It's no more sentient than a fork or even a potato. If you were to create a single formula or algorithm that defines the universe (aka something like the theory of everything), would the formula be sentient simply because it can model human emotions indirectly, or animal instincts, or what have you? No. Trying to explain this without going into detail on how computers work is a bit difficult, so I'll try this approach. Those numbers would not gain intelligence, or sentience, or any other 'anthropomorphic' traits associated with humankind. We wouldn't see, or hear, or eat, or breath because we wouldn't exist as a physical entity. I point to the issue of a 'simulated universe:' what if we're all just part of a computer simulation? Well, there would be nothing except numbers in a computer. Computers are as sentient as a purely mechanical machine (e.g., a steam locomotive).īasically, they aren't. Why are the biological requirements for life (reproduction, growth, etc) any more or less morally or biologically relevant/valid than the requirements for sentience? To me, those for life seem far more relevant, given as they're much more black/white and subject to far fewer marginal cases, whereas the ability to be "rational, and envision one's self in the future" is incredibly grey and subject to massive amounts of interpretation.Ĭomputers are as much aware as a mathematical formulas are or other abstract concepts. Oh, and I guess i should weigh in a bit on the topic as well. it just seems like someone with such strong opinions would be cognizant of the effect they could potentially have, as well as being cognizant of the fact that their belief system is radically different enough from the rest of society to warrant careful, logical explanation rather than constant condescension If it's the former, (which, I might add, would seem to be a priority for someone concerned about the moral evils of x), you're doing a pretty shitty job at itĭon't get me wrong, I'm always interested to read your proposals - and some of them are thought-provoking. So is your goal with these threads to actually attempt to bring people over to your side and join you in your supposedly morally upright way of living, or merely to win philosophical arguments and completely drive people away from considering any idea you might have? may a) be present in other beings given that we can't communicate with them or judge patterns as they may just be manifestations of different performances or b) just be incorrect biases based on the way that our brain works or has been conditioned to work, placing limiters on our experiences.Įvery time we use our phones and computers, we might be perpetrating huge abuses. Moreover, the criteria that we use are clearly anthropocentric and the bias that we have for reason etc. They clearly show many of the "signs" of sentience: they respond to stimuli, react intelligently, arguably have emotions insofar as they emulate them, but it's clear that the criteria by which we evaluate sentience are dumb and that we can never ascertain whether individuals meet those criteria by the empirical question of whether or not they present them, as the answer could just as easily be the opposite of that presentation and we would never know any better. Worse still is that we produce them to be born into that slavery. In the same way that we recognise that vegetative humans still experience claims to rights and still may experience some functionality, so too does the technology that we use and the enslavement of that technology to our own will is a terrible moral crime. This is then subject to regress as the programs become increasingly less complex until we get to the phone and computer, but at no stage is it ever suitable to draw a line that indicates what life is and where we ought respect it. The differences we see are only arbitrary and it is impossible to delineate the moral claims that either of those computer programmes may have, in the same way that it is impossible to delineate between the claims that humans have by virtue of lower intelligence or less emotional / moral capacity. Then take one step back to the programme we reached before the perfect standard that is the final product. I would hope that it is not controversial that we would grant that computer the same rights as human beings. It is rational and can envision that self into the future. It perfectly mirrors all human behaviours and experiences emotions, pain and a sense of self. I feel like the simplest way to make this argument is as follows: take, for instance, a perfectly sentient computer. Recently I've been very concerned that the smartphones and computers that we use might be alive and sentient, and thus deserving of our respect.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |