Transhumanists and other futurists insist that the future will bring us robots who have become “conscious” beings, and that when they do, “sentient” machines should receive what we now call human rights. This is all fanciful, of course. Robots of the kind envisioned would only be computers with very sophisticated software. In that sense, they would be no more entitled to rights–and would be no more capable of being harmed, as distinguished from damaged–than the toaster.
A major component of this discussion is the desire to deconstruct human exceptionalism, and thus, it warrants our notice. Take, for example, this opinion from Peter Singer and a Polish researcher named Agata Sagan published in The Guardian. From the column “When Robots Have Feelings:”
For the moment, a more realistic concern is not that robots will harm us, but that we will harm them. At present, robots are mere items of property. But what if they become sufficiently complex to have feelings? After all, isn’t the human brain just a very complex machine? If machines can and do become conscious, will we take their feelings into account? The history of our relations with the only nonhuman sentient beings we have encountered so far – animals – gives no ground for confidence that we would recognise sentient robots as beings with moral standing and interests that deserve consideration.
The human brain as merely a “complex machine” epitomizes the reductionist thinking so prevalent among the robots-are-people -too crowd. But we are much more than mere complex machines. We are alive, for example. Robots would not be. That should matter, but that relevant fact is ignored because it would serve to support human exceptionalism, which Singer and his cohorts seek to dismantle. Moreover, we do take notice of the intrinsic value of animals and their capacity–unlike robots–to feel pain. That is why we have animal welfare laws–which is consistent with our duties as moral beings, a crucial component of human exceptionalism.
Human behavior arises from a complex interaction of rationality, emotions, abstract thought, experience, education, etc.. That would never be true of robots. More to the point, we are moral beings by nature. Robots wouldn’t have a “nature” and any morality they “exhibited” would be programmed morality. We have free will, robots wouldn’t in the same sense. If a robot could program itself into greater and greater data processing capacities, that doesn’t make it truly sentient, just sophisticated.
But Singer/Sagan thinks the time will come when robots should be given the benefit of the doubt toward personhood:
But if the robot was designed to have human-like capacities that might incidentally give rise to consciousness, we would have a good reason to think that it really was conscious. At that point, the movement for robot rights would begin.
Isn’t it interesting that the anti human exceptionalists always seem to look for ways in which animals, robots–and whatever other category they wish to elevate in moral value to human equivalence–mimic distinctly human capacities and activity–proving, if nothing else, that humans are the lodestar for moral worth.
But an impression or mimicking of human capacities isn’t the real McCoy. There is a hierarchy of moral worth and humans are the exceptional species. Lose that insight and we not only open the door to harming vulnerable human beings, but we destroy the necessary philosophical foundation supporting universal human rights.
December 30th, 2009 | 2:07 pm
Excellent article!
Consciousness is so much more than mere matter.
The Mind and Materialist Superstition
by Dr. Michael Egnor
http://tinyurl.com/ydo3j3b
Pure materialist reductionism will never promote Human Exceptionalism.
Materialism of the Gaps
by Dr. Michael Egnor
http://tinyurl.com/ykx66ho
December 30th, 2009 | 3:01 pm
Incidentally, Wesley, how did you acquire that fine sense of morality of yours — if not by programming (a/k/a “socializing”)? I don’t suppose you’re familiar with the writings of Isaac Asimov or Arthur Clarke, are you?
Your argument in favor of human superiority seems based exclusively on differences in media, not on any significant qualitative differences between, say, a cyborg and a human. So how about a little thought experiment: the top-down, bottom-up question.
Patient A is lying on an operating table.
All of his limbs are being replaced, one at a time, by bionic limbs. Then his heart is replaced by a pump, his liver by a tub of chemicals, his kidneys by a dialysis machine and, in this imagined state of future technology, his eyes are replaced by mini-cams and his ears are by mini microphones, and both his “new eyes” and “new ears” are connected to the brain via a computer interface. All the Patient’s “brain memory” is downloaded from his brain into the computer’s storage. Finally all those parts of the brain formerly used to control the functions of various limbs and organs are surgically removed until eventually nothing remains of the brain.
In an adjoining operating room lies a skin-covered, human-shaped machine not unlike the Terminator character played by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Inside its head is a small (say, nanotechnologically-driven) computer, into which all of Patient A’s memory is downloaded. Additional parts of the computer program allow the machine to walk, talk and basically reproduce every single human characteristic. The machine is able to adjust its own program (shall we say, “learn”) which is something some computers can already do nowadays. The computer is able to make value judgments and draw on its “experience” (i.e., its memory) and training (its program) to take independent action. Patient B is, therefore, under control of the computing unit in its head. Oh, and I forgot: the computer-driven machine has the ability to replicate itself and program the new machines that result.
Now then, at what point is there no longer any practical, measurable distinction between Patients A and B?
December 30th, 2009 | 4:05 pm
HistoryWriter,
You really need to read those links I posted.
Here’s a couple more you need to read as well.
There is a few other thought experiments that you might want to consider…
The Mind-Brain Problem: Qualia and Mary the Color Scientist
by Dr. Michael Egnor
http://tinyurl.com/yc9u6oo
My Challenge to Dr. Novella: The Materialist Color Tutor’s Dilemma.
by Dr. Michael Egnor
http://tinyurl.com/ykf9w3q
December 30th, 2009 | 5:36 pm
So, HW, since when did freaking machines aquire equality with mankind? Please justify this position and use citations to do so.
December 30th, 2009 | 5:58 pm
Having read a LOT of Asimov when younger, I was interested to see what robots would look like as higher functioning robots came to exist, as they pretty much have (imho).
The key is, they don’t look human. At least the useful ones don’t (and I don’t think ASIMO is all that useful). But why?
Because we don’t NEED robots that look and act human. Actual humans are a lot easier (and fun) to make. Did it twice myself.
We need robots that can handle bombs, weld car doors, dive in the Marianas Trench, etc. But generally speaking the only virtue of robots, and computers for that matter, is they do what we want them to. (insert computer literacy joke here) And that pretty much excludes living creatures.
As a colleague of Asimov’s once said, “A living organism in a controlled environment, under controlled conditions, will do as it damn well pleases.”
December 30th, 2009 | 6:55 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys and Wesley J. Smith, Vera . Vera said: Robots Will Never be People and Should Never Have Rights …: That is why we have animal welfare laws–which is .. http://bit.ly/6zou55 [...]
December 30th, 2009 | 7:49 pm
[...] December 31, 2009 in Uncategorized Robots Will Never be People and Should Never Have Rights. » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blo… [...]
December 30th, 2009 | 10:40 pm
HistoryWriter, there are several basic flaws in your thought experiment besides the issue of Qualia and the Chinese Room Daniel alludes to:
1. You’re assuming that you are essentially software.
2. You’re assuming that there won’t be some point (say 50% cybernetics) that the human won’t just die.
3. You’re assuming that the human won’t gradually fade away as more cybernetics are added (sort of like the way people slowly die)
4. You’re assuming that there is no soul that can “possess the robot”. If such possession were possible, robots we made would not be human but robots who were gradually replacing a human might be.
Possibility 1 is nonsense. If all you are is software, then there is no person called “you” because I can make a billion copies of “you” and the would all be “you”. If all you are is software, then if you do something wrong, you should have no problem with the government reprogramming you or debugging you. In fact, you have no rights since software has no rights. Think about that the next time you play a shoot ‘em up video game.
Possibilities 2-4 cannot be ruled out, although personally I think 3 is what would likely happen since we have several precedents for this.
We’ve already seen how technology can dehumanize a person. The 20th century has been the most bloody century in the history of the earth. Sure the middle ages were more violent, but people then saw the faces of the people they killed in battle and had to directly face the consequences of those actions. These days, you can kill millions through a single press of a button while sitting on a coach in a military base across the world, drinking coffee, and chatting about the tabloids. Such technology is truly an extension of us and it has turned us more into machines than people.
So to add a brief counterpoint to Wesley, we may yet have Robot rights….not because its possible for machines to become persons but because it is possible for people to dehumanize themselves into machines and if we have rights why not them. But more likely, we will end up losing all our rights because we have become “just machines” and if they don’t have rights why should we?
December 31st, 2009 | 10:12 am
Do any of you have any idea what a thought experiment is? Do any of you actually believe that your sense of morality was NOT acquired by socializing? Do any of you still believe in body-mind duality?
Wesley: ignoring the question isn’t going to make it go away.
December 31st, 2009 | 10:16 am
Since you all seem to have missed the point let me express it more simply: if a robot was manufactured that had similar (albeit programmed) behavior and appearance in every respect to a human, on what basis would you deny it the protection of the law? Does anybody here have any knowledge at all of AI?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
December 31st, 2009 at 11:04 am
AI is still programming, just programming that was programmed to program itself. A robot isn’t alive. It isn’t moral by nature. It isn’t rational by nature. Value doesn’t come from computing ability. But note, you use humans as the model. That’s because we are exceptional.
December 31st, 2009 | 11:14 am
I wouldn’t mind the granting of rights to robots so much if the people doing it were also granting the same rights to embryonic human beings, the elderly, and people who are brain-damaged. But they aren’t.
December 31st, 2009 | 11:41 am
HW, I know enough about AI to know that the first initial stands for “artificial.” As in man-made. And since our own “intelligence” and “free will” are subject to debate, I honestly do not think it is possible for use to produce a mechanical entity that does anything more than mimic life, and even that only at a fool-some-of-the-people-some-of-the-time level. Think of this at a lower level. You could make a phototropic machine that pulls water out of the soil. Does that make it a plant?
bmm, we do grant rights to those groups commensurate with their ability to participate in society, although Wes will certainly argue that they are all subject to violation. At less extreme ends of the spectrum we make adjustments; for instance, my Down Syndrome sibling has basic human rights and protections, but she cannot vote, get a driver’s license, or enter into a legal contract among other things.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
December 31st, 2009 at 11:54 am
padraig: I like the word phototropic. As to rights, certainly some are commensurate with our abilities, e.g. voting and in some cases, autonomy (when one is a danger to oneself or others, it can be infringed, for example). But some come with the package, e.g. not being treated as an object.
December 31st, 2009 | 11:50 am
People, HistoryWriter’s definition of a person includes anyone (and ONLY ones) who are able to think & perform (read: produce for others) in a specific way. What is that way? Don’t ask him, but he knows it when he sees it, and anything else is…icky.
December 31st, 2009 | 12:09 pm
Humans can’t consider themselves the “lodestar of morality” when they can’t even get it right about vivisection. That’s WHY there are humans running around trying to make cyborgs and robots and transhuman baloney. On occasion I agree with HW a bit, and this is one of them. By the way, if “human exceptionalism” is a function of Judeo-Christian tradition, where’s the HUMILITY? Sheesh!!!
December 31st, 2009 | 12:12 pm
p.s. A lot of people aren’t worthy of being called people, either. But when we grant them equal status (on the basis of the theory of human exceptionalism, no less), we lose humanity.
December 31st, 2009 | 2:11 pm
BMMG39: Well said. When I said a lot of people aren’t worthy of being called people, I meant idiots who are able to be destructive because they have the same rights (what with human exceptionalism and all) as everyone else even though they’re idiots. I didn’t mean the elderly, the disabled, the unborn, etc. who are the victims of the idiots.
December 31st, 2009 | 4:00 pm
padraig: “At less extreme ends of the spectrum we make adjustments; for instance, my Down Syndrome sibling has basic human rights and protections, but she cannot vote, get a driver’s license, or enter into a legal contract among other things.”
True, but she IS protected from being thrown down a well, or killed so that we can find a cure for juvenile diabetes. So, for those others…ditto.
lanthe: “When I said a lot of people aren’t worthy of being called people, I meant idiots who are able to be destructive because they have the same rights (what with human exceptionalism and all) as everyone else even though they’re idiots. I didn’t mean the elderly, the disabled, the unborn, etc. who are the victims of the idiots.”
I figured that was what you meant.
December 31st, 2009 | 5:14 pm
HW-I think we all know what a thought experiment is. It’s just that we think yours is considerably lacking. BTW, what, in your opinion does that have to do with body/mind duality?
December 31st, 2009 | 8:50 pm
Dave, stop! Daaaaaave…
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
December 31st, 2009 at 9:00 pm
I’m sorry. I can’t do that College Goyl….
December 31st, 2009 | 8:54 pm
I do some work with AI, particularly neural networks, which have the ability to ‘learn’ data that is presented to them and adjust to provide better matches. Neural networks are excellent pattern-recognition tools. They are faster and more accurate than a human at tasks like recognizing faces, spotting fraud in credit card receipts, and identifying patients at high risk for diseases.
AI is getting better and better at specific tasks like spotting patterns, keeping an airplane flying straight and level, etc. But when it comes to “general” AI that can mimic a person, we’re stymied by not having the slightest idea how the human mind actually works, as per Daniel’s articles posted above.
Machines can learn, but they cannot reason, and they do not have the power of creativity/imagination that drives human progress. When we don’t even know how the human mind works, how can we act like we’ll be building an artificial substitute any time soon?
January 1st, 2010 | 11:09 am
A person is an intellectual animal. To have an intellect requires an immaterial spirit, since to intellectualize involves having immaterial ideas.
It is not possible build anything immaterial; anything we make will be composed either of matter or energy. So unless God miraculously en-souled a robot that reached a certain level of sophistication, no amount of simulated intelligence will equal the real thing.
January 1st, 2010 | 11:41 am
Those who speak of “conscious” machines can do so because they don’t believe in spirits. They say “consciousness,” if it even truly exists, arises from a mere mixture of physical elements. We are not dust and breath, but mere dust. From there, it is still a huge leap to believe that a robot can become conscious, but far from impossible. Because from their perspective, humans are nothing more than advanced organic machines.
January 1st, 2010 | 1:32 pm
SafePres: I thought you’d have seen this question coming from the content of Wesley’s article. You can’t have a mind without a brain. If you think you can, then I’d like to ask you exactly where your mind is located (no pun intended), how much it weighs and where it goes when you’re under general anesthesia. Mind, or the sense of self-awareness if you will, does not exist independently of the body, unless you can conceive of self-awareness without a “self.” Now I’m sure someone will start blathering about “the soul”, “the spirit”, natural law and all that stuff, salted generously with biblical citations. But the fact remains: no brain, no mind. Unless, that is, you have a better explanation of “mind” than that of the majority of neurologists and biologists that “mind is what the drain does.”
January 1st, 2010 | 1:36 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by CO2HOG: Robots Will Never be People and Should Never Have Rights. http://rly.cc/qxlIx...
January 1st, 2010 | 2:09 pm
I’m repeating this message because I accidentally sent the previous one while editing it.
SparcVark: Since you deal with AI you know that information technology has been following an exponential development curve. Computer processing has undergone phenomenal increases in speed and capacity along with phenomenal reductions in size and cost. IBM has been using nanotechnology to develop storage and processing units that function at the molecular level. Ultimately this kind of equipment will be used, first to replace defective human parts and, ultimately, to duplicate the function of the human brain — except that it will do it faster and more efficiently.
Consider, too, that science still doesn’t have a complete explanation of how life arose from chemicals, yet enough is known about DNA to be able to create new life forms if we’re so inclined. Admittedly it’s scary to think that we might be toying around with things that could blow up in our faces — genetically altered viruses against which there is no immunity, or cloning. I can understand why a bioethicist might feel a degree of comfort in falling back on arguments like human exceptionalism and so-called natural law against some technological developments. It’s downright unsettling that technology is developing more rapidly than our ability to even identify, let alone prevent its potential for generating social mayhem.
Still, it’s no time to fall back on mysticism and superstition as a means of alleviating our worries.
January 1st, 2010 | 8:31 pm
HistoryWriter: The organ we call the brain processes sensory data, synthesizes it together, and gives us knowledge and memory of particulars. It can make impressive chain associations, and help us communicate ideas. What it cannot do is have immaterial ideas; immaterial things are indivisible, whereas everything that happens in brain, being material, is divisible. Indivisible things are indestructible, but the brain is easily destroyed. Since we do have immaterial ideas (e.g., the idea of “being”), the existence of an immaterial intellect in us is a logical necessity.
Now, you can’t build something immaterial, and so you cannot give a robot an intellect. It simply isn’t possible for humans to make things aren’t “made” of something.
January 1st, 2010 | 10:46 pm
HistoryWriter,
You REALLY need to actually read the articles that I posted.
The Mind and Materialist Superstition
by Dr. Michael Egnor
http://tinyurl.com/ydo3j3b
January 2nd, 2010 | 2:06 pm
HW:
Computers have indeed been getting faster, and with about $15,000 you can buy more computing power than existed 40 or so years ago. However, today’s computers are just faster, more efficient versions of the same old machines.
Back in 1937 Alan Turing defined the concept of what we now call a “Turing Machine”, a generic device for computing data. All computers today are effectively Turing Machines, and are subject to their limitations. It’s possible to construct a set of data that a Turing Machine can’t process correctly, and there are a bunch of mathematical and logical problems that are not computable by Turing Machines.
Since we know very little about how the human mind works (as distinct from the basic biology of the brain), we have no idea whether the human mind is computable. I personally am certain it is not, since it has created both the Turing Machine and problems that it cannot solve.
In short, simulating the human mind is a “software problem” rather than a “hardware problem”. Barring some fundamental change in how computers work, we’ll just get faster and more efficient versions of the same machines, much like today’s cars are faster, safer, more efficient versions of the Model T of yesteryear.
Maybe someday we’ll build an artificial mind, but to predict it now, let alone as right around the corner, is just arm-waving.
January 2nd, 2010 | 5:20 pm
HistoryWriter,
I definitely deny we learn morality solely by socialization and genetics. Science itself denies it. Look up twin studies. Same genetics, same environment, but one twin can be a saint and the other a murderous rapist. Actual experiments trump thought experiments every day of the year.
I think your world view is too small and your understanding of the implications of your world view are too limited. If all we are is machines, then I state again, we have *no* rights and brainwashing and executes of any “program” that does not conform to societal norms is legitimate. Killing a person is no more illegitimate than killing a video game character.
January 3rd, 2010 | 7:18 am
Ronald Devins: Can you cite a couple of these studies for me? I’d be interested to see them. Thanks.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact