If we had incredibly advanced robots that were just like humans...

[stan1980]

and they had artificial intelligence, and showed emotions like humans, but were in fact made up of circuits and wires (like the terminator), is there any reason why we shouldn't treat them the same as normal human beings?

 

[Gottservant]

The bible teaches that "the life is in the blood".

robots = No blood = no life = no equality.

(I'm speaking briefly because I don't want to slow any discussion down).

 

[Deadbolt]

I think thats a very interesting quandary and one that should probably be decided before it becomes an actuality.
I would say yes, they would be sentient beings and should be treated as such. I would not advocate their creation though, I don't think humanity is ready for that. i think robots should be kept at a level just below sentience so that they can still be viewed as property. If you go above that there will be social consequences...such as, what is the punishment for killing a sentient robot?

 

[quatona]

and they had artificial intelligence, and showed emotions like humans, but were in fact made up of circuits and wires (like the terminator), is there any reason why we shouldn't treat them the same as normal human beings?

I can´t seem to see any.
Au contraire, if anything, I would like to see us treating them even better. They would be our creatures, after all.

 

[peter22]

Imagine a doll made of chocolate. Is it a doll or is it a chocolate doll? You'd say it's a chocolate doll. It's not *really* a doll, it's a facsimile of a doll. Perhaps the chocolate doll is a perfect reproduction of a doll and you couldn't tell it apart from a real doll. It would still be "not a doll" however, since dolls are not made of chocolate. (it lacks vital qualities of dollness)

Using this analogy, you could say a person made of wires and silicon and such isn't a person, it's an artificial person. It may be a very realistic facsimile of a person but it lacks the vital qualities of actually being a person. (for example, a "soul", to be essentially organic in make up, to have been born from a human female, etc) So would you treat a chocolate doll like a real doll? No, you would eat it, not take it to bed (for example). Same with an artificial human; depending on its design function, it should be treated like that, not like a human.

 

[R3quiem]

The bible teaches that "the life is in the blood".

robots = No blood = no life = no equality.

(I'm speaking briefly because I don't want to slow any discussion down).

Is it the matter that makes up the body of the being that determines how important or equal that being is, or is what they think, feel, and do?

If two beings were mentally and emotionally equal but one was made out of carbon and one out of silicon, does that mean that one is inferior to the other? Ultimately both are just made up of the same fundamental particles anyway.

 

[talkingmonkey]

It seems in this consumer-oriented materialist World, perfect robot replicas of humans complete with emotion and such would need as much attention as normal humans. However, they would have no ability to transcend themselves because of their lack of spirit that resides in all living entities, so they would never attain the same status as a spiritually rich human.

The only reason I would treat them as inferior is because they have been built in a material World, by materialists. They have no spiritual connection, what-so-ever.

 

[peter22]

It seems in this consumer-oriented materialist World, perfect robot replicas of humans complete with emotion and such would need as much attention as normal humans. However, they would have no ability to transcend themselves because of their lack of spirit that resides in all living entities, so they would never attain the same status as a spiritually rich human.

The only reason I would treat them as inferior is because they have been built in a material World, by materialists. They have no spiritual connection, what-so-ever.

How does one 'transcend oneself'? You're basically saying artificial humans wouldn't have souls. Why is this necessarily true? Have you ever experienced transcendence? How do you know it really was that and not you imagining that?

 

[KhlulHloo]

and they had artificial intelligence, and showed emotions like humans, but were in fact made up of circuits and wires (like the terminator), is there any reason why we shouldn't treat them the same as normal human beings?

Of course there's no reason to not treat them equally.
As "normal"? Well, human bigotry always gets in the way, especially with such self-contradictory statements as this one-

The bible teaches that "the life is in the blood".

robots = No blood = no life = no equality.

Which of course, in reverse equates to "blood=life=equality" which is, of course, so much self deception on the part of humans.

How many humans (especially the monotheistic "three" religions) see themselves as "equal" to pigs,dogs, snakes, and frogs just based on the fact that they have blood?

Homo sapien hyprocrisy at it's best and funniest

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

I feel that it would be great to make robots that could be sentinent. We could build machines that could work on becoming smarter and help advance science and medicine for the human race.

 

[Gottservant]

I think we will one day come to the realisation that you can build a machine to do part of what we do, but you can never build a machine to do all of what we do.

Only God can look at the part and truly see the whole.

 

[Patashu]

and they had artificial intelligence, and showed emotions like humans, but were in fact made up of circuits and wires (like the terminator), is there any reason why we shouldn't treat them the same as normal human beings?

Bladerunner!

 

[Patashu]

I think we will one day come to the realisation that you can build a machine to do part of what we do, but you can never build a machine to do all of what we do.

Only God can look at the part and truly see the whole.

Why would you want to build a machine that does everything a human can possibly do? That's inefficient; machines are meant to be built for as few purposes at once as possible.

 

[elman]

and they had artificial intelligence, and showed emotions like humans, but were in fact made up of circuits and wires (like the terminator), is there any reason why we shouldn't treat them the same as normal human beings?

If they were just like humans, then they would not be robots.

 

[elman]

I feel that it would be great to make robots that could be sentinent. We could build machines that could work on becoming smarter and help advance science and medicine for the human race.

Then they could become the masters and we could be the slaves.

 

[stan1980]

Bladerunner!

Funnily enough i've never watched Bladerunner. I did however get the idea of this thread from a film which name escapes me (it has robin williams playing a robot who wanted to get married to a human)

 

[Deadbolt]

Then they could become the masters and we could be the slaves.

"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man's mind."

 

[talkingmonkey]

Funnily enough i've never watched Bladerunner. I did however get the idea of this thread from a film which name escapes me (it has robin williams playing a robot who wanted to get married to a human)

Bicentennial Man

It's based on a novel by Isaac Asimov.

Blade Runner is from Philip K Dick, who also did Total Recall and Minority Report.

 

[Hnefi]

The Bicentennial Man - especially the novel - really does put this conundrum on its head. For those that haven't read it, it's about a robot that, through faulty programming, gets a will of his own (all robots in Asimovian novels are already sentient). He gets his own hobbies, a profession, owns his own property etc, but longs to be human. He becomes an expert at prosthetics and cybernetics and eventually has built himself a completely biological body. At that point, there are many humans who are more artificial than he is.

By Gottservants definition, he would at that point have to be defined as human. Of course, in the novel, he isn't - it isn't until he gives himself a finite lifespan by making his brain slowly destroy itself that the government formally declares him human, and the first bicentennial man - hence the title.

I think the novel aptly points out the problems with declaring that artificial beings are different. If we can create an artificial being, and if we can replace parts of ourselves with artificial prosthetics, then where do we draw the line? At what point does a human with prosthetics become a robot, and what makes a human different from a biological robot? Its origins? That's a meaningless distinction. Its soul? Before asserting that, we must show that the soul exists to begin with - otherwise that distinction is meaningless, too. So what, then?

 

[stan1980]

Bicentennial Man

Yep, that's the one.

The Bicentennial Man - especially the novel - really does put this conundrum on its head. For those that haven't read it, it's about a robot that, through faulty programming, gets a will of his own (all robots in Asimovian novels are already sentient). He gets his own hobbies, a profession, owns his own property etc, but longs to be human. He becomes an expert at prosthetics and cybernetics and eventually has built himself a completely biological body. At that point, there are many humans who are more artificial than he is.

By Gottservants definition, he would at that point have to be defined as human. Of course, in the novel, he isn't - it isn't until he gives himself a finite lifespan by making his brain slowly destroy itself that the government formally declares him human, and the first bicentennial man - hence the title.

I think the novel aptly points out the problems with declaring that artificial beings are different. If we can create an artificial being, and if we can replace parts of ourselves with artificial prosthetics, then where do we draw the line? At what point does a human with prosthetics become a robot, and what makes a human different from a biological robot? Its origins? That's a meaningless distinction. Its soul? Before asserting that, we must show that the soul exists to begin with - otherwise that distinction is meaningless, too. So what, then?

I think you've summed it up quite well.