Intelligent Machines

Whilst studying for my engineering computation final I found myself straying off into thought about intelligent machines. Is it possible there is far more intelligent, synthetic machines capable of hosting consciousness than actual biological systems in our universe?

Think about this; humans have been building computer for what? 50-60 years? We've already seen the processing power of computers reach that of the human brain. We have supercomputers capable of carrying out in the range of 10^14 operations per second.

Let's assume it's possible we can build computers complex enough to host consciousness, and we give rise to the first synthetic species capable of reasoning and communication similar to our own. Would it be wrong to say these machines would eventually surpass our ability to advance in every possible aspect? These machines could give rise to new species of machines that could give rise to more species of intelligent machines etc. Each new species capable of more and more.

If our species gets over this stage of threatening itself with extinction, and eventually goes out to explore space, what's the chances the first alien species we encounter has been built by another biological species or another synthetic species?

Obviously I'm not looking for solid factual responses here, but rather your interpretation and reasoning. Discuss if you will!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

If our species gets over this stage of threatening itself with extinction, and eventually goes out to explore space, what's the chances the first alien species we encounter has been built by another biological species or another synthetic species?

---

I think the chances of that will be very high. Indeed, i think that by such a time (if it actually happens) that their will be no humans around in a biological sense to make that contact. It will be just two non-organic species making contact.

In my opinion, Transhumanism is the way mankind will go,that is, if we don't somehow go extinct or go back to the dark ages. Therefore, it is likely at some points humans will be "absorbed" by machines due to our increasing and varied use of technology. Progressively, we will become more cyborg like due to augmentations.

I know this sounds stupid, and it kinda sounds really ridiculous, but it is within the realm of possibility. Not in the near future of course but in the long term, it may well be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

These machines could give rise to new species of machines that could give rise to more species of intelligent machines etc. Each new species capable of more and more.

---

Absoloutely agreed. 100%

When we get to the point where we can create AI's which can think and behave intelligently(more so than humans), they will be used to design ever more complex machines and play an ever expanding role in the world. The possibilities would be endless.

They would be able to do everything a human mind could except better,faster and much more capably.

This event (regarding AI intelligence) may be 50 or 70 years off in time, but most likely 100 or 150 years if not more.

I was thinking about this last night.

What if we created a robot (I always imagine HK-47 from KOTOR, he's my favorite robot!) who actually posessed "consciousness." I came to the conclusion that, immediately when the machine acquires true "consciousness" or "intelligence", or basically when it could think for itself, we'd have to give it a social security number, driver's license, birth certificate, etc.

The reason I say this is because I have a belief about rights. I believe that humans have rights because of our intellectual superiority over any other species that we have come into contact with. So, if there was a robot that could do all the things that a human could do: think, reason, use logic, use its senses to achieve the best possible situation for itself, etc., then the robot has natural rights as well. Life/liberty/property.

Basically, a machine which acquires intelligence would cease to become the property of its creator at the moment that it gained its intelligence or "consciousness"

So, if there were a group of scientists working on a model for artificial intelligence, and they succeeded in giving intelligence to a computer or robot or whatever, then that robot would be totally free to just get up and walk out, never to come back, because of its right to do so as an intelligent, sentient being.

I hope I got my point across, it was kind of hard to put that thought process to words.

To all, watch the episode "The Measure of a Man" in Star Trek: The Next Generation.

It will give much insight.

Available on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZHTJYkBxQo

Look for the other parts in the top of "related videos".

The human brain can still outprocess a computer by several million times. This gap will close very rapidly. Within 20 years computers will be able to process much more information than a person, the problem is that we still don't understand how thought and consciousness come about in a mathematical brain. In basic terms, human brains are simply supercomputers, but no one knows how it works so we can't emulate it.

More than likely, somewhere in the universe, there are conscious computers. They just won't appear on earth in our lifetime. Sentient computers are 200 years in the future with an optimistic estimate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

The reason I say this is because I have a belief about rights. I believe that humans have rights because of our intellectual superiority over any other species that we have come into contact with.

---

So, if a nation of humans had intellectual superiority over another nation, and could then bend that nation to its will in the form of colonialism, would that be justified in your opinion?

Not all people are made equal,nor are nations evidently.

Thus, if a nation had intellectual superiority over another, would it be justified for it to proclaim its dominion over said nation just as god gave man dominion over animals in the bible?

No, it's within a certain range. I'm sure there's a scientific term for it but I dont know what it is.

It doesn't justify one nation of people to have dominion over another. But we must have dominion over plants and animals, otherwise we would all die of starvation. And by fasting in that way, we would just rid the world of the human race, and then another species of animal would just end up repeating the process a few million years down the road.

Flesh and blood needs flesh and blood, humans cant survive by eating rocks. Animals have to get pretty much 99% of their energy from other biological material. So therefore, if we want to survive as a species, then we must sacrifice members of another species so that we can eat.

But what Im saying with regards to intelligence is...if a machine (or another animal species, for that matter) could be proven to be considered "intelligent" (consult the textbooks for a definition of "intelligence", because it varies depending on who you talk to), then humans would have no right to unjustly intervene into the life of said creature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

No, it's within a certain range. I'm sure there's a scientific term for it but I dont know what it is.

It doesn't justify one nation of people to have dominion over another. But we must have dominion over plants and animals, otherwise we would all die of starvation. And by fasting in that way, we would just rid the world of the human race, and then another species of animal would just end up repeating the process a few million years down the road.

Flesh and blood needs flesh and blood, humans cant survive by eating rocks. Animals have to get pretty much 99% of their energy from other biological material. So therefore, if we want to survive as a species, then we must sacrifice members of another species so that we can eat.

But what Im saying with regards to intelligence is...if a machine (or another animal species, for that matter) could be proven to be considered "intelligent" (consult the textbooks for a definition of "intelligence", because it varies depending on who you talk to), then humans would have no right to unjustly intervene into the life of said creature.

---

I don't know why you think eating other life equals "domination". It does not have to.

Why the hell should something be proved to be considerd "intelligent" go gain any rights? (Btw, there is no "textbook" definition of intelligence, that is to debate), why should we only then respect such life?

If it sentient, it is conscious. Intelligence does not in any way equate consciousness. So life is only worth keeping if it equal intelligent to humans? Are we a template for "intelligence"? We might as an analogy to an amoeba in relation to more evolved consciousness, do you think such beings would look down on humans? With their "superior" intelligence?

Superior, where do that concept come from? Directly from the ego, we apparently need to be special in some kind of sense, we are not. All consciousness is equal, evolved beings do not look down on any conscious beings. Only with love does the ego and concept of "superiority" disappear.

I'm not talking about rights as in a legal framework, but just as the rights of consciousness. It would be more optimal for humans to minimise the conflict of other beings free-will. Though there are still a great difference between eating other beings as a cultural negative addictive consumerism to meat and food processing, and then humans trying to survive, by some of that being energy from life. I am sure the respect and gratitude involved in such would ease the problem of taking life.

It is not morally fatal to take life for survival, that is part of the game. Consciousness continues, no is no real bitterness in such death. It is the intent that matters, if life is taken in part of disrespect and pure consumerism, as life going through a factory without any dignity, while being treated as shit, then we have a problem. When doing this, we completely ignore the rights of sentient consciousness, it is a misuse of the rules of the game. An avoidable outcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

No, it's within a certain range. I'm sure there's a scientific term for it but I dont know what it is.

It doesn't justify one nation of people to have dominion over another.

---

Why not? If there's a group of stoneage people, like the Australian Aboriginals(pre-cook), then what's wrong with subjugating them and colonizing "their" land? Surely thats how nature works. Survival of the fittest, the strongest organism (or in this case nation) dominates the subversive more backward one?

The message I'm getting from this by reading in between the lines, is we do this because we can. So why should it be any different with other less advanced societies?

Sorry, you two put it better than I could. When I said intelligence, what I really meant was consciousness. I'm saying that when another creature, animal or machine, can be proven to have the general conception of "consciousness," then humans no longer have the right to herd them as cattle or to eat them/use them for economic purposes, etc. However, i believe that in order to ensure our own survival, we must be able to prey on the species who have not evolved a consciousness yet (which, as far as we know, is every other species on earth.). As soon as they can be shown to have a consciousness, we will no longer have the right to use them for our own furtherment.

I have never advocated that we should just unjustly be cruel and torturous to animals or other life just for the sake of being malevolent. The only reason to kill an animal is for food or hides or some other resource that we need to fulfill our own necessities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

I'm saying that when another creature, animal or machine, can be proven to have the general conception of "consciousness," then humans no longer have the right to herd them as cattle or to eat them/use them for economic purposes, etc.

---

There is no such thing as rights or a right to kill or not be killed or any other type of "right".

They are just arbitrary terms that have no basis in reality. According to our society, we have more rights than a household pet. What makes this so? Nothing makes a human have more rights than a household pet. It's just an artificial line drawn in the sand. Over time that line in the sand has changed somewhat to include women and black people. The former being only classified as property and ascribed the rights of thereof. There was and is no inherent truth to those prior classifications of blacks and women as non persons with less rights. Because the truth is rights don't exist. Its just an artificial line in the sand created by society which changes over time.

There is nothing that inherently gives you more rights than a head of cattle other than the fact that society has come to that consensus.

How do i know this? Because there is no logic to it. We have more "rights" simply because we can ascribe ourselves these "rights". There is nothing innate which gives us these.

Justify it however you want with whatever argument you want but simply because we have consciousness, which i take to be the ability to be aware of ourselves and self reflect on ourselves, doesn't give us any "rights" above all other creatures. The notion of "human rights" holds no water either.

Rights aren't tangible, they are just arbitrary terms.

If your argument holds water then you will be able to explain to me(logically) why consciousness gives us the right to herd and slaughter animals, and why their lack of thereof makes them "have less rights". Then explain to me why if they gained consciousness it would suddenly become wrong or immoral to slaughter them for their meat.

If you do not believe in rights, then it is impossible to believe in morality. Without rights any human could be singled out and subjected to any number of tortures, robberies, insults, abuses, or death, by the hands of another. Rights are the things which keep people from having their houses burned to the ground, from having themselves and their families attacked and killed by vandals. There may be no physical object called a "right", but as far as I'm concerned I have a right to my own life as long as I do not harm others.

The legal definition of rights has changed thousands of times since humans emerged from their hunter-gatherer status. Blacks, foreigners, women, men, and others have always had times when they have been subject to abuses throughout history. I don't condone any definition of "human rights" which seeks to exclude any group of people. Whether or not it is written in a legal code, all human beings individually have certain rights which can never be taken away, they can only be abused. And long trains of abuses and usurpations have been observed throughout human history. When I talk of rights, i'm not talking about any tangible sentence which is written down in law, but an intangible attribute which every being with conscious status posesses.

As to your question, the reason I say that it is okay to kill animals for human survival, but wrong to kill a theoretical animal who contains "consciousness" is because of the simple idea that the animal without consciousness is simply an object. An animal with no conscience is equivalent to a modern robot or computer: it might have some degree of intelligence or the ability to perform certain tasks such as foraging and walking and breathing, etc, which would make it more capable than a rock, but it still is just an object.

However, an animal or machine with a conscience would posess rights as humans do. Once it gains consciousness, it ceases to be just an object, and it becomes a fellow sentient being.

The only problem is that nobody can really come to an agreement as to what exactly "consciousness" is.

I don't think Soros was arguing that we should throw human rights out the window...I think he was just pointing out that rights are a societal construct without any kind of objective basis in reality.

Also, there's no objective basis for morals either. It's another societal construct that has evolved in order to serve the species - rights and morals are survival mechanisms.

If there truly were some kind of cosmic or universal "rights," they would be inviolable. Meaning, you couldn't violate them even if you wanted to. The fact that "human rights" are violated every day is proof that there's no objective basis to the concept of rights.

They make lots of people's lives better...that doesn't mean they exist objectively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

If you do not believe in rights, then it is impossible to believe in morality. Without rights any human could be singled out and subjected to any number of tortures, robberies, insults, abuses, or death, by the hands of another. Rights are the things which keep people from having their houses burned to the ground, from having themselves and their families attacked and killed by vandals.

---

See OuroborosEterna's post above for clarification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

There may be no physical object called a "right", but as far as I'm concerned I have a right to my own life as long as I do not harm others.

---

For you to have a right to something you have to provide justification for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

Whether or not it is written in a legal code, all human beings individually have certain rights which can never be taken away, they can only be abused.

---

You can't take something away that was never given. By what merit do humans have humans rights?

If you are going to parrot the consciousness line again, explain to me what quality consciousness provides that gives humans "rights".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

When I talk of rights, i'm not talking about any tangible sentence which is written down in law, but an intangible attribute which every being with conscious status possesses.

---

You are making a statement without giving any evidence for it being true. When you make statement like every conscious being possesses this attribute you fail to provide any evidence for why it is thus.

Saying conscious beings have rights above all other creatures just because they have consciousness is circular logic.

It's no different than someone saying that you are right about something for being taller or knowing how to do back flips. It's just an arbitrary attribution which has no inherent logic behind it.

Furthermore, i can only assume that all conscious beings have this attribute (rights) because you say they do. That's the only thing giving them this attributes, there is no other reason as far as i can detect.

Also, like i said this intangible attribute does not exist. To put it like OuroborosEterna, human rights are just a societal construct, not an objective part of reality. Therefore they don't even exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

As to your question, the reason I say that it is okay to kill animals for human survival, but wrong to kill a theoretical animal who contains "consciousness" is because of the simple idea that the animal without consciousness is simply an object. An animal with no conscience is equivalent to a modern robot or computer: it might have some degree of intelligence or the ability to perform certain tasks such as foraging and walking and breathing, etc, which would make it more capable than a rock, but it still is just an object.

---

Animals without consciousness are not mere objects. They can feel fear,confusion,fright and happiness just as much as any "conscious" being can. Just because they can't intellectualize on that subject or reflect to the extent that we can does not make them any more of a robot than we are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

]However, an animal or machine with a conscience would posess rights as humans do. Once it gains consciousness, it ceases to be just an object, and it becomes a fellow sentient being.

---

The only problem is that nobody can really come to an agreement as to what exactly "consciousness" is.[/QUOTE]

Your whole argument is based on the supposition that consciousness gives us a quality that other animals don't, "rights".

But, now you claim to not know what consciousness is. If you don't know what it is, then how can you know if humans (by your logic) have the inherent attribute of "rights"?

That's your whole argument gone out of the window. It was entirely based on consciousness and the rights that come with it, but you don't even know what that is.

There is no special hidden reason for our rights: we're top of the 'food chain', so to speak, and thus have the power to grant or revoke rights. Is this right or wrong? To whom would such a question be directed at assuming the non-existence of a superior power to humans?

Like it or not, humans decide who and what has rights simply because we have the power.