kvnchrist

As far as treatment of any sentient being, I think any entity needs to be treated ethically and appropriately. Animals domestic or not. Spiders, snakes and the like. These AI entities deserve to be treated according to their capabilities. As far as equal rights, That is something sacred to me. Not religiously so, but socially. When I think of equal rights, I think of inequality between the races, not between a machine and a man.

I don't believe in artificial creation of life So synthetic biology is a vicious rumour ? :tongue: Biological organisms have been artificially created. If you give your definition of life it might help alleviate some misunderstandings. There is no misunderstanding. I don't think life can be artificially created. Period! You can try making fun of this all you wish I believe what I believe. well there is a misunderstanding somewhere In the definition of life being used. "the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death" I am simply asking what is yours. Anything created artificially is not life. There is no artificial life. There is only one source of life and I really don't think we need to go any further, with this. As I've said, I have my beliefs, they are personal and not open for debate. Not here anyway.

I don't believe in artificial creation of life So synthetic biology is a vicious rumour ? :tongue: Biological organisms have been artificially created. If you give your definition of life it might help alleviate some misunderstandings. There is no misunderstanding. I don't think life can be artificially created. Period! You can try making fun of this all you wish I believe what I believe.

Well the hypothetical we are dealing with has to do a machine that is atleast equal to us in terms of its mental capabilities. This may be impossible in reality, but for the purposes of this discussion we are assuming it to be true. So, are you saying that despite it's mental capabilities being atleast equal to our own that it is still somehow unequal to us in some way? Please explain. Because it is not us. It would be a constructed by us. In many ways it would be superior to us. Mostly because many of the things that make us human would be foreign to these supposed creatures. Not just foreign, but completely immaterial to them.

I don't believe in artificial creation of life

Even if they could somehow manage to create everything that is found in the bodies of humans. How could they create actual life within that body. We are stepping into the unknown here, but really simply put couldn't they let nature do it's thing, once living cells are functioning isn't it case of them going about their programming. if I am not mistaken an artificial life was created in a lab http://www.economist.com/node/16163006 An actually for the statement of " no object created is equal to it's creator." would abiogenesis suffice? "how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes" I don't supose nature is less complex a 'thing' though.... I don't think they created anything that wasn't already there. Sure if you consider a entirely new creature that has no biological ancestors with it's DNA made from off the shelf chemicals already there. The genome is entirely synthetic. That depends on your definition of life.

Even if they could somehow manage to create everything that is found in the bodies of humans. How could they create actual life within that body. We are stepping into the unknown here, but really simply put couldn't they let nature do it's thing, once living cells are functioning isn't it case of them going about their programming. if I am not mistaken an artificial life was created in a lab http://www.economist.com/node/16163006 An actually for the statement of " no object created is equal to it's creator." would abiogenesis suffice? "how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes" I don't supose nature is less complex a 'thing' though.... I don't think they created anything that wasn't already there.

I find myself wondering what social programs and the desire to work or not, or in fact the ability to actually be able to find work, has to do with good manners and standards of decency. I read your post several times and it still seems to me that it's implying people of a lower socioeconomic status are the ones who lack or have lost these social skills. The question should cover all levels of social status not just the those on welfare, whether they are in that situation by design or circumstance. I know people who left their "chivalry' behind when they climbed the corporate ladder stepping over anyone who didn't, and don't fit with their social status. One being a family member who went from a kind and thoughtful person to a selfish and money driven individual in an executive position who wouldn't give you the time of day unless you paid him. I also don't see what education level, especially combined with the social programs scenario has to do with basic manners and decent behaviour either. Basic decency and knowing inside oneself when something is right or wrong is a trait that's inherent in a person's nature, no matter what kind of upbringing a person has had. I'm not talking about law and regulations imposed by government or society itself, but simple human behaviour. Manners and general courtesy aren't things that can be learned except by rote and example. It's not necessarily always genuine either when they don't come naturally or are forced. Speaking for myself, I think the true definition of chivalry as mentioned by grannywils, causes more harm than good in today's society. It still carries the implication that women are less intelligent, more fragile than men and should be hidden away as well as unheard and thought of as property. That type of archaic attitude is more often than not a false sense of superiority and fear disguised as caring and protection. Not that I think this is what you meant kvnchrist, as the real meaning of the word chivalry is quite different than what it seems you were asking. Society as a whole should be aiming for respect on all levels, not dependent on gender or any other social status. As long as that respect is warranted and earned by all sides of course. @ HeyYou Yes. As the saying goes "a smile is worth a thousand words." A simple and free thing that feels good and brings delight to many. :) I think you are reading more into my post than is there. Chivalry also means being a productive member of society, supporting it as much as you can. There is a lot of people who are more interested in what it can get out of society than they can give back. This is absolutely across the socioeconomic spectrum.

Even if they could somehow manage to create everything that is found in the bodies of humans. How could they create actual life within that body.

As I've stated before. AI has not been created yet. Everything said about it, pro or con are just assumptions. Yes, there is a difference between procreation and creating objects with your hands. I thought that would be obvious. My question stands. When has my statement ever not been true. Programed by who. Other machines or man. Perhaps other machines. Or man. Aliens whatever. Just depends how far back up the creation ladder you want to go. We could go to the creation of the universe if we wanted. Dude, I respect you and your opinions, but I think you are reaching here.

As I've stated before. AI has not been created yet. Everything said about it, pro or con are just assumptions. Yes, there is a difference between procreation and creating objects with your hands. I thought that would be obvious. My question stands. When has my statement ever not been true. Programed by who. Other machines or man. Can machines create humans. That would really make us equal.

We have not created AI. All of this is assumed, except for my statement, which is has been proven, over and over. I ask it again. no object created is equal to it's creator. When has this ever not been true. Parent >Child? :unsure: I'm talking about creating with the hands, not with something else. I assume you don't think that AI can be created by procreation?

We have not created AI. All of this is assumed, except for my statement, which is has been proven, over and over. I ask it again. no object created is equal to it's creator. When has this ever not been true.

Dude, I know that, but I've already commented on that. It's unethical to mistreat others, but one must see them as those deserving of such equality, which is what I'm getting at. The statement you make here is in direct conflict with an earlier statement that you made in this thread. This is the quote: Your statement here implies that machines could never be considered the equals of a human, regardless of their capabilities. Thus, they could never be deserving of the same rights as humans. It is not a statement of what society thinks, but what is actually the case. Do you no longer defend this position? Which part of "one must see them as those deserving of such equality" don't you understand? My last statement was for society as a whole. Most people clean their consciences just far enough to make them feel better about what they will allow, and then they go their own way. Didn't we free the slaves, just to stand aside, while the Jim Crow laws were created and enforced, for how many years? Also my statement is correct that no object created is equal to it's creator. When has this ever not been true.

Dude, I know that, but I've already commented on that. It's unethical to mistreat others, but one must see them as those deserving of such equality, which is what I'm getting at.

a lot of what you said here I addressed in my last post. Usually when we consider whether something deserves certain rights we consider person hood and whether that being has things like intelligence, self awareness, consciousness or other mental attributes. What we do not consider is whether the being evolved from some other life form, is biological in nature, had parents, etc. The focus is not on where it came from, but what it can do. So why is it so important to you to point out the difference in how an A.I. comes into existence from how humans came into existence? So long as the end result is the same, why does it matter? It matters, because people think of these when they decide wither any entity is equal to them and thus deserves the same rights as they have. It is the differences that people see more clearly than the similarities. As in Data, It was his eyes that stood out. This is true of children and I really don't think it changes much as we mature, unless we focus on changing it, in ourselves. As a child were you more willing to eat a cheeseburger or a piece of brockley? You were most likely to eat what you knew, than try something strange and different. The whole thread is about acceptance. The closer and more familiar anything is, the more comfortable you are with it. We are dealing with human nature here. Giving anything equal treatment (rights) is the highest form of acceptance. Granting what you say here as true, does it seem acceptable to you that we would deny this entity rights simply because of the differences in how it came to exist? That seems like an awfully unethical position to hold. Granting another person rights based on human nature or what one perceives to be familiar or unfamiliar is the crux of an irrational prejudice. It would seem to suggest that there is superiority in human existence, despite evidence to the contrary. It doesn't matter what you or I think. It matters what society as a whole thinks. The only thing that will assure these beings acceptance is that human's are comfortable with them. There will be those who will embrace them, but if you look at our culture, what percentage of human beings still look to something new without trepidation? Especially, If It walks around like a human.

In that case I might recommend writing the writers of that episode to confront them about their philosophic inconsistency. Perhaps to them, disassembly does not mean death. Perhaps they put his hard drive on a shelf for a few thousand years as penitence? Regardless of the TV show, you can rest assured that if humans can punish a murderous AI, they will. Giving an AI rights does not give it free reign over humanity... ...So I suppose another interesting question is -- what rights would even interest an AI? If that AI had full control over it's own facilities, and if it's goal was to be efficient as possible, why would it not just simulate it's own universe "mentally" with more free will than even a human? Presumably such a simulation could be as real as the physical universe, considering it's all just electrical impulses. The only true connection to the physical universe an AI would require is a power source... And Solar could ween them off of dependance upon human infrastructure altogether. ...I'm boggling my own mind right now. http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/laugh.gif You bring up a good point. Why would these beings even need us, our acceptance or even our companionship. The only thing that brought Data so much attention was his desire to experience everything human. With our pettiness and limited lifespan, what really would we have to offer them.

Yea, but they have these people in red shirts that seem, always to get taken out, like cannon fodder. lol

a lot of what you said here I addressed in my last post. Usually when we consider whether something deserves certain rights we consider person hood and whether that being has things like intelligence, self awareness, consciousness or other mental attributes. What we do not consider is whether the being evolved from some other life form, is biological in nature, had parents, etc. The focus is not on where it came from, but what it can do. So why is it so important to you to point out the difference in how an A.I. comes into existence from how humans came into existence? So long as the end result is the same, why does it matter? It matters, because people think of these when they decide wither any entity is equal to them and thus deserves the same rights as they have. It is the differences that people see more clearly than the similarities. As in Data, It was his eyes that stood out. This is true of children and I really don't think it changes much as we mature, unless we focus on changing it, in ourselves. As a child were you more willing to eat a cheeseburger or a piece of brockley? You were most likely to eat what you knew, than try something strange and different. The whole thread is about acceptance. The closer and more familiar anything is, the more comfortable you are with it. We are dealing with human nature here. Giving anything equal treatment (rights) is the highest form of acceptance.

The reason people are so surprised is that such actions are no longer expected. This is not a sexual thing, but a thing of responsibility, to oneself and to others. Doing what is necessary to not become a burden on society. Having manners is the most visible component, but by far, not the most important. I think pride has been transformed. It no longer is something felt by those who stand up and pick themselves off the ground, by their own boot straps. It is how well they scheme to use and abuse the system. In many parts of America it is a right of passage to go to jail and the ladies have no problem with being called holes and working, without help by the men in their lives.

This is a social question and has to do with manners and respect for thoseof the fairer sex. I don't think it has anything exclusively to do with the staff of any site. I do feel that the the value of honor and respect are slowly slipping away, and as a society, it's loss will gravely reduce our humanity to each other. *cough* I believe "distaff" means in this instance...of or concerning women...not the staff of a forum. If that isn't what you mean I apologize. Thank you for that.My vocabulary isn't the best as you can tell.

This is a social question and has to do with manners and respect for thoseof the fairer sex. I don't think it has anything exclusively to do with the staff of any site. I do feel that the the value of honor and respect are slowly slipping away, and as a society, it's loss will gravely reduce our humanity to each other.

When I think of AI, I think of two versions. one that is connected to a central authority, like in the Mextrix or autonomous, like Data on Star Trek. As I remember Data had his personality and intellect installed onto his neural network, which to me is having it installed, like a software update. If this is true aren't their identities dependent upon another living sole. If this is true, then are these actually individuals or are they mimics? Also, these beings must come into being, somehow. I doubt very seriously if these beings could be formed the same way as human beings are. If they are manufactured, how are their parts tested if as you've said, they have no off switch. I know that Data had a off switch, why should these beings be any different.

Has the advancement in the counter culture and the thriving attraction to leach of the the social programs, by those capable of working, placing a tombstone on the ideal of chivalry. Has more liberal views of the roles of men and women, in our society made such ideals archaic? Are many of the young ladies of today excepting less responsible and less driven young men into their hearts and into their beds. If they are, is this lowering of standards, attributable to self esteem issues or are they looking more for those young men, with the bad boy image? No matter what, Is this lowering of standards, teaching their children that in order to be a real man, you are to lay around the house, playing games, while the women work.? This might not fit for those here, since the education level here is far above the mainstream. I am looking at society as a whole.

I installed my NV back into my computer, logged into steam and went through the download (every tedious minute of it) I looked in the Bethesda folder, for the NV, trying to add some mods I downloaded and I can't find the NV folder anywhere. I have Windows 7 on my computer Also I purchased Sierra Madre through steam and It doesn't show up anywhere on my account.