You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Morality of Artificial Intelligence
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim." - Edsger Dijkstra
I'd like to think a machine would develop the same morality we could move towards given time - a synthesis of science and spirituality like James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis, in which life itself and solidarity with all forms of life are seen as the end goal of morality.
I have a feeling we'll use machines to help us understand our own morality. They may even reveal that we also are just biological machines.
I took the shortcut to "realize" (not to "understand") my morality.
I would like to challenge your view that we humans are just biological machines. I am an organism. I would state that organisms were there long before machines arose. We didn't know of machines before they weren't invented. But, unfortunately, since than we widely put on a mechanistic notion of the world.
The difference is quite significant. A machine is made out of bits and pieces, an organism grows and is changing every single day from birth to death - there is nothing added to the organism. That's fundamental. As I gave birth to a child this is obvious to me.
Why is it important?
In the realization that I as a creature grow organically I must admit that I deeply depend on other organisms here on earth. I am interconnected to them. That means what happens to the bee or the fish or the bear, happens to me as well. Also I depend on other humans.
When I see them mostly as biological machines, I treat them as machines, to put it simply. I then may believe in mechanical treatment, in fixing organic problems just as I fix a broken clutch. As a specialist in surgery I may know everything about the human heart or bladder but the complexity of the human body and mind I cannot comprehend to the fullest. As I am not able to full realization I must have something to rely on.
This, for me, is ethics.
To build up strong ethics, I need a source where I get them from. My existence is standing on the shoulders of others. Already ethics were formulated and given to the world. I "just" have to put them into my daily habits. Because in theory I already know that I shouldn't harm or kill other living beings, I should be authentic (truthful), not badmouthing about others, not stealing, not betraying.
Have you ever linked ethics to your daily actions, reactions and thoughts?
I try and must say: that is the most difficult thing. Being honest for a single day, not betraying this principles is just as difficult (and exiting!) as giving birth to a baby.
Make the experiment and pick just one of the premisses.
Interesting perspective. Thank you for sharing. I'd also argue treating the human body as a biological machine has led to great breakthroughs in medical science and improved wellbeing for many. Similarly, natural cycles and systems have been analyzed mechanically to bring us benefits (and risks) as we go about shaping our world. Many feel that's unnatural, but I view our actions as just another part of nature.
The distinction you make, to me, will be less obvious in the future as we begin to augment our bodies with nanotechnology and genetic engineering. We will have control and understanding on a mechanical machine level. What we do with that will determine the future of life and whether it spreads in the galaxy or ends in self destruction.
.. not sure if I got your point. Do you mean it in that way:
As - I guess, again, Alan Watts - said it: "Buildings of bricks or steel made by humans is just the same as a bird building its nest. Both can be called "natural"."
So far I can follow.
But then I ask: Do birds have an impact on humans as they have on them? ... and not only birds. As humans got power over nature we are the species with the most occupied and transformed space, because of how we use machines and mine resources. We pollute and exploit other humans & creatures & matter in a very dangerous way. We could do better.
Michael Braungart, a German Chemistry Professor and "Cradle to Cradle" inventor states in his lectures: "We aren't too many, we are just to dumb."
Following the principle that humans are't separated from all other creatures on earth and deeply depend on one another, your argument limps a little bit. Because it primarily uses the perspective on us as a species alone. What about the rest?
It is as if the parasites kill its host; although I dislike this comparison a lot. For it shows how badly we look at ourselves.
I really doubt that treating the human body as a machine was responsible for medical break throughs or if not something else could be held for a cause. Like treating humans like complex organisms and social beings, capable of feelings.
I myself are having zero experience when it comes to surgery in medical treatment. ... Actually to the contrary. My personal experience within the school medicine was in the most cases disappointing up to frightening. MRI, Ultrasound and other diagnose helping machines weren't as conclusive as their reputation. From my point of view it much more depends on a good and qualified doctor using the machinery. But I had it myself and heard it many many times from others: Doctors nowadays lack confidence and rely to much on machines, unlearning their profession. I am saying that, cause I was lucky to find my way to good doctors who were skilled by examining me without any machine whatsoever and hit the point.
I am sceptical on your outlook. From what I think is that you overestimate control and genetic engineering. But maybe wer are in the same boat and just details and language issues set our arguments apart.
Thanx for responding!
P.S. Here a video of William McDonough, the American colleague of Michael Braungart:
Would that be a revelation?
Unfortunately, for many, it would be. There's a lot of backward, primitive thinking still dominating our cultures and societies. To suggest we are just animals is offensive to many people. To suggest other animals also have evolutionary concepts built in like empathy, tit-for-tat game theory and the like is a revelation to many.