On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> silky wrote:
>> I'm not sure if this question is appropriate here, nevertheless, the
>> most direct way to find out is to ask it :)
>> Clearly, creating AI on a computer is a goal, and generally we'll try
>> and implement to the same degree of computational"ness" as a human.
>> But what would happen if we simply tried to re-implement the
>> consciousness of a cat, or some "lesser" consciousness, but still
>> alive, entity.
>> It would be my (naive) assumption, that this is arguably trivial to
>> do. We can design a program that has a desire to 'live', as desire to
>> find mates, and otherwise entertain itself. In this way, with some
>> other properties, we can easily model simply pets.
>> I then wonder, what moral obligations do we owe these programs? Is it
>> correct to turn them off? If so, why can't we do the same to a real
>> life cat? Is it because we think we've not modelled something
>> correctly, or is it because we feel it's acceptable as we've created
>> this program, and hence know all its laws? On that basis, does it mean
>> it's okay to "power off" a real life cat, if we are confident we know
>> all of it's properties? Or is it not the knowning of the properties
>> that is critical, but the fact that we, specifically, have direct
>> control over it? Over its internals? (i.e. we can easily remove the
>> lines of code that give it the desire to 'live'). But wouldn't, then,
>> the removal of that code be equivelant to killing it? If not, why?
> I think the differences are
> 1) we generally cannot kill an animal without causing it some distress

Is that because our "off" function in real life isn't immediate? Or,
as per below, because it cannot get more pleasure?

> 2) as
> long as it is alive it has a capacity for pleasure (that's why we euthanize
> pets when we think they can no longer enjoy any part of life)

This is fair. But what if we were able to model this addition of
pleasure in the program? It's easy to increase happiness++, and thus
the desire to die decreases. Is this very simple variable enough to
make us care? Clearly not, but why not? Is it because the animal is
more conscious then we think? Is the answer that it's simply
impossible to model even a cat's consciousness completely?

If we model an animal that only exists to eat/live/reproduce, have we
created any moral responsibility? I don't think our moral
responsibility would start even if we add a very complicated
pleasure-based system into the model. My personal opinion is that it
would hard to *ever* feel guilty about ending something that you have
created so artificially (i.e. with every action directly predictable
by you, casually). But then, it may be asked; children are the same.
Humour aside, you can pretty much have a general idea of exactly what
they will do, and we created them, so why do we feel so responsible?
(Clearly, a easy answer is that it's chemical).

> 3) if we could
> create an artificial pet (and Sony did) we can turn it off and turn it back
> on.

Lets assume, for the sake of argument, that each instance of the
program is one unique pet, and it will never be re-created or saved.

> 4) if a pet, artificial or otherwise, has capacity for pleasure and
> suffering we do have an ethical responsibility toward it.
> Brent


DOURNESS. KICKOFF! Exceed-submissiveness BRIBERY DEFOG schoolmistress.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to