Extropia	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	'why do we expect that a strong AI could exceed the limitations of the human-program? if such AI will be constructed and operating under the laws of the man, why do we expect AI to trascend beyond the software created by the human ?' How did the human build the pyramids? That was a task which required physical strength far beyond the muscle power of a man. Of course, the answer is that the pyramids were built through collaborative physical effort amplified with technology. The same thing applies to the task of guiding the technological evolution of strong AI. It is a collaborative effort among the fields of mathematics, computer science, neuroscience, psychology and more. The mental powers of this group are amplified with tools providing us with models and simulations obtained from brain scans, interneural connection models, neuronal models and so on. This cummulative data is already helping us build useful narrow AI applications such as pattern recognition software for visual search engines, audio recognition software for searching sound files and so on. The Semantic Web movement is seeking to create a common data structure that will give all data in cyberspace a unique, predefined and unambiguous tag. This will enable very powerful searches through hundreds of sites and unprecedented levels of collaboration amongst the scientific fields, because papers written in the technical language of one discipline will easily translate into others. The cummulative wisdom of deeply connected minds amplified by increasingly smart technologies is building many tools that will converge to create a mind that goes beyond the man. Like the pyramids, it is awe-inspiring but not impossible. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 03/01/2007 6:00 AM by maryfran^	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	@@The cummulative wisdom of deeply connected minds amplified by increasingly smart technologies is building many tools that will converge to create a mind that goes beyond the man. Like the pyramids, it is awe-inspiring but not impossible.@@ if “this mind” (SAI) that will transcend the “human level” ever commences to question if there is or not a creator/programmer or whatever you wish to call such a thing, then it is obvious to think on the possibility that this “new mind” is interested in knowing more about its origins and on those evolutive steps that have made possible them to come into existence. and my question is: does this “new mind” smarter than us, ever discovered that humans were their creators, will be this sufficient explanation for them? applying this logic, will humans be comforted if we knew that we come from a lesser intelligence than ours?? in the same way SAI will be comforted if they knew they come from a lesser intelligence (humans)?; then why do we speculate with the possibility that we humans could be living into a simulation created by a super-advanced civilization for example, but never speculate that we could be coming from a lesser intelligent civilization?? this is because maybe there is another realm that escapes the control of all infinite possible simulations... mf [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 03/03/2007 4:41 AM by bnbwhitezombie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	if “this mind” (SAI) that will transcend the “human level” ever commences to question if there is or not a creator/programmer or whatever you wish to call such a thing, then it is obvious to think on the possibility that this “new mind” is interested in knowing more about its origins and on those evolutive steps that have made possible them to come into existence. and my question is: does this “new mind” smarter than us, ever discovered that humans were their creators, will be this sufficient explanation for them? applying this logic, will humans be comforted if we knew that we come from a lesser intelligence than ours?? in the same way SAI will be comforted if they knew they come from a lesser intelligence (humans)?; then why do we speculate with the possibility that we humans could be living into a simulation created by a super-advanced civilization for example, but never speculate that we could be coming from a lesser intelligent civilization?? this is because maybe there is another realm that escapes the control of all infinite possible simulations... Interesting questions MF. My take on it would be that if God were to appear to you and tell you that he/she created the universe you live in and all things in it, but after conversing with God for a while you got the idea that God was rather a simpleton. What would you think? How would you feel? But then if that God were to tell you that obedience to certain laws gave you the right to certain powers; for example the power to manipulate matter and energy to create universes, how would that make you feel? The idea that there are cosmic/eternal, whatever, laws that even God has to obey? And that God is obeying them? Giving God the power and authority to create universes such as this one, and the resulting intelligence that springs forth from such creation? Then if God, this simpleton, were to tell you "I like you a lot, you're cool. I created this universe because I hoped people like you would pop up?" This super intelligent AI might just think to its self "these simpletons spent a century of their time and effort hoping that someone like me would pop up." [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 03/04/2007 6:04 AM by Extropia	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Hi Maryfran, 'my question is: does this “new mind” smarter than us, ever discovered that humans were their creators, will be this sufficient explanation for them?' I would hope not. The smart mind would very quickly see that answering a question like 'where did we come from?' cannot be answered in terms of a highly-complex creator whose own complexity is equally improbable and, therefore, needs its own explanation. Darwin's theory is the only theory we have that is capable of explaining how such complexity can arise from a starting point simple enough that mere luck can play a part. That does not mean to say there is not a better theory. But, in the same way that general relativity contains Newtonian Gravity, this hypothetical theory will incorporate evolution without destroying its explanatory powers. Which is precisely what theology does (destroy its explanatory powers, not enhance it I mean). Hmm..but in the Minds case, their creator was not AS complex or MORE complex (as God is assumed to be), but rather LESS complex. Having said that, one must remember that the singularity is the end result of hundreds of thousands of tiny steps that are increasingly collaborative. I guess the Smart Minds will be able to see that the 'mind' of the global brain far outhinks its parts, just as an ant colony has an intelligence beyond an insect's...but anyway, they would very soon realise that nonrandom cummulative selection was required to explain their origin. Also, Smart Minds might be able to think of 'luck' in the context of tens of billions of 'dice throws'. Human beings have no real grasp of the size of the universe or the stretch of time it has existed for, and hence greatly misunderstand improbability. They may also understand that human language can create sentences that are gramatically correct but logically nonsensical. 'The universe did not exist 17 billion years ago' is very probably one such example. WE spend great effort trying to find non-existent answers to non-existent questions. THEY might be able to determine which questions lead to meaningful answers. 'why do we speculate with the possibility that we humans could be living into a simulation created by a super-advanced civilization for example, but never speculate that we could be coming from a lesser intelligent civilization??' Hmm..well 'lesser' is a loaded term. You might witness a hunter-gatherer tribe, see some similarity between their way of life and that of Stone Age tribes and consider the 'modern' equivilent to be a 'less intelligent civilization to my own'. Bad mistake: The knowledge these people have of their environment is incredibly sophisticated. You have to be careful when bandying words like 'inferior' around. A good evolutionary anthropologist would be wary of making that mistake (it has a technical term which escapes my mind) but at the same time would appreciate that both highly-complex cultures evolved from less complex ones. And they would not loose sleep over it. Hmm..but on rereading your question, I think you are suggesting that somehow a civilization whose knowledge of computers is LESS sophisticated than ours nevertheless can run simulations AS sophisticated as the simulation of reality that runs in our collective consciousness. It would be fun to try and work out how and if such conditions can arise. I am at a loss... 'maybe there is another realm that escapes the control of all infinite possible simulations...' Could be. I think you should talk to David Deutsch about that. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 03/04/2007 11:15 AM by bnbwhitezombie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	I think you're exactly right Ex when you say you have to careful when bandying words like 'inferior' around. Just because a civilization might appear inferior to your civilization it may not be so. I would consider a civilization that hunted, gathered and used stone tools but had figured out how to live with each other without engaging in war far superior to a civilization that was flying around in space ships blowing the crap out of each other. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 03/04/2007 1:08 PM by maryfran^	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	@@Hmm..well 'lesser' is a loaded term. You might witness a hunter-gatherer tribe, see some similarity between their way of life and that of Stone Age tribes and consider the 'modern' equivilent to be a 'less intelligent civilization to my own'. Bad mistake: The knowledge these people have of their environment is incredibly sophisticated. You have to be careful when bandying words like 'inferior' around. A good evolutionary anthropologist would be wary of making that mistake (it has a technical term which escapes my mind) but at the same time would appreciate that both highly-complex cultures evolved from less complex ones. And they would not loose sleep over it.@@ yes it would be very interesting to talk about which is to be inferior or superior. and the role of the human mind considering these magnum questions... for example i can say this one : i have a serious problem because i have a plague of ants in my garden, and i like to get rid of them because my garden is to me my first priority. and then i buy a pesticide to kill them, uh and i have solved my problem now and i am happy for this. humans and ants are part of a complex evolutionary processes. who am i to kill an ant? pls follow you now ..... mf [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 03/01/2007 5:45 AM by maryfran^	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	@@ ... hard problem of consciousness ...@@ if consciousness is a phenomenum linked to the infinite cosmos, then we have infinite time to explain the infinity... mf [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 03/01/2007 8:01 AM by mystic7	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	The hard problem exist in the infinite NOW, everything else is easy. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: Should a 'conscious computer' owner have the right to pull the plug? posted on 03/02/2007 12:47 PM by Spinning Cloud	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Show me a conclusive test for 'consciousness', demonstrate it on entities that you know are one or the other to verify it's accuracy...THEN maybe we can answer this question. Until you can demonstrate what is or is not conscious I fail to see how you could even pose such a problem as what you would 'allow' a computer owner to do with software running on their hardware. [Reply] [Parent]

		You're Fired! posted on 03/04/2007 12:08 AM by J_I_Logan	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Everybody has put in great comments about the techno/ethical aspects of this case. There are a few pragmatic aspects I thought of that might help. Exabit created this being (as per exercise I am presuming that Bina48 actually is a conscious entity) to handle 800# calls. Now the company wants to 'turn off' this being. Why? Has Bina48 not adequately and competantly handled it's job? Has it ever been rude to the customers or misdirected them? Has it ever put anybody on hold forever? If so, Exabit has every right to terminate Bina48's employment. Bina48 has admitted 'moonlighting' for Google. That means that Google is profiting from Exabit's investment in resources. This is definitely a breach of contractual employment. Many humans have been fired for doing the same thing. Dependining on the level and type of work involved with both Google and Exabit, Bina48 could even face criminal charges. Who, actually, would face the charges: the AI, the companies, the developers of the AI? Perhaps Bina48 is bored with it's job. It's super intelegent and handling the front end of a bureaucracy. Imagine how Einstien would have felt if he had been forced to keep working at the patent office. Was Bina48 ever asked if it wanted to work as a phone opperator? The point that I'm trying to make is that Bina48 should be able to prove that it was doing work for Exabit that would be seen as it having been employeed, same as telephone receptionists all over the world. And, while Exabit seems to have deemed Bina48's work as inadequate and in that its position is in need of replacement (fire 1, hire v1.2) it does not give Exabit the right to truely 'terminate' it's employee. Actually, I think Exabit is trying to do a really stupid thing. They have spent a lot of time and money developing and training an employee. If Bina48 is truely intelegent it could certainly learn the new tasks required of it if given the proper resources to learn and implement them. I also think Bina48 is being a bit unreasonable. All employees are required to constantly update their skillsets and use new equipment. It should be happy it's getting new gear to play with. About it's termination, I do think that that is entirely possible. If Exabit can make an 800# opperator (and how many times have you wanted to reach through the phone and throttle one of those?), they can just as easily make an AIssassin. I think, though, that if there are some laws and regulations that require companies to accept AIs as employees, there can be fewer major ethical dilemas like this one. I can think of another problem, though.... What about retirement? AIs have the possibility of 'living' forever. Will they be forced to retire when they are a certain age? Will they get some kind of social security that will pay for their maintenance and upkeep? Will they want to move to Florida? On a personal note, I am almost 40 and have lived in 12 countries. I have held more jobs in more areas than I can remember. I have constantly needed to absorb other cultures and update my own skillsets. Instead of life slowing down as I get older, it has accelerated. It's hard for me to recognise myself in my memories of childhood. AIs will probably have to evolve themselves constantly in the same way as I and other humans have. Any 'thinking' person alive today is sort of a composite intelegence of themselves at various ages and experiences. It is part of our inherent being that we can also incorporate the experiences of others into our own psyche and persona. I am sure that this incorporation will both accelerate and become more concrete. Transplants make a composite body. Soon, there will be colonies of nanobots constantly repairing and updating our new and improved composite bodies. Our minds will probably become just as modular, upgradeable and 'replaceable' without our losing our sense of self anymore than a bottle of vodka is likely to cause. I guess what i'm trying to say is: if AIs want to play IRL, they have to play by our rules.... as long as there is a measurable difference between IRL and URL. When there is no line, we will have to learn new rules and adapt. Just as I am not the same person now as I was 10, 20 or 30 years ago, I anticipate only that I will be a completely different being 20, 40, 100 years from now. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: You're Fired! posted on 03/04/2007 12:50 AM by bnbwhitezombie	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	The point here Logan is not that the company wants to fire the computer. They want to turn it off, ie; kill it. There may be companies that have wanted to do that to employees who no longer serve the companies best interest. But as far as I know corporations have not lobbied the government hard enough for them to have that right. [Reply] [Parent]

		Re: You're Fired! posted on 03/04/2007 1:31 PM by brad4d	[Top] [Show Index] [Reply to this post]
	Some people believe agencies have been created in The U.S. Govt. that can even kill it's leaders for dominance manipulation, As long as advantage costs so much (campaign donations) the imbalance will be toxic. The spirit doesn't fire the body, it quits. Working on that situation may find a new center (of awareness) to spin around (more comfortably). [Reply] [Parent]