Cloning, AI, and personal rights

[hmkpoker]

Let's say that science completely maps out the human genome and progresses enough technologically to make human beings in labs. Eggs and sperm can be synthetically re-created, so basically the created person is formed entirely within the confines of a laboratory. Should such a person be entitled to the right of self-ownership?

Now let's say that science takes things a step further; rather than just producing a normal human being, it can "tweak" a few things in the genome that make the person better (better memory, better immune system, stronger muscles, faster reflexes). Should such a person be entitled to the right of self-ownership?

Let's go a step further, and say that science eventually goes on to map out the entire nueral pathways and develops a computer that mimics every facet of the human brain, and displays human behavior and emotion. A synthetic humanoid body is created to house the brain chip. Should such a person be entitled to the right of self-ownership?

[luckyme]

I met a girl in a bar the other night. She was pretty, she was witty, she was interesting, etc. Why would I need to have her family history analyzed and her brain scanned to decide she's the greatest human I've ran into?

I am not my cell structure, and I don't like to think of others with different cell structure or artificial parts or reconstructed bones or pig hearts as any less of a person than I am.

Is a person their chemical makeup, or even sillier, the history of the chemicals in their makeup.

next question :-) luckyme

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's go a step further, and say that science eventually goes on to map out the entire nueral pathways and develops a computer that mimics every facet of the human brain, and displays human behavior and emotion. A synthetic humanoid body is created to house the brain chip. Should such a person be entitled to the right of self-ownership?

[/ QUOTE ]
I was pondering something similar the other day, taken even a bit further -- what if the "human-simulating computer" were actually made of an enormous complex of wooden cogs, gears, levers, pullies, falling ball-bearings and manila ropes?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
what if the "human-simulating computer" were actually made of an enormous complex of wooden cogs, gears, levers, pullies, falling ball-bearings and manila ropes?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see it in 'simulating' terms. It either is human or it isn't, and the chemical nature or physical structure can't be a factor or we have other problems ( some I mentioned earlier). The pulley-rope example is hard to visualize being able to operate in 'real-time', with our billions of neural operation per second, but perhaps it's just an extreme version of listening to one of grampa's stories. In fact, I may never be able to listen to one again without hearing ropes creaking over pulleys....
.... thanks a lot, luckyme

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
It either is human or it isn't, and the chemical nature or physical structure can't be a factor or we have other problems ( some I mentioned earlier).

[/ QUOTE ]

In some cases though, it's kind of ambiguous. Some people believe that zygotes/fetuses should be treated as human beings for the purposes of extending rights while others don't consider them to be people. (Personally I don't think cell masses with undeveloped brains should be considered as productive, intelligent entities that deserve protection) Science brings up some other cases, like cloning and AI, where not everyone agrees that something is human.

Personally, I think ownership rights "should be" granted to entities that are capable of enforcing their own property rights. (I say "should be" because it is irrelevant; it happens regardless) I brought this up before in this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=4945421&page=). I figure if a robot were manufactured with the ability to self-govern, and if that method of self-government were somehow more productive to society than its enslavement, it would be reasonable to grant it self-ownership rights (why or how someone would program something like that, though, is beyond me)

[flatline]

This will become one of the biggest ethical questions in the coming century. I can't really give a good answer. I can pose another question, though: If we validate our domination of all other known life forms based on our vastly superior intelligence, what will happen when we create machines with vastly superior intelligences to our own?

You might want to check out Ray Kurzweil's "The Singularity is Near", it addresses a lot of this stuff.

[hmkpoker]

Sounds very "Matrix" /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Personally I think it's inevitable. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, though. It's just evolution.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
what will happen when we create machines with vastly superior intelligences to our own?

[/ QUOTE ]

What sort of intelligence are you referring to?

[PoBoy321]

hmk,

Yes, yes, I'm not sure, although I'm inclined to say yes.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds very "Matrix" /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Personally I think it's inevitable. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, though. It's just evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the neural stuff is inevitable at all.
I'm curous why people wouldn't treat clones the same. It's like an identical twin.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds very "Matrix" /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Personally I think it's inevitable. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, though. It's just evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the neural stuff is inevitable at all.
I'm curous why people wouldn't treat clones the same. It's like an identical twin.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think eventually we will create intelligences greater than our own. For said intelligences to "take over" it would require programming them with an incentive to do so.

I'm not going to get into any of my "robots taking over the world theories" because they're pretty silly, but that's kind of how I see progress as eventually panning out.

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]

Let's go a step further, and say that science eventually goes on to map out the entire nueral pathways and develops a computer that mimics every facet of the human brain, and displays human behavior and emotion. A synthetic humanoid body is created to house the brain chip. Should such a person be entitled to the right of self-ownership?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes to the first two. On the third I, would have to say that it is unlikely to happen. However if it did, I see no problem giving human rights to something that functions as essentially human. The chief moral problem with slavery is it has a negative or limiting effects on the slave. If we reach that level of technology, then surely it would easy to program it to have perfect and complete satisfaction in serving others. Such a being would have the right of self ownership if it so desired, but would not desire it.

[Leaky Eye]

Yes.
Yes.
No! OMG didn't you see Terminator?

[flatline]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what will happen when we create machines with vastly superior intelligences to our own?

[/ QUOTE ]

What sort of intelligence are you referring to?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know; it hasn't been invented yet. I could speculate, but that wouldn't mean much.

[flatline]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Personally I think it's inevitable. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, though. It's just evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the neural stuff is inevitable at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

And I'm sure that in 1950 you would have said today's PCs were not inevitable, but they were. Technology advances, and it advances at an ever-increasing rate (this will not change except in the case of a major world-wide catastrophe). We will eventually create something will intelligence similar to ours, and then we will necessarily create something more intelligent than ourselves. Maybe we will merge with this intelligence, maybe it will allow us to live in paradise, maybe it will enslave us or kill us, who knows?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes.
Yes.
No! OMG didn't you see Terminator?

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't have a problem with that though, as long as it doesn't happen while I'm alive /images/graemlins/smile.gif (In those man v. machine plots, I usually end up taking the machines' side )

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes.
Yes.
No! OMG didn't you see Terminator?

[/ QUOTE ]

Terminator...so derivative /images/graemlins/smile.gif

"Danger!"
Let the bridge computer speak
"Stranger!"
Load your program. I am yourself.

"No computer stands in my way"
Only blood can cancel my pain
Guardians of a new clear dawn
"Let the maps of war be drawn."

ELP; KarnEvil 9 Third Impression; circa 5 B.G. (before Gates)

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Technology advances, and it advances at an ever-increasing rate

[/ QUOTE ]

Most absurd unwarranted assumption that intelligent people make in the modern day. On the contrary, we know there are specific physical limits to what technology can accomplish, and so we know that eventually technology will cease to advance. Even if there were no physical theoretical limit, omnipotence presents a clear limit.

Some suggest, with absolutely no support to back up their claims, that technology will continue to advance at an exponential rate until we "hit the wall" and strike the theoretical limit. What is the mechanism by which exponential progress will be maintained? Nobody can think of any. How will we overcome the limitations of current technology? Oh, we'll "find a way." Etc.

If it works like most human developments have worked, and like the state of technology currently indicates, then it will probably plateau at some point and then start to taper off.

Nobody thought that the modern personal computer was a necessary development in 1950. But some people thought moon colonies were. In fact, the number of technologically optimistic predictions that proved untrue was far greater than the number of pessimistic predictions that proved untrue. The fact is, technology has arguable not progressed as far as some people expected it to 50 years ago, and it certainly hasn't progressed as far in certain areas.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't have a problem with that though, as long as it doesn't happen while I'm alive /images/graemlins/smile.gif (In those man v. machine plots, I usually end up taking the machines' side )

[/ QUOTE ]

Derek 'Stormy' Waters: Okay, okay. So, say I put my brain in a robot body and there's a war. Robots versus humans. What side am I on?
Debbie DuPree: Humans! You have a human brain.
Sparks: But... the humans discriminate against you. You can't even vote!
Marco: We'd better not have to live on a reservation. That would really chap my caboose.
Captain Murphy: Yeah, but... nobody knows you're a robot. You look the same.
Debbie DuPree: Uh, uh. Dogs know. That's how the humans hunt you.
Derek 'Stormy' Waters: They're gonna' hunt me? For sport?
Marco: That's why we have to CRUSH mankind! So you might as well get on board for the big win, Stormy.

[flatline]

[ QUOTE ]
Most absurd unwarranted assumption that intelligent people make in the modern day. On the contrary, we know there are specific physical limits to what technology can accomplish, and so we know that eventually technology will cease to advance. Even if there were no physical theoretical limit, omnipotence presents a clear limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it is far more ignorant to think that technology will not continue to advance, and advance at an increasing rate. We are nowhere near the theoretical limit of what technology can accomplish, though I agree there must be a limit.

[ QUOTE ]
Some suggest, with absolutely no support to back up their claims, that technology will continue to advance at an exponential rate until we "hit the wall" and strike the theoretical limit. What is the mechanism by which exponential progress will be maintained? Nobody can think of any. How will we overcome the limitations of current technology? Oh, we'll "find a way." Etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we will slow down as we reach a theoretical limit, but as I said, that is a long way off. I can guess at some of the mechanisms we will use in the future (quantum computing, 3d computing), but its impossible to perfectly predict future breakthroughs. I can confidently predict that future breakthroughs will occur.

[ QUOTE ]
If it works like most human developments have worked, and like the state of technology currently indicates, then it will probably plateau at some point and then start to taper off.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/5268/chart036kp.jpg
As one technology plateaus off, another will take its place.

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody thought that the modern personal computer was a necessary development in 1950. But some people thought moon colonies were. In fact, the number of technologically optimistic predictions that proved untrue was far greater than the number of pessimistic predictions that proved untrue. The fact is, technology has arguable not progressed as far as some people expected it to 50 years ago, and it certainly hasn't progressed as far in certain areas.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that you can't predict exactly what will happen at exactly what time. However, some things are basically inevitable (like a moon colony, which is currently in the planning phase. (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060327/REPOSITORY/603270342/1013/48HOURS))