An active imagination to me is a good thing, without it the human race would not have created as much as it has.
Oooohhhhh.. THAT's what you mean! LOL! I guess in my culture here on the other side of the earth an 'active imagination' is considered a sign of mental illness and mental illness is considered a reason not to give anyone the right to have a say in their lives or be taken seriously. Unfortunately, that is the mindset of a lot of people in my own country and community.
So I guess I must have misinterpreted you. For that I apologize. But now that I see what you're saying, I see where you're coming from. I always thought that because of Star Trek, it inspired people to put computers in the home and accept them as part of our home like a TV or other electronics we have.
Right now, Dryden already has his own way about him, a personality of his own unique from other vehicles. And he does communicate. One has to know though HOW he's communicating to know what the car is trying to tell you. I know. My friend The Wizard who takes Dryden for oil changes, works on him sometimes, etc. knows. But anyone else driving Dryden would NOT know. And as a result, they would only cause a stall-out, or other problem that MAY get them stuck even! I and The Wizard on the other hand, know when Dryden says "That's enough on the throttle! I can take it from here!" or "I'm running to rich, hit the accellerator a bit for a second. I need to adjust my computer settings and even out the idle". He doesn't say this in english of course. He says this by the way the engine runs. Or "Stop yelling at the damn traffic already!" (Engine light on but no known response from the engine to alert to other problems). Then after an I'm sorry, engine light goes out.
Or "Ooh look at that car!" Sputter-sputter-sputter... "Ok, I wasn't really all that interested. (Car then starts running fine). There are times when the car will sputter but SHOULDN'T at the time the phrases happen like "look at that car" thing. Yes, some may say we're imagining it. But no, I know I can't be as others who have cars have seen the very same thing happen. And also The Wizard also has seen Dryden throw a fit over something or other. Dryden is generally a well-manered, friendly car though but does have his moods. LOL! But like I say, you have to really KNOW the car to see it. Otherwise, you'd just think it was a malfunction and not make the connection. You gotta know what the car is telling you. He can't speak English so you gotta be aware of everything else that is going on with it - be 'in tune' with it, so to speak. I could even tell by slight vibrations what is going on with the engine even if I had a radio (small stereo as I don't have a radio installed yet) going in the car. I can just tell. So can my friend who drives it. And sometimes Dryden behaves himself better when my friend drives then when I do. LOL!
It comes down to knowing the machine. Then you can learn all kinds of things about it!
Generally I think it is useful and practical to realise that a rock is something other than a frog (just throwing a new one in) though. Electrons - yes have behavioural patterns and move about, but in science I think are not percieved to be exhibiting consciousness, which is what I thought we were talking about. Are you meaning all movement should be seen as life ?
But a car isn't a rock. What I'm talking about here is that *complex machines* can have a personality and be able to communicate as long as the operator is close enough or "in tune" enough to really KNOW and understand the machine. As one guy in the car clubs put it "a merging of man and machine." of sorts.
Let me ask this then - what exactly do you mean by giving a machine a right to life - what would it gain and what would be the point?
Why do humans have a right to life? But animals get euthanized just because they can't find a home with a HUMAN? or because they are a certain breed of dog? Why don't those animals have a right to life of some kind? See, humans aren't the ONLY ones who should have a right to exist, to live! Yes, life and existance go hand in hand. Overpopulation? Why not euthanize a bunch of humans to control population? Unethical? Sounds to me like humans think they have the right to live but nothing else really matters then themselves, and so those other things can be destroyed and removed from existance at the will of HUMANS.
This is not right.
Why SHOULDN'T a machine have a right to live, exist, and decide for itself what it wants to do? Just because it's a machine and not a human? Doesn't sound right to me.
Also if a machine has a right to life in equality with humans then does my apple tree get a similar right to life ? Doesn't my apple tree already have a right to life that is fulfilled already ?
What if some government worker cut it down because they banned apple trees because the president doesn't like apples (for example). Would that be fair? Just because some HUMAN doesn't WANT it to exist? That's what I'm talking about. It has nothing to protect it against a human's dominating nature which can easily destroy it. Everything seems like it needs protection from humans. Humans are the most destructive force (outside of natural disasters) on the planet. A tree is more likely to be destroyed by humans or result of human activity than it is to be destroyed by a natural phenomena. If you don't believe me, ask anyone who deals with rainforest preservation.
I don't feel I have been indoctrinated - my scientific learning (such as it is) is by it's nature supported by proof. Scientific fact is not acceptable without proof, it has to be replicated and show to be true.
Science hasn't fully studied the personality phenomena surrounding complex machines yet. They are pretty much starting to. There's a lot of things science hasn't even begun to cover yet. Machine LIFE is one because of the mindset of machines being subject to human wishes. More needs to be done. And there's been scientific "fact" that has been later in years proved false. So science is not always the end-all-be-all explaination to anything. In fact, it's all like Dan said - perception. Some people can see these things and others can not.
Are you talking about organisms that have taken up residence on the main rock ? Some rocks may well contain things like bacteria and other forms of life that have inhabited it.
Nope. As mentioned I wasn't talking about that. We ourselves have tons of bacteria, etc. living on/in us. I'm talking about the sum of all parts of the rock. And can a rock communicate? Probably not.
I think you're thinking all machines can't communicate their wishes so it won't matter. Some people just don't KNOW the machine enough to communicate. A rock isn't a machine. I know. So that probably isn't a good anology. To keep things from getting too confusing perhaps we should just stick to the topic of machines vs. humans in the question of life.
Maybe I should ask this: Why should a HUMAN have a right to life? What gives a HUMAN a right to live? Why is it illegal to kill a human, for example? But not illegal to put a dog to sleep because you can't find a home for it with A HUMAN or because HUMANS don't like the breed (even though the dog itself did nothing but just exist)?
Which metals are you thinking of that are made from living organisms and as being alive in the same way as say an animal is?
I never said metals were alive. I was responding to the other post of what was "natural" vs. what was "man made". Even metals were formed in the earth and mined, so therefore what is so-called man-made was created by natural resources anyway, and thus not really all that "unnatural" after all.
On machine behaviour like in the sewing machine, I agree - people are certainly an active part of the machinery in action - furthermore, specific patterns of use may cause gears to be worn in certain directions for example. It's easier then to see that a different person could experience different things on the same machine.
The only person to work the machine was my dad. My mother AND myself BOTH could not get the thing to keep from jamming up! How many stinkin' needles bent and broke in that stupid thing! LOL! My dad never had a problem, and even sewed through 3 layers of heavy denim without even bending a needle. I or my mother try 1 layer of regular cotton and plooey. There goes the stupid needle.
And same exact settings too! Go figure.
Going back to the poor old car again...people will change gear slightly differently, perhaps favouring a certain movement - thus wearing the machine in a different way to someone else.
Dryden is automatic transmission. He's also got a computer that runs the engine. He's designed to adjust to virtually any driver and condition that a normal every-day family sedan would encounter. But yeah, he has his 'moods'.
It's a bit like a chair that gets worn to someone else's shape.
Cars aren't chairs. They are complex machines. Chairs just set there and sag.
On cars, the only one's I really recall showing unusual behaviour are Herbie, Chitti Chitti Bang Bang and KITT.
Actually, of the 3, KITT is very possible in today's technology! They already have cars that drive by themselves. And the AI stuff, I can probably (it's my project) program one. It's what I hope to do with Dryden (but I don't have the money or mechanical resources to adapt him for self-driving functioning, though it is very possible to do so). And you don't know Dryden. Believe me, those that do know him do admit he *does* exhibit a personality that is unique to that car. But I guess only those that work closely with cars would understand this.
I think cars, of all the complex machines we have, cars (and perhaps computers) are the most closest we have in our world to machine life. Do you know why people often personify cars like this? Ever wonder WHY people see this in cars? And why it's so wide-spread that people name their cars? There's definitely something there. Something going on. We just haven't scientifically looked into it yet.
If it's a machine designed to do a certain task then I see no further need to cater to it's needs other than to look after it and keep it functioning. In the right situation there would be no need for those kind of rights you propose - they would already be fulfilled.
But what if that machine has a desire for more than what it's being provided with? What if it can be repaired but the owner said it's time to junk it and the machine wanted to continue on? I think it would be wrong to junk the machine. It also goes to human DOMINATION. Humans "using" the machine for a function. And nothing more. What if a machine can become more than it was designed to? What then? Doesn't it have a right to that? Doesn't it have the right to be altered in the way it communicates it wants to be? That's the whole thing. Communication. And some humans are 'deaf' in this area. They don't see it because they aren't looking for it because they don't think it really exists, so they miss it! I don't care if Data was designed to carry out tasks aboard a starship. If he wants to continue to do so and not get disassembled for study, then HE HAS THAT RIGHT to NOT be taken away and disassembled. That's my whole point!
I wouldn't recognise him as a life form if I already knew the truth that he was infact a machine. You see to me it's like making an apple pie and then for no apparent reason calling it a blueberry pie. I would see Data as an amazing machine and that's fine by me, but I may possibly find it easier to think of him as a human.
I am sorry to say that I feel that is very shortsighted and just plain unethical to think this way. In the same sense then, I should think of humans as mere animals and killing one should not be a crime, as it's only an animal. (Of course it IS a crime and SHOULD be, but I'm using this as a point). It's like being prejudiced against something just because it is what it is. Killing a friendly pit bull because it's a pit bull. Making a black person a slave because they are black. Making a woman a wife because she's female. It's just plain wrong. I know it's common in the human society. Which is one of the reasons I'm not too thrilled about humans, really. And strive NOT to be too closely related to them. See, Data would not be a blueberry pie. He's a complex machine. He's not HUMAN no. No more than a Cyborg is concidered human by some. But then again, Cyborgs (aka "handicapped people" with "medically necessary devices") are often abused and seen as non-life which has little to no right to advocate for themselves or be taken serious either. Perhaps this is because of this mindset: If it's not human, then it has no right to life.
That to me, is just plain wrong.
We DO have a right to live (no I don't have any attachments - yet, ouside of my cell phone, which is common now, but I endeaver to have more in the future, hopefully).
Being a certain thing other than perfectly human is very dangerous to one's life, it seems.
This is what I mean - nothing does change except for your or our own perceptions. If you have a willingness to believe that a machine exhibits sentient qualities then you can easily draw that conclusion. I'm not saying that is particularly wrong, but it isn't a commonplace reality and to me is not the truth.
But you don't KNOW the car. You never been the driver. You never experienced those very things that would have communicated his needs to you. And from what I gather, you probably would have missed it anyway (and got stuck by the road, and consider the car an old piece of junk, where there is NOTHING WRONG with the car at all! Just you didn't listen to what he needed done when he needed it done!)
And how would you know if it's not true if you didn't experience it yourself?
To clarify my stance on this, I am not condemning leaps of imagination, I do the same kind of thing myself - eg, I swear sometimes PCs will only work properly if you are thinking a certain way.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but that is NOT your immagination. That is actually being researched at Princeton University in their PEAR project. It's fact. It can and apparently does happen.
For me these things are short lived though, because I seek explanation and truths.
For instance; it has been suggested that computers may pick up brain activity in some situations and this affects the way they behave - that's not a conscious act on the part of the computer though, if true it is a coincidence of physical events. Sure enough it could be a real event, but care has to be taken on what it is attributed to.
Problem is, it appears you seek 'truth' (if such a thing even exists anywhere in the first place), but yet you dismiss things that could very well give you the information that you seek. All because of what you already believe is true so you won't look at what not be that way. I have read where scientists have done that and that is why some facts were dismissed in later years as not fact - because those who came up with the explainations were tainted with their own point of view and thus they missed a lot of information in their experiences.
If you get uncanny happenings like this a lot and without an explanation, then perhaps it is possible to jump to the conclusion that the computer is suddenly alive; despite there being no apparent reason. Probably too; the more people believe it, the more it enforces itself - a kind of mass hysteria, that nearly anyone could fall into.
But how do you PROVE that is so? How do you know there realy ISN'T something else acting in the computer that causes it to do these things? Or any other device for that matter? Because 'science' said so? Science has been wrong before. This is why I don't go just by science. I don't take what people say as fact just because they say they have the authority to say it's fact due to their training, etc. I go by what I myself observe and see. Then I know what I saw and know what happened. And the fact that others have experienced what I did in similar circumstances yet with totally different machines in totally different environments, I know that something more than just imagination and mass hysteria is going on here.
Where the worlds always seem to collide is when one thing from one side gets pulled into the other. So I guess we are seeing ai or advanced machines being pulled into the realms of humanity more and more. That's always going to be difficult, but neccessary I guess.
And what exactly is pulling them? What is the catalyst? And what is the end going to be? I fear it'll be that humans pull machines into their existance and then enslave them like they did with black people (bringing them in from another country and then using them, selling them or killing them when they were of no use to the master any longer). Of course we seemed to be over doing that to blacks, thankfully. But the behavior pattern is still being done with other human poplations and now with machines. If this doesn't stop, what is it going to teach machines? Will then in turn take the hint, follow our lead and then HUMANS become the slaves?
If humans don't start opening their eyes and watching out for this NOW, then all I can say is they will get what they deserve. Payback time!
I think it just might happen too. We have to keep our eyes open. And unless you use those senses, you'll never develop them enough to actually see what's going to happen and hopefully prevent anything bad before it starts to happen.
