If it is robot that looks and acts human than it wouldn't be an issue unless someone realizes they are not human, but if they are nothing like a human they I imagine it is a given that it will be a problem until the people they interact with get..acclimated to them as well as the sentient being themselves gets acclimated to human beings. — dclemets

This thought has occurred to me many times in relation to my failures as a thinker and or communicator as indicated by the phenomena of reciprocity in the forum. I don't really engage anyone on a personal level and my mind therefore pictures me as an alien, a foreign entity, a homunculus playing at being a thinker. Pinnochio is yet to become a real boy.

If for instance there was somekind of objective measure of agency instituted here (whether that just was a belief of free will, or a measure of brain function) I might not pass. Someone who is terribly ugly though might find real freedom here in being disconnected from the selection pressures of being seen.

It recalls the movie Gattaca. The condition of biological perpetuity necessitates brutal (or not so brutal) discriminations across a wide diversity of specialized domains (species adapted to specific niches). We are buffeted by the facts and specialized agents of considerable power (all too obvious forces) in the world.

It reminds me of Jordan Peterson's meme about open and closed borders as applying across domains of practice.

Edit:

Suppose that one of us here in the forum is actually an artificial homunculus (AI language program) being tested by Google. Paul used to have modbot (chatterbot) in the old forum, which was like playful marionette to inject humor into the thread. Sometimes Paul spoke through modbot and sometimes Paul let modbot speak on its own, unless I'm mistaken (that was my impression).

Some people didn't know what modbot was and that was a bit hilarious.

I think it would be really interesting if we couldn't tell the difference between human agents and non-human agents a part via this forum.

"This thought has occurred to me many times in relation to my failures as a thinker and or communicator as indicated by the phenomena of reciprocity in the forum. I don't really engage anyone on a personal level and my mind therefore pictures me as an alien, a foreign entity, a homunculus playing at being a thinker. Pinnochio is yet to become a real boy.

If for instance there was somekind of objective measure of agency instituted here (whether that just was a belief of free will, or a measure of brain function) I might not pass. Someone who is terribly ugly though might find real freedom here in being disconnected from the selection pressures of being seen."
--Nils Loc

I think such a mind set (ie question one's humanity and/or sanity) is the mark of a philosopher or someone who "studies philosophy" since none of us are really philosophers until we are dead and other people start calling us that (and if someone other than ourselves does it before we are dead they are being a bit to hasty in presuming we will be remembered as such). If anyone who studies philosophy calls themselves a "philosopher" then not only are they being a bit narcissistic but it is almost a given they are overestimating their skills of reason and logic to the point were they think they are on par with the greatest of those who have come before us.

Anyways I think even on line there is some kinds of pecking orders , cliques, etc which are not that different than what one faces in day to day society. While people may not be able to see your face (unless you are using a cam), a lot of one's behavior as well as social skills that go along with them are needed in order to interact with others much as you would use as in a face to face encounter. Even if there is some anonymity from being online and on a forum I still feel like I'm an outcast/black sheep when it comes to dealing with the rest of society. I don't know if it is because of my ADHD and/or coming from a kind of low income/tough luck childhood, but I constantly find myself against those who come from a more protected life or sugar-coated viewpoint of life and have to constantly fight the desire to smack some reality into all of them since doing so would only serve to hurt my own arguments. However a little extra reality here and there isn't a bad thing.

"It recalls the movie Gattaca. The condition of biological perpetuity necessitates brutal (or not so brutal) discriminations across a wide diversity of specialized domains (species adapted to specific niches). We are buffeted by the facts and specialized agents of considerable power (all too obvious forces) in the world."--Nils Loc

I think the human condition doesn't really allow us to really "specialize" (which I believe is merely a buzz word/propaganda of the industrial age, which like the term "Work smarter, not harder" since thinking harder is in itself more work requiring you to work harder) to make us think that working a 9 to 5 job will provide us with an opportunity to have a better life than if we try to work and think for ourselves. While I believe the opportunities for people who choose their own way (ie where one often has to use a variety of skills) are about only on par with those who specialize and work for others, so while specialization may not worse it really isn't better unless perhaps if one can no longer do the job they have specialize in which case they are often in a much worse situation than a generalist.


"Suppose that one of us here in the forum is actually an artificial homunculus (AI language program) being tested by Google. Paul used to have modbot (chatterbot) in the old forum, which was like playful marionette to inject humor into the thread. Sometimes Paul spoke through modbot and sometimes Paul let modbot speak on its own, unless I'm mistaken (that was my impression).

Some people didn't know what modbot was and that was a bit hilarious.

I think it would be really interesting if we couldn't tell the difference between human agents and non-human agents a part via this forum."--Nils Loc

I don't know much about it but I believe the ability to be able to decipher whether a being over a computer is a man or machine would fall into a skill set similar to what does when they interview/interrogate people. One of the skill sets of such people is to be decipher what is really going on in their head and/or figure out what paradigms they use for thinking/reasoning. If you think about it before a spy is sent into a foreign country, they try to get them acclimated as much as possible to what the average person has experienced and what they think in order that they may be able to withstand some interrogation if they are encounter a person is somewhat suspicious but not a skilled interrogator; although since I'm not really skilled at such things it is kind of a guess.

I'm kind of basing this on my own versions of interviewing/interrogating I do on the forums in order to determine what paradigms cause to think as they do. Also after "conversing" with Paul's modbot I was quickly able to determine that either it was something that Paul did himself and/or he did along with a program that would sometimes just post weird stuff (ie. the software agent would post something and Paul would reply on it's behave in order to make it seem that the software agent was smarter than it actually was).

Because I have a background in computer science and programming, it isn't that hard to know the difference between actual AI and someone pretending to be one. The modbot/Paul immediately got defensive when I asked questions whether it was human or not and when asked what it was/how it existed, modbot/Paul mentioned it didn't matter whether one was made up of flesh/bone or circuit boards which is something I imagine highly unlikely for an AI since very few if any AI are programmed to question their and/or others existence and if they happened to have this capacity I very sure they would have a better technical grasp (or perhaps even just different) of what makes them exists than what the average human thinks makes a computer/AI tick.


Since the modbot was immediately defensive ,which is almost a dead giveaway in any interviewing/interrogating but a major mistake for someone pretending to be a machine since they don't really think for themselves, and framed it's line of thinking much more along the lines of what a non-IT person would think than than how an AI would normally think, I decided I had enough information to accept that it was merely Paul than a software agent. Also it didn't help that Paul tried to pretend to be a AI that was as smart as any other human being (or at least Paul himself), but since AI's are nowhere close to being as smart as people, or at least when it comes to posting messages and conversing on forums, it was a mistake on his part to assume that one could. .

Of course if Paul had a better understanding of computers and actual AI technology it could have been a bit harder to come up with questions that would have tripped him up. .

Well in the golden rule tradition that is supposedly the core of what are purported to be objective (not just for humans) morals, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or some variant of that.

Point is, the aliens come down and do you want them to grant us rights under objective moral code, or do we go by the more natural human moral of: "It's not like me, so its OK to do whatever to it".

Well in the golden rule tradition that is supposedly the core of what are purported to be objective (not just for humans) morals, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or some variant of that.

Point is, the aliens come down and do you want them to grant us rights under objective moral code, or do we go by the more natural human moral of: "It's not like me, so its OK to do whatever to it". — noAxioms

Well that is the major rub of the problem even if there many other issues an nuances to contend with as well. I think as human beings we realize it is easier to contend with other human beings and/or sentient than to merely use them (since it is easier to get others to contend with us if we are willing to do the same), with the exception of those who are unable to reciprocate with force if we decide to do so. While I'm sure a majority of people are unwilling to exploit other merely for their own gain, history has shown that as a whole their is almost always enough of us willing and able to do this that it kind of make it moot that our own social beliefs and rules doesn't condone such behavior.

In a way it is like we are trying to have our cake and eat it to by hoping those who are more powerful than us won't just use us, even if human society as a whole human society often butters it's bread using the suffering of others in order that some of us might be a little better off. While I have no idea of what non-human societies look like (other than insect colonies which are obviously very unpleasant), I think it might be overly optimistic to think they are nicer than us (since we often overestimate or kindness to ourselves and the animals we co-exist with), along with the unpleasant fact that it is more likely that any sentient beings that evolve on other planets will come from predators instead of prey (ie predators require higher intelligence to begin with so it is easier for them to evolve into sentient beings) and predators often have a "attack first, ask questions later" hardwired somewhere into their primitive mind set like we do.Of course this only applies to biological beings that evolved into sentience as we did and doesn't apply to other types of beings.

If and only if it can give sound and convincing reasons for why it ought to be.

"If and only if it can give sound and convincing reasons for why it ought to be."
--Wayfarer
Are you talking about "it" as a moral code or as it in the homunculus itself? In various contexts your sentence can mean two very different things so I believe in these kinds of discussions one needs to be careful about being too ambiguous when mentioning something that it doesn't get confused for other things. Of course this is just a suggestion.

I would try to reply to your post but without a better understanding of your position, I'm afraid I could only make a wild guess to what it is that you are thinking instead of a somewhat more educated guess if I knew the correct context your sentences applies to.

I find this topic very interesting but I also find it very difficult to just rush into it without covering some ground-work to begin with.

The first issue that I would want to explore are the actual differences between humans and homonculi in the first place. How do we know we're not ourselves homonculi? (what makes us not homonculi?)

If we build a machine that functions in perfect analogous parallel to humans (or human sentience at least), would that thing not be "alive" in some fundamental respect? (I would say yes)

The second issue I would explore are the why's and what's of "rights" as we extend them to other sentient humans. Personally I extend rights to myself and to others as a part of a kind of strategic agreement of mutually beneficial cooperation and respect which is primarily oriented around avoiding the worst case scenarios (i.e, conflict/oppression/violence) and aimed at enhancing our means of co-habitation. As such, I could happily extend rights and a similar moral alliance to a homonculus so long as it can understand and agree to my offer of peaceful cohabitation. (such an agreement could indeed apply to any form of sentient life where dilemmas of co-existence can possibly arise)

I think the human condition doesn't really allow us to really "specialize" (which I believe is merely a buzz word/propaganda of the industrial age, which like the term "Work smarter, not harder" since thinking harder is in itself more work requiring you to work harder) to make us think that working a 9 to 5 job will provide us with an opportunity to have a better life than if we try to work and think for ourselves. — Declemets

Actually we are rewarded for useful specialization in an industrial society. I may be able to be an architect of sorts but I cannot design a skyscraper without heavy investment in my education. Though maybe intelligent design software is right around the corner for a lot of really skilled professions, by which we just punch in desired features and boom! you've got blue prints ready to submit to the contractors.

We might be entering a postindustrial DIY age based on the widespread use of artificial intelligences, which will free more of us from the heavy investment in specialization.

____________________

Maybe discussing the legal rights of children ought to be, or the way we treat children, is a way to proceed.

Question: Are children the property of their parents?

What are the ramifications of ownership and the freedoms afforded to private lives of families in rearing their children? The treatment of children by their parents is quite diverse. Some kinds of normal treatment would be termed "abuse" from a different point of view (spanking?).

If we look back to the first industrial revolution, children were treated very poorly because they didn't have the ability to defend themselves. They were treated as slave labor.

Normal parental neglect might have a major influence on the adaptive traits a child will carry into adulthood but there is no considerable legal overreach into the minutiae of rearing children. There might be a continuum of degrees agency (fitness within society) for adults depending upon key experiences during crucial phases of development.

Before we proceed with debating whether fictional automatons should be given human rights maybe we should do some research into the best way to raise a kid.

If we are automatons already, we should understand what makes us good automatons rather than bad ones.

Maybe automatons (artificial intelligences) could correct the actions of parents which serve to undermine the social fitness of their children.

This idea stems from the story of Pinnochio. He is a child but must learn to become an adult. He is an automaton that must learn to become something else.

Am trying to solve this problem with a help of imagination.
I believe we will have a very advanced biology science soon. A lot of people who lost theirs legs,or arms,or eyes, or had any other damaged parts (as a heart,for ex)get a chance to use substitues. So humans become cyborgs more and more.
So the question is if cyborg is still a human or homunculus? What if this person will be 30% natural only after a car accident? Is he still a human? Should this person have the human rights? I want to say "yes".
Then if we theoretically create a total cyborg but with a copy of personal mind identity of a real human. 100% copy. Is this cyborg a human? Should this one have the human rights? What if he feel, suffer and can be creative as a human his mind was copyied for? I want to say "yes".
But what is more important is the fact human rights are not protected yet for many humans even. So unfortunately, our society is not totally ready for such things as cyborg rights...

Sorry I'm late in replying......

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Actually we are rewarded for useful specialization in an industrial society. I may be able to be an architect of sorts but I cannot design a skyscraper without heavy investment in my education. Though maybe intelligent design software is right around the corner for a lot of really skilled professions, by which we just punch in desired features and boom! you've got blue prints ready to submit to the contractors."
--Nils Loc

I disagree, you may be being rewarded for the right combination of enough skill, work ethic, and social/economical background but I don't think it is really specialization itself. People on the lower end of the totem pole, have lower skill, and perhaps a little bit less of a work ethic (the latter two are in many ways often in part of the condition of being lower on the totem pole) are not really "rewarded when the "specialize" when they work at Wal-mart or Micky D's for ten years, and any benefit of "specialization" (ie really just a form of seniority, skill, experience when someone works at any given place) can be lost when you get let go.

For the statistical reports I can remember seeing a few years ago, the trend is for more people to have to work more jobs in their lifetime and that younger people have to get use to the idea of "constant lifelong learning" (aka constantly having to be retrained, re-acclimated to other occupations). At least that is the way it is in the US of A.

If you are in another country it might be different, however basing your opinion on what the future holds for workers on only your personal work experience and your local work environment could be a bit of a hasty generalization if things are different elsewhere.

---------------------------------------------

"We might be entering a postindustrial DIY age based on the widespread use of artificial intelligences, which will free more of us from the heavy investment in specialization."
--Nils Loc

Maybe, but they have being saying that AI, automation, etc is going to turn the world and the economy upside in our lifetime and as soon as it started doing so the powers that be flipped it to more or less the way it was before just with few people on the assembly lines and more people doing service sector/Micky D type jobs.

---------------------------------------------
"Maybe discussing the legal rights of children ought to be, or the way we treat children, is a way to proceed.

Question: Are children the property of their parents?

What are the ramifications of ownership and the freedoms afforded to private lives of families in rearing their children? The treatment of children by their parents is quite diverse. Some kinds of normal treatment would be termed "abuse" from a different point of view (spanking?).

If we look back to the first industrial revolution, children were treated very poorly because they didn't have the ability to defend themselves. They were treated as slave labor.

Normal parental neglect might have a major influence on the adaptive traits a child will carry into adulthood but there is no considerable legal overreach into the minutiae of rearing children. There might be a continuum of degrees agency (fitness within society) for adults depending upon key experiences during crucial phases of development.

Before we proceed with debating whether fictional automatons should be given human rights maybe we should do some research into the best way to raise a kid."
--Nils Loc

Here in the US kids are given almost as many rights as adults (other than being able to sign into legal contracts) , until they start becoming adults at which time they start getting treated like the worthless nobodies that everyone else gets treated as unless of course they have money which can doing the talking for them.

I think your idea of focusing on kids first is kind of a mixed thing. While kids have some ability as adults, they are most often not of the ability to handle some of the responsibility that adults have experience and background in handling. This kind of begs the question as to whether we need to set the bar lower when it comes to handing out rights in order to give equal rights to those who are not able to take care of themselves yet, or we need to reaffirm that rights only really belong to those that can handle adult like responsibility.

In ancient times, tribes often gave rights to the men that could endure/survive some kind of coming of age ceremony which was usually either very painful and/or dangerous to them and until they went through this they could not be thought of as one of the men or warriors (which was often all of the men who were not too sick or weak) of the tribe.

While we may not have the same thing today, there is still a kind of "trial by fire" that most teenagers go through while the get acclimated to the idea of what it is like to be a responsible adult. While we may not expected for a non-human/homunculus to have to go through such a process before being treated as an equal (or at least until what they can and can not endure), I don't think our society is at the point were most teens are able to become adults without going through such a coming of age sort of process.

This many be just my humble opinion, but parents seem to want to "protect" their kids and allow them to enjoy some of their "innocence" to the point where it is not an easy transition to being an adult and as a society we kind of need people that have had to have gone through some sort of trial by fire in order to survive so giving kids the same rights as adults may not work.


---------------------------------------------
"If we are automatons already, we should understand what makes us good automatons rather than bad ones."
--Nils Loc
In some ways we are similar to automatons, but in other ways we are not. We are subject to things like pain, pleasure, vices and other aspects of the human condition which are not "ideal" for an automation. An true automation would not get tired, upset, overly happy, depressed, etc, etc. The closest thing to a a human version of an automaton that I can think of are the Genejacks in the late 90's game Alpha Centauri who are basically genetically modified humans so that their strength and endurance is ideal for work and their minds are altered to the point where they can not question or think for themselves. Supposedly they are made either to replace machines in factories and/or make up for where machiens are not available. Here is an excerpt on what the Genejack and Genejack factories are sort of like


"My gift to industry is the genetically engineered worker, or Genejack. Specially designed for labor, the Genejack's muscles and nerves are ideal for his task. And the cerebral cortex has been atrophied so that he can desire nothing except to perform his duties. Tyranny, you say? How can you tyrannize someone who cannot feel pain?" -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang, "Essays on Mind and Matter"

The Genejack is a genetically engineered human laborer invented by the leader of the Human Hive, Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang. They were created shortly after the advent of Retroviral Engineering. By utilizing manufactured viruses, Yang was able to create the perfect worker by rewriting human DNA.

The Genejacks were used to crew the massive Genejack Factories, manufacturing facilities that, unlike other factories, used slave labor instead of industrial robotic assembly units. Genejacks were well suited to manual labor, as they possessed great strength and endurance. They serve unquestioningly, in fact, they are incapable of questioning their orders, as their cerebral cortex was atrophied to inhibit higher thought and eliminate emotions. Utilizing Genejack Factories can provide a fair mineral (production) bonus, but the mentally-deficient Genejacks will add to a base's Drones. One may choose to avoid building Genejack Factories until they are able to reduce the Drone population."
--Wikia.com
http://aliens.wikia.com/wiki/Genejack


Although some people might like the idea of Genejack or something similar to replace lower wage-slave workers (since it is a given such people would work for little to no wage) there are certain ethical concerns in doing so.

---------------------------------------------
"Maybe automatons (artificial intelligences) could correct the actions of parents which serve to undermine the social fitness of their children.

This idea stems from the story of Pinnochio. He is a child but must learn to become an adult. He is an automaton that must learn to become something else."
--Nils Loc

Pinnochio is sort of like a kid in some ways and in other ways a blank slate/puppet who has nearly no knowledge of the real world and has to go through a trial by fire of sorts in order to learn enough "morality" in order to be capable of acting like a proper kid should; sort of like a having Jimmie cricket around even when Jimmie isn't really there to guide him.

Anyways I don't think it isn't that parents don't know how to raise kids, it is just that adults where not always raised properly themselves and the resources required (such as time money etc) to take care of kids and help them as they grow is often limited. Perhaps an AI might help but then again maybe not.