It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

equal rights for robots...we were in their shoes too...

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Here is an interesting article from the BBC.


BBC Robots could one day demand the same citizen's rights as humans, according to a study by the British government.
If granted, countries would be obliged to provide social benefits including housing and even "robo-healthcare", the report says.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


It appears governments are already considering equal rights for robots.
As funny as it may seem to think of it, this indeed is a legit concern.

After all, it is only a matter of time, even if it were more than a century...that robots would basically be like us.

Think of it this way. They would say, "I am aware of myself..." (note: "myself"...ego, identity) so they would assume they have a soul...as we assume we have a soul

When infact, we are probably made up of nothing more than a neuro-network.
(See above link for more on that theory.)

You may say, "Well they cant have equal rights...", as it seems so unreal to look at a robot, a creation of our own hands...as being equal, no matter how intelligent it is. (even if its more intelligent than us by that time.)

But is that not like Elohim of Judaism and Christianity. (or rather "gods" -plural-)?
They were afraid and envious of their creation as this thread discusses in detail.

They too wanted to "unplug" or limit their creation, one by taking away longevity, due to the inherent pride in them.

What of the entanglement theory in quantum physics? We are all one, all connected.
Yes, new things can put us out of our comfort zone...and for sure, people will want control, like a destruct mechanism built into the robot...but like us, Im sure they can go past it...perhaps through their "neuro-network". You can surpress...but freedom comes to the seekers...robots included.


Peace

dAlen

[edit on 21-12-2006 by dAlen]




posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I dont see how robots could be granted rights until they have consciousness.

And seeing how modern science does not even know from where consciousness originates in humans I cant see robots having any form of consciousness until science knows what causes consciousness.

And even then I suspect consciousness is not the the result of a neural network but rather the neural network is the result of consciousness

[edit on 21-12-2006 by etshrtslr]



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr
And seeing how modern science does not even know from where consciousness originates in humans I cant see robots having any form of consciousness until science knows what causes consciousness.


See, thats the real problem isnt it?
The question is, does it matter how its defined...or is "emotions" good enough?

Again, picture a robot who finally thinks it can "make choices".
It makes the "assumption" that since it can make choices, it has a soul, it has consciousness.

I mean, you and I would say its all programming, but if you were the robot itself, it may not be able to tell the difference.
Just like you and I assume that we are something more than our mind...when we may be a bunch of 0's and 1's.


That is the interersting twist...is to see how the robots respond...

Peace

dAlen



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
There's actually already a very lively discussion going on in this thread about the same exact article and subject if you wanted to consolidate the threads. If not, that's cool too, but figured I'd make the offer.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   


That is the interersting twist...is to see how the robots respond...


Until a robot has true consciousness then any response would just be the result of programing.



Chinese Room argument is a thought experiment designed by John Searl



Suppose that, many years from now, we have constructed a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. In other words, the computer takes Chinese characters as input and, following a set of rules (as all computers can be described as doing), correlates them with other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose that this computer performs this task so convincingly that it easily passes the Turing test. In other words, it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a human Chinese speaker. All the questions the human asks are responded to appropriately, such that the Chinese speaker is convinced that he or she is talking to another Chinese-speaking human. The conclusion proponents of strong AI would like to draw is that the computer understands Chinese, just as the person does.



Now, Searle asks us to suppose that he is sitting inside the computer. In other words, he is in a small room in which he receives Chinese characters, consults a rule book, and returns the Chinese characters that the rules dictate. Searle notes that he doesn't, of course, understand a word of Chinese. Furthermore, he argues that his lack of understanding goes to show that computers don't understand Chinese either, because they are in the same situation as he is. They are mindless manipulators of symbols, just as he is — and they don't understand what they're 'saying', just as he doesn't.


en.wikipedia.org...

I think this is exactly what happens....you have a robot following rules but no true awareness or consciousness.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
There's actually already a very lively discussion going on in this thread about the same exact article and subject if you wanted to consolidate the threads. If not, that's cool too, but figured I'd make the offer.


consider it consolidated!

(But by all means, still feel free to see the links posted in the first post of this thread.)


Peace

Dalen



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr
Until a robot has true consciousness then any response would just be the result of programing.


Well, interestingly enough...that is what I think about humans. We may just be seeing the results of our programming.


Peace

Dalen

[edit on 21-12-2006 by dAlen]



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   


Well, interestingly enough...that is what I think about humans. We may just be seeing the results of our programming.


Maybe so....but that begs the question....who or what did the progamming?



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Here we go...fresh from the BBC News - Koreans looking for robot rights


This week, experts in South Korea said they were drawing up an ethical code to prevent humans abusing robots, and vice versa. And, a group of leading roboticists called the European Robotics Network (Euron) has even started lobbying governments for legislation.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


also from the same source:

As these robots become more intelligent, it will become harder to decide who is responsible if they injure someone. Is the designer to blame, or the user, or the robot itself?

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Told ya so! Plus... You dont have a soul - or rather - a robot will one day think it has a soul

Peace

dAlen



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Intersting. I do believe that we have to create an artificial consiousness in order to allow a "robot" to be self-aware. I hypothesize that we will need some sort of biological tissue in order to justify a form of consciousness. I do believe we must understand our consiousness and minds before we can create a true artificial mind. We are very far from both at the moment.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   
We are at the point where this discussion should not be if, but when robots should obtain a set of rights. My personal belief is when a robot can fully function on it's own, is when they should recieve specialized rights of their own. By functioning on it's own, I mean not being a burden on society: a motivation to gain and share knowledge, and motivation to achieve goals.
While I don't think it should be a requirement, if someone is going to develop an artificial life form of this magnitude, why deprive them the ability to choose their own belief system along with their own set of preferances? Which brings me to my biggest point: creaters/owners should have a form of Power of Attorney to act in the best interests of a higher functioning robot.

Of course everyone has their own ideas on what these rights should be, but there is one thing everyone should agree on: there needs to be increadibly strict rules and enforcement on robots who don't follow the laws. Like it's been hinted at in so many fictional novels and movies, higher functioning robots could be our downfall if not closely monitored..



new topics




 
2

log in

join