Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
How would a droid pursue personhood?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DonT" data-source="post: 7154705" data-attributes="member: 6804178"><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 26px"><span style="color: #0000FF"><span style="color: #0000FF">I don't deny that intelligence and perhaps self-conciousness come in degrees, though I am not convinced that all living beings have intelligence. I doubt, for example, that trees have the slightest bit of intelligence, and I would be very surprised if starfish do. I don't doubt, however, that mammals and birds have sufficient intelligence and consciousness to give them some degree of rights, the right not to be tortured for example, though in most cases not the full rights of persons. There could be exceptions. Perhaps dolphins are persons, for example. </span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 26px"><span style="color: #0000FF"><span style="color: #0000FF"> I think that Star Wars considers androids to be persons, though most of the characters in it don't, because it considers them to be self-conscious intelligent beings. For the sake of argument, I have been assuming that Star Wars is right about that, but I am actually sceptical about whether self-conscious androids are possible. I don't think that passing the Turing Test shows anything more than a good simulation of intelligence. The calculator that is great at calculating square roots has no idea what a square root is, or anything else. </span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 26px"><span style="color: #0000FF"><span style="color: #0000FF"> I agree that human rights are inherent in our natures, but what is it about our nature that gives these rights? I think that it is that we are persons, self-conscious to the degree required for personhood. I don't know where that line is, though I am certain that we are on the other side of it from most animals, but I don't deny that there could be other animals which turned out to be persons. If we were able to establish communication with another species about complex principles of mathematics or ethics, I would take that to be a pretty fair sign of its personhood. In fact, if a being even has the concept of personhood, I would take that to be a pretty clear sign of its personhood. Chewbacca is not human. Admiral Akbar is not human. But they are both persons. What is it about C-3PO that makes him different (assuming that he is truly concious and not just a simulation)? The fact that he is artificial? I would say that as soon as you create something with the concept of personhood, if it is truly possible to do so, then you have no moral right to own it, even if you a have a legal one, and even if it has been programmed to think of itself as property. Humans who are born into slavery often think of themselves as property. </span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 26px"><span style="color: #0000FF"><span style="color: #0000FF"> I agree that humans who are mentally deficient in some way still have the full range of human rights, but I would say that that is true of mentally deficient members of any species whose typical adult members are persons. They still have the rights of someone of their nature even if not all aspects of their nature are fully expressed. </span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><span style="font-size: 26px"><span style="color: #0000FF"><span style="color: #0000FF"> So far as the dangers of out-of-control AIs, just as we lock up, restrict access, etc., of humans, who are a danger to society, presumably we would do that with any person. Is it possible that we could be wrong with disastrous results? Of course, but that would be an argument for being as careful as possible, not for slavery. </span></span></span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DonT, post: 7154705, member: 6804178"] [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=10][COLOR="#0000FF"][COLOR="#0000FF"]I don't deny that intelligence and perhaps self-conciousness come in degrees, though I am not convinced that all living beings have intelligence. I doubt, for example, that trees have the slightest bit of intelligence, and I would be very surprised if starfish do. I don't doubt, however, that mammals and birds have sufficient intelligence and consciousness to give them some degree of rights, the right not to be tortured for example, though in most cases not the full rights of persons. There could be exceptions. Perhaps dolphins are persons, for example. I think that Star Wars considers androids to be persons, though most of the characters in it don't, because it considers them to be self-conscious intelligent beings. For the sake of argument, I have been assuming that Star Wars is right about that, but I am actually sceptical about whether self-conscious androids are possible. I don't think that passing the Turing Test shows anything more than a good simulation of intelligence. The calculator that is great at calculating square roots has no idea what a square root is, or anything else. I agree that human rights are inherent in our natures, but what is it about our nature that gives these rights? I think that it is that we are persons, self-conscious to the degree required for personhood. I don't know where that line is, though I am certain that we are on the other side of it from most animals, but I don't deny that there could be other animals which turned out to be persons. If we were able to establish communication with another species about complex principles of mathematics or ethics, I would take that to be a pretty fair sign of its personhood. In fact, if a being even has the concept of personhood, I would take that to be a pretty clear sign of its personhood. Chewbacca is not human. Admiral Akbar is not human. But they are both persons. What is it about C-3PO that makes him different (assuming that he is truly concious and not just a simulation)? The fact that he is artificial? I would say that as soon as you create something with the concept of personhood, if it is truly possible to do so, then you have no moral right to own it, even if you a have a legal one, and even if it has been programmed to think of itself as property. Humans who are born into slavery often think of themselves as property. I agree that humans who are mentally deficient in some way still have the full range of human rights, but I would say that that is true of mentally deficient members of any species whose typical adult members are persons. They still have the rights of someone of their nature even if not all aspects of their nature are fully expressed. So far as the dangers of out-of-control AIs, just as we lock up, restrict access, etc., of humans, who are a danger to society, presumably we would do that with any person. Is it possible that we could be wrong with disastrous results? Of course, but that would be an argument for being as careful as possible, not for slavery. [/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
How would a droid pursue personhood?
Top