Are Robots Considered Humans?

SolracSelbor

Apr 3 2005, 02:31 AM

I have always pondered this question, and after seeing the movie I robot I started to think to myself, if we were playing another form of god. But to tell you the truth I'm still not sure.

Being a person means you have rights, and the government is obligated to defend those rights. But with the rise of artificial intelligence, we are facing new questions about what it takes to constitute a person. In the movie ‘I Robot’, was Sonny considered to be a person? When he committed the murder, there was a lot of questioning on whether he, as a machine should be charged or punished. Would it make sense to punish non living material like Sonny? I don’t really think so.

Sometime in the future computer programmers may be able to develop a robot that behaves just like a person, like Sonny. Sonny behaved just like a person but does that mean he is a person? If so, should they have given him the moral right of self-determination, and not have used him merely to serve mankind? What if it were possible for man to create a human-like machine or robot with the same capacity and abilities and we? A machine that could think on its own and make choices, without any human interference. A robot that could learn things when taught, rather then have the software downloaded or installed. By our knowledge, all a computer can do, is represent the knowledge acquired by the programmer. It can only do what a programmer tells it to do. In other words, it cannot learn, therefore it isn't intelligent. Perhaps in the future machines will develop their own independent level of intelligence with an advanced evolution in technology.
In my opinion, the characteristics of personhood, is to be human and to be living. To be living means to be complex, organized, and made of organic molecules. As living humans we acquire and process materials and energy. We are homeostasis (meaning: staying the same). We grow and response to environmental stimuli. We also reproduce using deoxyribonucleic acids (DNA). Robots, at least as far as I know, do meet a lot of these requirements. They are extremely complex and organized, they process energy, they stay the same, and they respond to their environment. But they are not made of organic molecules, they don't grow, and they don't reproduce using DNA. An organism has to meet all the above requirements to be alive. Sonny could not meet these requirements, therefore he is not alive. Therefore he fails the dictionary definition of a person as a living being.
If we made robots that were life like and able to die like people, they wouldn't be as useful. One of the reasons for making robots is to make helpers who are more durable than humans. But does a robot need to be alive to be a person? There are other definitions to consider before making an assumption. We don't give people rights because they are alive. If that were so, we would give trees and flowers rights. What is the fundamental difference between a flower and a person? A person can think and feel. He is aware of his existence and his experience. He is intelligent. In our experience so far things which are intelligent are always alive. Could it be possible to break this rule? Could a non-living thing, however well programmed, ever have the qualities of self-awareness, intelligence and consciousness?

While trying to classify robots into the different categories of whether they could be considered people or not only left me confused and with more questions then I started with. I do not believe that a machine like Sonny deserves the rights we associate with personhood. Just because it is materialistic does not mean it should be treated the same way as people are treated. The answer still remains unclear for me because I cannot be completely sure that my opinion is correct. After all, it is only an opinion. What do you think?

Twistie

Apr 3 2005, 03:25 AM

Say, e-mail me if someone does come up with a self-conscious, thinking feelinging and learning robot. I don't think i'll be getting any e-mails. But theoretically the robots would still be a non-living object unless someone designs a robot which develops from an egg and sparm and grows into an old frial thing which you have to throw into a nursing home robots are not a living creature therefore aren't human. Bercause the Oxford dictionary describes a human as a creature which comes from nature.

shahidiimran

Apr 3 2005, 03:53 AM

i know this is confusing but robots are not humans and humans are created by God so if you believe that in any age robots can compiete humans, thats not true. You are confused because you have studied robots but you didn't know what God had created, always remember one thing CREATOR is very much powerfull then the product and you can implement this everywhere, just like God created human and human are not compeiting God in any age and that will not be true
Secondly, Robots are just to serve their creator which is human, they are not human so they dont have some place in personhood, they don't need any sympthy and any place in our society. AI is not yet that powerfull that it can create human like robots and neither it will be in future. Humans are created by God so we can't make a robot which is equivalent....
Thirdly, if you had studied AI then all robots are domain specific which means if some robot is working in factory and it come to road than it can't change it actions and we need some interface with robot and if you ever think abt making such domain independent robot than you will face real problem and i think impossible in this age even with this technology. if we ever abale to make such thing means domain independent robots than they will be very slow to their enviorment because of large amount of data feed in them, they can't respond to events quickly as human can do.
i can list you countless things which hinders in making human like robot so brother dont worry, we are very far to make such kind of robots
And last thing you said that if they kill any person, will they be given punishment, i think technology is a tool, and use depend upon its user like you can have the example of nuclear energy, if they are in the hands of some terror kind of country, they are using that to make the other nations afraid and if they are being used by some good countries, they are makin electricity etc to serve humanity, so technology is not bad itself, but its use if used in bad way.....

cheers up, sony is not coming in real world yet....

VisionGraffix

Apr 3 2005, 08:56 AM

QUOTE

CREATOR is very much powerfull then the product

Your saying a Nuke bomb is less powerfull than the human/creator? Thats BS!
We will kill everyone on this planet if we continue to build and allow these machines and robotic creations to work and fight for us because we are too lazy to work and fight ourselves.

VG

qwijibow

Apr 3 2005, 11:15 AM

i cant remember who im quoting, but it was a famous Artificial intelligence scientist...

QUOTE

Computers will never have Free-Will.
But there is no reason why a computer couldn't have the same dilusion of free will that humans have.

Basically, he argued That the human brain is just a powerfull reasoning tool (which can easily be recreated as a computer program) but with a huge chaotic input.

Basically we think people have free will because we can not accuratly predict what they are going to do in normal situaltions.... but most scientist belive that this is not free will, its just a chaotic system.

Read up on chaos theory.
also read up on "free will"

It all boils down to... do you believe in the soul ? its all very philosphical.

basically, we can simulate a brain cell in a computer.
its very very very simple.

what is difficult, is figureing out how to connect billions of simulated brain cells.

If it was possable to freeze your brain, and make make an exact computer simulation of every single brain cell.. every single input, every single brains cell's state (fireing / not fireing) and factored in any chemicals effect on neuro transmitters... wouldnt the simulated brain act exaxctly like you ????

I dont believe in a soul, or anything magical.
the brain to me is a machine built out of chemicals, just like a computer chip.
the are just made from different chemicals.

and the brain has been designed over billions of years of evolution, and has the advantaghe over the silicone chip (for now)

kenjvalip

Apr 3 2005, 01:52 PM

Robots are objects created from either non biological matter and has no life, no moral, no conscience, they are programmed to what they are supposed to do and does not have freedom to choose...

shahidiimran

Apr 3 2005, 03:16 PM

QUOTE(VisionGraffix @ Apr 3 2005, 02:56 PM)

well, powerfull does not means that lets have a fight and decide who is more strong, it have some other factors and humans can win the fight against the machines, but i told you robots are domain specific things so fighter robots

are hard to defeat but humans can, because creator knows the weeknesses also...... so you didn't get my point

agentmax

Apr 3 2005, 05:37 PM

The answer to whether it qualifies to be alive isn't that matter itself. By determining whether its alive, then you will label it with rights. The question we are spiraling around is if robots could feel the same as we do, then shouldn't they be treated equally. If I wrote a basic program, and when you swear at it, it replies that you hurt it's feelings, then does that mean it actually felt it?
If you argue that an exact replication of the human brain could be made in either simulation or reality, that it does feel the same as we do, than any line of code within it would bear the same feeling. If a simulated brain feels, then so do QBASIC programs.
Now do you agree with that, or is it only when it's an 'exact' brain that it deserves rights. What, then, is a perfect replication of ourselves?
I must conclude that only things from nature can be given rights. I cannot argue free-will, because that is a very fuzzy (pun-intentional) area.

shahidiimran

Apr 3 2005, 06:45 PM

yeah the thing is we are making domain specific robots so we are making just machines and that can't be given any humans like rights but if at some stage we make a robot which feel like humans than i am sure that it will be a great achievement and those robots can be punished like humans and they will not like today robots to follow instructions feeded, they will decide heir action own and also build their knowledge base own........but we can't as i mentioned easlier

Qop

Apr 4 2005, 07:08 PM

In my opinion, robots can be considered as human when they can think, act, move and do everything a normal human can do.

Of course it's difficult to draw the line between robot and human: robots aren't natural and we know it. If robots would take over the earth and would eliminate the human race (or even better: eliminate every living creature on the entire planet), and aliens would come and observe us, they wouldn't know better than to classify these robots as 'living creatures' (presuming they act somewhat like human beings). We'd do the same, if we would find such a strange civilization.

It's very probable that we would never accept robots as our equals. God (and we) doesn't see us as his equal. He (presumably) created us, and the same goes for us and robots. We created them, they are lower in rank than us.

Latest Entries

mitchellmckain

Aug 5 2005, 06:22 PM

Oh I pretty much agree with everything you say cyborgxxi. I dont think any computer program could ever be anything like intellegent life. But knowing whether intellegent life is possible in machines requires a bit more understanding of what intellegent life really is.

As a christian I completely understand and sympathize where you are coming from. But I am a complex person, because I am also a scientist and a philosopher. If you believe that machine life is impossible as a matter of faith, I complete understand, and I don't expect you to answer any of the questions which follow.

QUOTE

What makes humans stand apart is that we're created by God. We are similar to animals, we have instincts, are unique, we can reproduce, have free will, have souls, etc

If you are interested in the rational then consider these questions. I would like to set aside the issue of being created by God, for the sake of those who do not accept this premise, for although this would be a sufficient distinction, those who don't accept the premise would think it begs the question. In the other distinctions you have listed I do not see why uniqueness and the ability to reproduce are out of the realm of possibility for machines. As for instincts, I have compared this to programming and you have not commented on this yet. As for the soul, I need some clarification of what you mean by this or think this is. Do I understand that you are saying that animals have them too? What exactly is a soul? The most interering to me is this free will you are talking about

Is this free will something that can only be granted by God like a special exemption from the deterministic physical laws of the universe, or do you think that the physical laws might not be so deterministic as some think. In this second case, is it not possible that perfectly natural phenomena might partake of something like free will, and if so might it be possible for a machine to incorporate this phenomena and thereby have free will?

cyborgxxi

Aug 5 2005, 11:23 AM

Okay MitchellMcKain. I kind of overreacted because someone was thinking "robots are like humans" but no. They is a clear line between robotics and humans.

How?

Robots are like computers. They take in information and what they don't need goes out, something like 'garbage in, garbage out' (GIGO). And they are automated. They do not have free will and all those movies about humanic robots are just "programmed". Remember this! Their cybernetic brain receives information and tells how to respond. Robots cannot think. Nor can computers.

This is similar to the best chess computer in the world. What is its sole purpose? To defeat the opponent.

How? By looking at all the counter movements. If that pawn moves there, and I move this, he can move that knight, then I can move my queen here, and by doing that, that player can either move the pawn or his rook.

Yes, the computer can look at up to 64 counter movements and choose the best move. Of course, since you can't look at what the computer is trying to do, you won't really move your pieces to counter that movement-procedure.

Even though you give that chess computer a human look by attaching bone structures, organs, blood, and flesh, it still won't be a human. Not even CLOSE to being considered a human BY FAR. Wait, make that NEVER. Never close to human.

What makes humans stand apart is that we're created by God. We are similar to animals, we have instincts, are unique, we can reproduce, have free will, have souls, etc etc. Robots, computers... they're just slaves to what they are programmed to!!

Phonzy

Aug 5 2005, 07:37 AM

o.O... is this what humanity has come too?

mitchellmckain

Aug 5 2005, 06:27 AM

Well, cyborgxii I agree with your conclusion (and those of others here like kenjvalip and Jeiqh) to some extent if not your attitude. Robots as they exist today or even conceived of in the near future are just machines with out life or intellegence. They are tools and nothing more. But we can dig a little deeper in philosophy to ask what may ever be possible and what is the real difference? What is it, that if robots were ever to acquire it, would eventually cause them to considered equal with humans.

As Jeiqh pointed out we do make humans by means of a biological function, so what is it that really makes us different. Is it just the inventory of and the properties of our internal organs? Is it just chemistry? Is it capabilities? All of these are frought with enormous ethical difficulties. Could robots ever be considered human? The question is only a natural part of an historical process. Only a few hundred years ago people in another country were not considered human, even women were not considered human. A few thousand years before that and anyone not a member of ones extended family was not considered human. It is only natural that this awareness has begun to extend tentatively even farther. Might there be aliens who are equal or even superior to humans? Might some of the animals on are planet share the distiction? And finally what about robots? Is intellegent life possible in machines?

One area of greatest ignorance that we have is ourselves. What is it about us humans that we consider so worthwhile? What exactly are we? If we are so confident that we are better than the animals or robots, what makes us so? Isn't this the interesting philosophical question?

cyborgxxi

Aug 5 2005, 04:09 AM

QUOTE(kenjvalip)

Robots are objects created from either non biological matter and has no life, no moral, no conscience, they are programmed to what they are supposed to do and does not have freedom to choose...

That's absolutely true. Robots are computers that have moving parts that allow them to do something. You know what, Solrac, you have a really low-IQ brain, in my opinion.

Robots are NOT humans and they will never BE humans. Stop thinking these crazy things because you'll confuse yourself and maybe someday you'll think of robots as your real human friends. No. They are lifeless, mechanical creations of humans.

This is by far the stupidest thread I've ever seen in my life. "Are Robots Considered Humans?" *shakes his head*

Don't worry, we're all humans. We make mistakes