[quote="mitchellmckain » March 1st, 2017, 1:51 pm
No, I see this interest in the character of others as being part of the delusion that one can stand in judgment of others. I already said that we would be right to challenge whether actually doing what was suggested in the first planet would not be humane. But I was careful to mention that the androids on the second planet were NOT programmed but had to learn just like children do. Furthermore, it is clear from the context of the whole question, that the whole point of the androids is just ONE THING and that is to make a distinction between our humanity and the particular chemical machinery by which we live -- our biology. If you were not so busy looking for insults, you would have tried to understand my explanation about this.
I am reading a book on logic and it humbles me. I find it very hard to get the explanations of logic to stick in my head. This makes me very aware of the problem of thinking our thoughts are logical when they are not. An active brain does not equal good thinking. My point of saying this is that I question how well I think things through. My thoughts, may be nothing more the erroneous ideas?
However, for us to have good relationships instead of being anonymous and saying anything we want to each other, not caring how our words might make another feel, we either need to agree on the rules, or we need to know each other well enough to actually feel like a valued relationship exist. It is inherent in relationships that we do judge the character of each other. That judgment is essential to protecting ourselves and family. We do not want to do business with a crook. We do not want to hurt someone we care about and how much we care about another depends on our judgment of that person's character, as surely as H2O becomes water. Not understanding this has resulted in manifesting a culture that is impersonal and dehumanizing and unsafe in many ways. At least that is my reasoning.
I feel threatened by the rise of thinking androids can be superior to humans, because in my mind that is an expression of how much we have dehumanized ourselves. Your androids can not be as humans because being a human is not restricted to having a brain. Being human is about having a body that feels pleasure and pain, safe of threatened. I repeat, having a body that feels these things. We are far being brains in vats, and I really don't think it would be pleasant to have my brain transferred to an android even if that meant I could live ever. The pleasure in life is feeling it. On-line sex does not appeal to me.
Bottom line, you either judge me or dehumanize me. I will take my chances at being judged. That might be better than being put in a gas chamber by someone has dehumanized me so completely he can do that to others.
Others such as myself see our biological machinery as just that -- machines which is even subject to engineering. The important question as we see it is, what do the machines do? And it is in those terms which I would define "life" itself -- not merely as a collection of specific examples but as a general process that can occur in many different mediums.
Yes, it is clear you equate our biological being with just being a machine and that is frightening. Other than engage with you in intellectual argumentation, or as an extension of a gas pump or cash register, I would not want to engage with you at all unless your position on human values changes. I have also questioned the sanity of engaging you here because you have said things that resulted in me feeling very bad, and you took absolutely no responsibility for that. How far is this from putting someone in a gas chamber? It is a failure to relate to another that is dangerous. I think in these terms because I know the US replaced liberal education with Germany's model of education for technology and this education is dehumanizing. It was not Christianity that made the US different from Germany, but a difference in our education. I am not seeing your reasoning as the better reasoning because I am aware of a frightening history and the US adaptation of the German models of bureaucracy and education.
I think we should avoid discussion of family that is too personal, because that opens the door to offenses. I have noted you are a parent.
Indeed. I have always said that having children is one of the most arrogant things we ever do. The only thing which exceeds this in arrogance is backseat parenting. Each child is so unique that they practically have to teach the parent how to be their parent -- how to be what they need. If the parent learns some humility from the experience then they are indeed changed for the better, but this does not always happen. Regardless, while we somewhat agree on this aspect of parenting, we definitely DO NOT agree on your explanation for it.
Do you think an android who builds a replacement, will learn humility as a human parent does? Will the baby android always be different from the parent and will the parent android always have to figure out how to change in relationship with the child android? What about the cues of size and difference in strength and capability? Will the baby android clue the parent android as a human being does, being completely dependent in the beginning and then growing larger and stronger and more capable? How will android go through this biological process that trains us to be parents?
No this is NOT biology. It is the nature of life -- the living process by which we participate in our own creation by making our own choices. The difference between a child and a tool is not the machinery by which they function but what this machinery actually does.
It is not? Are you sure about that?
The difference in a child is in the fact that they grow and learn for themselves, deciding what to make of themselves and that is why they are an end in themselves.
I think that is significance difference.
We may not be there yet, but we are rapidly approaching the point where the divide between biology and electronics is becoming smaller, both as our electronics becomes more compact, complex and sophisticated and as our understanding of how biology works increases.
Have you ever fantasized about having the perfect android mate? This male or female has the perfect body and could not be more attractive. Even better, it is programmed to meet your every need and has the ability to learn over time, but will never become as your inferior as a human husband or wife. What kind of improvement would androids be if the androids became as annoying as their human models? Like if we want androids to be just like humans, keep having babies- it is easy and exactly why do we want androids? Back to sex and the perfect relationship, let your imagine wonder. For how long do you want to share life with your android slave, completely under your control and always predictable pleasing? If not, then is the purpose of having androids?
BUT let me once again remind you what I have said ALL ALONG in this discussion, that despite my very good reasons for my position on this, this is a subjective position on the entirely subjective question of where our humanity is to be found. I do not expect your agreement but neither should you expect me to agree with you on this. It is to be expected given our history that many people still have a conception of humanity which is rather narrow and there is no objective evidence to prove them wrong. It is a choice we make about who we are and how we want to live. And before you start imagining insults again, this is not to say that your conception of humanity is more narrow than mine. On the contrary, with your love of star trek, you may indeed have concocted a definition of humanity that is actually wider than mine (which is still based on inheritance, just not a biological one). I probably would argue that wider is not the same as better.
Democracy is about arguing until there is a consensus on the best reasoning. If you want to bring an android into this argument for the android's point of view, great! Let your imagination do this if you like.
I disagree with "given our history that many people still have a conception of humanity which is rather narrow and there is no objective evidence to prove them wrong." Rather I would say this problem results from not understanding logic and democracy.
My understanding of being human is based on looking at them from every possible angle, to name a few of these angles- zoology and anthropology, psychology and sociology, a study of religion and study of history, and an understanding of logic, as well as my personal experience of life- something that not even a god can have, because it requires living in mortal body to know life by experiencing it.
And about logic, I am sorry you feel defensive, but I will repeat, unless you assume things about me and write about me, there is no chance of me being offended.