Can Robots Make Ethical Decisions?

I'm going to tell you more than you want to know about my thinking and speculation. I offer it and don't insist on it. The universe has always existed. In that regard there is an eternal aspect to nature. The fact that we have evolved is part of what the universe is and has always been. Our physical equipment is built from our DNA and we as humans have brains that have wired into them the essentials of metabolism and instinct. These features are natural and have been repeated in living creature across the infinite universe for time in perpetuity. But beyond that the storage capability, impressing of memory, managing of stored memory, and continually adding storage space that is integrated with existing memory in our brains is untapped at birth but the capability for all of that is already there as a result of our DNA. If we could duplicate those capabilities in a machine then everything you say is true. But you are suggesting that we humans can take a different route than nature takes to accomplish the construction and programming of such a machine. There is no reason to believe that such a man made machine could match the capabilities of the human brain at birth.

I'm not sure I haven't but Clueluss, maybe we are clueless.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wow. Seeing this thread is a blast from the past. Interesting comments...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sometimes reviving the oldies brings back memories, which of course all ethical robots have learned to appreciate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Good point.

 

Yes its complex but becomin beter understood by leaps an bounds... eh.!!!

My speculaton dont include an "arbitary" block in the advancment of knowlege necesary for the duplicaton of a human mind.!!!

That the necesary knowledge to dublicate a brane can not occur... reminds me of people who (for biased/arbatrary reasons) dont thank humans evolved from apes.!!!

Earlier you also spoke highly of the rate of advancment of technology.!!!

What evoluton has acomplished is quite amazin but its taken hundreds of millions of years of stumblin along to get to the pont we're at... an considerin what science has learned about the mind an dna... ect. in jus a few decades... it ant much of a stretch for me to speculate that wit-in the nest 100-200 years that "conscious" machines will be the nest grate leap in evoluton which will leave "human" machines in the dust... that is... unless ther is a magical component to the brane... an like you... i also dont know of any evidence of "magic".!!!

Have you ever made a un-influenced (free-will) decision that you know of.???

But are you sure that you have.???

 

The hundreds of millions of years for us to evolve is only part of the equation. We wouldn’t evolve without the universe getting a hospitable planet ready for us to evolve on. General Relativity says that took billions of years so you are grossly underestimating the time factor to get us to this point.

But anyway, there is another issue beside the matter of time. That is the definition of life and in the case of humans, the definition of a human being. There is and has been a great debate over the past thirty years or so on the topic the ethics of genetic engineering of life and human cloning. Two new obstacles come to mind in your proposed path the “human capable” robots. One is that the ethical issues will be raised to hamper or halt your progress, and the other is that if the resulting robot is too human-like it might be declared a living being. If that happens you don’t have a robot with human ethics, you have a legal human clone-like being with citizenship papers which is no longer a robot. Technically under those circumstances you don’t have a robot that can make ethical decisions, you have a legal human-like being making ethical decision :duh:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

No, but are you sure I haven't?

 

Well as far as that goes... i woudnt be surprized if our "Big-Bang" universe is meerly an insignificant speck discarted from somptin so old that it makes our concept of infinite-time look like a mili-second

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yeah i remenber when they firs started doin hart transplants that lots of people thout that was un-ethical... a guy i worked wit was concerned that the emotions of the "doner" wooud be transplaned along wit the hart.!!!

Hamper... sure... halt... i dont thank so... progress will continue jus as it has wit cloanin an stim-cell research.!!!

Well i thank totaly biological humans will be fazed out as the mor mechanical "humans" are fazed in... i suspect it will be a smooth enuff transition... jus as wit a person wit a mechanical hart was still considered a biological human... i thank peopoe will jump at the opportunity to receive a mechanical brane inhansement to improve menory (for esample) an they will be considered human.!!!

Ironicaly... while im typin this... thers a show on tv about a brane in a vat who can controll other peopole... lol.!!!

Have you ever made a un-influenced (free-will) decision that you know of.???

But are you sure that you have.???

No... but i dout you have... do you have any dout that you have.???

 

I speculate about that same kind of thing, a self-perpetuating universe with processes that defeats entropy.

How do you keep the machines form taking from the humans and giving to the machines?

No ... and there are a few things I wouldn't want to blame on determination or solely on nature. And I want to take credit for a few things. Being human is like that. I guess that nature just is and always has been, but if it is the nature of humans to have free will it wouldn't seem unnatural would it?

Would your machine be regretful of some actions and proud of others?

 

As far as mos people will be concerned... the mor machine parts the beter... jus as it is now whare people in need woud snap up all the artifical organs they coud get instaled... for those few that dont want any part of it... they will be extinct soom enuff... an as computers improve... mor an mor brane improvments will be made avalable an reletivly soon after that "people" will be completely non-biological... ie... no "humans" to discriminate agans.!!!

Yes its totatly natural (as far as i know everthang is natural) that humans want to thank they have a thang they refer to as "free-will"... i dont thank i can make un-influenced choises but that dont keep me from makin "choises"... ie... i behave as if my will is free... an at the sam time i get a kick out of bein aware of the gratest illusion of all time... "free-will"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Give an esample of a un-influenced "choise" you have made,!!!

Prolly early on machines will be mor human-like dew to humans bein in control of ther programs... but soom ther-after... such thangs as pride an regreat mite be determined to be un-desirable trates an done away wit.!!!

 

I don't mind having a finite life, and even the machines will be finite. Say the Earth is vaporized by a huge asteroid. Good-bye humans and good-bye machines. If that happened, or if the sun expands to encompase Earth's orbit which is predicted in about five billion years, it all goes back to t=0. Then before then next round of intelligent beings evolves to the point where we can produce the next round of replacement machines, all of that evolution has to "do over". Of course in my view there are other intelligent life forms elsewhere that may even be to the point you predict in the future for us, who knows. It would certainly make space travel more feasible if we don't need to supply food and toilets.

I come down on the side of free will and all of my choices are free within the philosophical confines that the universe has to be real, humans have senses that convey a perception of a real world, and determinism in the preciseness of physics is compatible with free will.

Or maybe there is something unnatural about the idea of computers replacing the humans or any intelligent life forms elsewhere in the universe. I say it is unnatural and cannot actually be fully implemented because it requires things that even the most advanced life forms cannot garner.

BTW, I hav sptd spell checkin my replyiss to you for obvius reasnons

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

An all life on earf coud be wiped out by som sort of super-disease until earf is then vaporized by the sun... but if we do make it for the nest couple hundered years i suspect "we" will be scattered thru-out the universe an earf will seem little mor than an old out-house destroyed by the elements.!!!

Well give a specific esample of a un-influenced choise you have made which mite allow us to have a meetin of the minds on the issue.!!!

Yes those are our diferences... i see everthang as bein "natural" whether its biological or not... an i thank anythang biological can be duplicated as long as it dont consist of "magical" qualities.!!!

O no prollem... i hadnt noticed... but its funny... i proof read my posts befor i post 'em an they look ledgible... but often when i read 'em after bein posted i notice a word that looks way off... then i will enter my bes spellin of the word on google an somtims it will corect my spellin an then i ccp ther spellin an check it wit a dictionary... a pane in the azz but somtims necesary.!!!

 

I was thinking that when I came down on the side of free will you could pretty much interpret that to mean that any choice I make is being made freely.

Why don't you describe a choice that you have made that you don't think was made from free will so I can see how such a choice could take place.

That pretty much sums up the point where you and I separate. I don't think intelligence can evolve far enough to allow intelligent beings to create intelligent machines that are equal in capabilities to the intelligence life form that builds them. But I also agree that if we don't have a positive attitude about being able to do that then the possible advances in technology that will be achieved in the pursuit of such a goal would be lost. I am not comfortable having what some might call a negative attitude on the issue but my view is that my attitude is positive from the standpoint the we might be as good a product that nature could produce in this particular hospitable environment with the available resources at hand.

 

Originally Posted by cluelusshusbund
...give a specific esample of a un-influenced choise you have made...

No... i see it as you avoidin answrin my queston.!!!

I thank we're the only product nature coud have produced... an for beter or worse/positive or negitive... the coffey i smell says that biological humans are on the way out.!!!

 

I wouldn't do that. I choose to deny your acusation that I am avoiding the question. How's that?

We haven't even gotten into how you would hard wire consciousness. Is that a part of the machine or would every possible set of circumstances be anticipated by the human creators so that the machine would be able to function the same as a human with having consciousness? I agree with Penrose that there is some non-algorithmic ingredient to consciousness.

 

Thats been covered... i dont thank thers anythang "magical" about consciousness... its meerly complexity... an thats why a sufficently complex robot woud also be able to produce the illusion of "consciousness".!!!

Ah ha... so thats whare you got it... an i dout you'r the firs who Pinrose has led down the primrose path that consciousness contains a magical-like quality

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I know you don't, but I don't think we have it figured out yet. You think it can be duplicated by us and I don't think we even know how it works yet.

Not so fast there friend. Actually I was browsing my Penrose yesterday and saw that he agreed with me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. But I will concede that he wrote that about twenty years ago. I haven't checked with him lately to see if he still thinks that.

 

I dont thank thers any "how it works" to figer out... i thank the idea that consciousness is som un-known magical-like substance is meerly an illusion that stems from the brane bein as complex as it is... ie... magicians give he illusion of "magic"... but magic is still jus an illusion.!!!

I thank the only thang a brane has that my calculator dont have... that the brane is much mor complex.!!!

Hell... even my firs calculator (Texas Insturments... $16.00 1972) seemed to have a magical quality about it... jus click a few keys an BAM... instent answr... lol... an i thank the illusion of "consciousness" is inevitable wit future mor powerful computers... which will be mor able to handle huge amounts of sensory input.!!!

O... oK... well mayb it was you who led Pinrose down the perverbal path

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I dout Penrose has canged his agenda mind... i suspect hes still searchin for the God magical-like stuff that allows "consciousness" to occur

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think people who really believe in something have thought it through for themselves and have made up their mind "freely"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

That may be the thing. You and I agree to disagree on the possibility that there are aspcets of humans that can't be put into algorithims. Maybe our difference is our perspective on God. My view is that there is one possible perspective that I could accept to have referred to as God. It is as follows:

I went over my view on the possibility that the universe might have always existed and in that sense it is eternal. When you contemplate what that means to the nature of things you can begin to view the possibility that if the universe has always existed and that there are as yet unknown processes (natural physics) that defeat entropy on a grand scale, then on that grand scale things have always been the way they are. The things that have always been are the fact that the universe produces hospitable environments for the evolution of life and life naturally evolves.

If that is invariant and natural, then I could accept the view that the universe itself in its invariant process of continually hosting life that invariable arrises and evolves to self-aware intelligent beings is the nature and extent of God.

 

Does the nature of that God include intellegence/purpose.???

 

I said I could accept the perspective that the universe itself could be referred to as God if it were true that the eternal and invariant nature of the universe was to defeat entropy and to perpetually produce hospitable environments where life is generated and where evolution of life naturally leads to self-aware intelligent beings.

In regard to purpose or intelligence, not unless you would call the eternal presence of intelligent life throughout the universe to be the purpose.

I could accept those things being referred to as God if they were true though I can't imagine any way for that to be known. I would simple classify it as possible in order to allow for common ground between those who think that the universe has always existed (no creation) and those who can't help but see an eternal God behind the nature of things.