I-Robot And The Accountability Of Actions.

[Mr_Doom]

This thread deals with accountability in a sense of understanding morals and ethics but also deals with the conflict of determinism.

Here’s our analogy that I want answered by others on this website:

There is a robot created with A-1 where it has individual character and such. It was determined by the creator that the robot be selfish,egotistical, violent, and combative.

Although it is given the guidelines to behave and not harm humans it still nonetheless is hardwired and more dominated by it’s original programming determined by it’s creator. In otherwords the guidlines given to it is nothing in comparison to the domination it is under by it’s original programming.

Now let’s say our robot kills a human being by it’s own wants or needs and other human beings find out about it.

Is the robot accountable or responsible for it’s own actions? Or is it the creator of the robot that is accountable or responsible for the robot’s actions where the robot itself is without blame?

( If we look at this we can see a parallel with ourselves as homo-sapiens. For now however we shall deal with the analogy first and then move to talk about humans later on.)

[ceadem]

Those who allowed the release of potentially harmful machines are responsible.

[Cyrene]

If a behaviorist trains a lion/tiger to be cuddly and cute and not eat humans (programmed over original programming but original programing is stronger) whose responsible if someone lets a tiger out in a zoo and it starts killing people? Easy: whoever left the fucking gate open.

I’m not sure why these animals are put down either. Do they think these ones are specifically more dangerous or are going to learn to do it again? A question for another thread, I guess.

[Mr_Doom]

So everyone here agrees that it is the creator of the robot where the fault lies in my analogy not the robot itself?

[Mr_Doom]

( If we look at this we can see a parallel with ourselves as homo-sapiens. For now however we shall deal with the analogy first and then move to talk about humans later on.)

Remember when I said this? Now let’s replace robot with human and see if we can come to some interesting conclusions for ourselves. Who shall the creator of humans be? Well I’m not a fan of religion so we’ll use the very random existential big bang as our creator in our next analogy.

There is a human created who has individual character and such. It was determined by the creation of life that humans be selfish,egotistical, violent, and combative.

Although humans are given guidelines to behave and not harm others they are still nonetheless hardwired and more dominated by their original programming determined by creation the very random big bang. In otherwords the guidlines given to humans is nothing in comparison to the domination they remain under by their original programming.

Now let’s say our single human being by his or her own wants and needs murders another where other human beings find out about it.

Is the single human being accountable or responsible for their own actions? Or is it the existential creation of the human that is accountable or responsible for the person’s actions where the single human being themselves are without blame?

How am I comparing humans and robots? Humans are biological machines if you think about it hardwired, determined, and programmed by nature itself.

[ceadem]

In most cases the human is responsible for their own actions.

The problem with the robot comparison is that we can’t 'empathise’ with machines, I don’t know what the workings are in its mechanical brain, is there any form of conscience, is there any kind of struggle between its guidelines and dominant programming etc. with a human I can say confidently that in most cases there are options and if a human kills another human then that is the option they took, therefore they face the consequences.

[The_Paineful_Truth]

First, was it programmed to be able to override it’s programming?

And second, we may be egotistical, but that doesn’t mean we necessarily use violence to support that ego. We also have the ability to reason which if we use it, IMNTBHO, should lead us to the principle of enlightened self-interest which would negate violence except in self defense from some unreasoning nit wit who is not so restrained–“saying all reason is subjective”.

[Anvil]

Would you rather God have created man without the ability to murder…? Perhaps then we would simply begin to complain of having nothing to complain about…?

The real blame lies with an enviroment that ultimately rewards murder, which is to say, the blame lies with no-one at all, but with underlying nature itself. Any creator, however powerful, becomes automatically constrained by both the limitations of the medium he works with, and the setting within which he designs his creation to live.

And why did you use a picture of Hal-9000 for an Asimov pastiche…? Won’t Kubrick get angry at copyright violation…?

[Cyrene]

The situation isn’t comparable. The urge to murder isn’t always stronger than the ability to control it; unless the person is biologically not functioning correctly, or is in a situation where adaptive urges overpower you. (being hunted in the woods by anohter human. Most of us would beat them to death without a second thought. Like an animal)

but other than circumstancial situations and biological dysfunction.

[Mr_Doom]

Would you rather God have created man without the ability to murder…? Perhaps then we would simply begin to complain of having nothing to complain about…?

Actually I could care less about the whole thing. This coversation of mine is all about the curiousity of living in a determined world.

Also, I don’t believe in god. ( Atheist.)

The real blame lies with an enviroment that ultimately rewards murder, which is to say, the blame lies with no-one at all, but with underlying nature itself.

So the blame must lie with existential creation which shapes and forms all enviroments which is the same very thing that determined our nature to begin with in the first place. However to blame existence because it doesn’t shape to our whims and wishes only further shows our absurdity in that for whatever reason we dumb humans believe that all of existence ought to conform to our perceptions.

And why did you use a picture of Hal-9000 for an Asimov pastiche…? Won’t Kubrick get angry at copyright violation…?

Because I can and it get’s me all hot inside.

[Mr_Doom]

@ceadem

In most cases the human is responsible for their own actions.

The problem with the robot comparison is that we can’t 'empathise’ with machines, I don’t know what the workings are in its mechanical brain, is there any form of conscience, is there any kind of struggle between its guidelines and dominant programming etc. with a human I can say confidently that in most cases there are options and if a human kills another human then that is the option they took, therefore they face the consequences.

In most cases the human is responsible for their own actions.

How can a human being be responsible for the manner in which they were created?

The problem with the robot comparison is that we can’t 'empathise’ with machines, I don’t know what the workings are in its mechanical brain, is there any form of conscience, is there any kind of struggle between its guidelines and dominant programming etc.

Why would that change the direction of our conversation at all? Why would that matter?

What if the robot had all the mental articulations like ourselves? Would it matter?

with a human I can say confidently that in most cases there are options and if a human kills another human then that is the option they took, therefore they face the consequences.

All options however are determined by need and are determined in way of necessity during a existential circumstance.

if a human kills another human then that is the option they took, therefore they face the consequences.

Again how can a human be responsible for the manner in which they are created and determined by nature?

[Mr_Doom]

First, was it programmed to be able to override it’s programming?

For the robot, no it wasn’t.

And second, we may be egotistical, but that doesn’t mean we necessarily use violence to support that ego.

Bullshit. The society that everyone here thrives in uses violence, blackmail, and forced coercion to sustain itself everyday.

By being apart of it you are a active foundation within society’s dialectic whether or not you are conscience of it’s dealings.

Don’t be coy.

We also have the ability to reason which if we use it,

What do you mean by the word reason in the context of our conversation here?

should lead us to the principle of enlightened self-interest

What enlightened self interest?

which would negate violence except in self defense from some unreasoning nit wit who is not so restrained–"

More naive idealism…you are putting me asleep.

saying all reason is subjective".

If all reason is entirely subjective there is no objective reasoning to do anything other than in a subjective form.

[Mr_Doom]

@Cyrene

The situation isn’t comparable. The urge to murder isn’t always stronger than the ability to control it; unless the person is biologically not functioning correctly, or is in a situation where adaptive urges overpower you. (being hunted in the woods by anohter human. Most of us would beat them to death without a second thought. Like an animal)

but other than circumstancial situations and biological dysfunction.

The urge to murder isn’t always stronger than the ability to control it;

And the urge for control isn’t always stronger than the ability to murder. So what?

The situation isn’t comparable.

The robot is hardwired, programmed, and determined to act in such a manner amongst various scenarios or possibilities.

The biological human machine is no different.

unless the person is biologically not functioning correctly,

There’s a correct way of biological functioning now? When did this happen?

or is in a situation where adaptive urges overpower you.

I believe we call that instinct. Instinct overpowers individuals often.

but other than circumstancial situations and biological dysfunction.

Define biological dysfunction? Can we see biological dysfunction in other animals or is this just some half baked new age psychological invention you have made for yourself just for the discussion of humans only?

[Anvil]

How am I comparing humans and robots? Humans are biological machines if you think about it hardwired, determined, and programmed by nature itself.

Thankyou for telling me what an atheist was, I was unclear on that word.

When you tell me you are hardwired, determined, indeed programmed - what do you mean…?

I don’t feel hardwired, determined nor indeed programmed. Can you give me an example of this programmed behaviour…? I mean, humans are the same all over, so if it is programmed, presumably genetically, human behavour should be similar too, right down to an individual scale, what is good for all, must also be good for the one I presume.

You might say “Sex is programmed” except, I can abstain from sex. You might say “eating is programmed” except, I can go on a diet. You might say “violence is programmed” and yet, I can control my anger.

What good is programming if the robot can go against its prime directives…? What good is determinism, if I cannot predict what you will do with full certainty…?

[earthy]

Mr Doom

So everyone here agrees that it is the creator of the robot where the fault lies in my analogy not the robot itself?

I do and I think I know where this thread is going.

Are thieves, murders and rapists responsible for their own actions? Are the less fortune responsible for their own condition?

Humans are biological machines if you think about it hardwired, determined, and programmed by nature itself.

Our physicality is but our psychology is very programmable like the robot in your analogy under the right conditions otherwise societies would not exist.

Societies (the creators) are the programmers of human psychology. Are criminals to be held responsible for their actions or society? Society creates or ignores certain condition overtly and covertly that breed criminals and poor people. Should individuals be held responsible for their actions or society or both? To punish individuals without regard to their society or environment makes no sense. Should individuals be held responsible for criminal acts or society?

In your analogy we agree that the creator should be held responsible not the robot becuase the robot is just acting on it is most dominate programming. So then should individuals be held responsible for their actions or society and environment? Are criminal actions due to individuals or environment?

I had a more thoughtful, longer and well worded post that was lost while posting.

[ceadem]

@Mr Doom

How can a human being be responsible for the manner in which they were created?

Because who else is going to be responsible?

What if the robot had all the mental articulations like ourselves? Would it matter?

IF the robot’s mind resembles that of a Humans 100% then I would have to question whether or not the creator is at all responsible, just as is a serial killers family responsible for that outcome.

All options however are determined by need and are determined in way of necessity during a existential circumstance.

Options nonetheless.

Again how can a human be responsible for the manner in which they are created and determined by nature?

Again, they have options.

Buy the ticket take the ride.

So everyone here agrees that it is the creator of the robot where the fault lies in my analogy not the robot itself?

No, the robot.

[Cyrene]

yeah, there is a standard of correct biological function. we can say that the normal way a mother’s brain should work in relation to not beating her own child to death or say facial detection. because we have species typical mental architecture which evolved because it was slightly more beneficial.

[Mr_Doom]

@Cyrene

yeah, there is a standard of correct biological function. we can say that the normal way a mother’s brain should work in relation to not beating her own child to death or say facial detection. because we have species typical mental architecture which evolved because it was slightly more beneficial.

Sounds like generalizing.

[Mr_Doom]

1. Determinism is incompatible with free-will and moral responsibility.

· The world, including man, is constituted by quanta in motion.

· These quanta are strictly determined to behave according to the materialistic principles that govern them. We refer to these principles as the physical and chemical laws of the universe.

· We can predict with reasonable accuracy the outcome of bodily interactions using the laws of the universe as templates.

· These predictions are very good to precise at microscopic and macroscopic levels. On the sub-atomic level, a principle of randomness enters in quantum mechanics and thermodynamics.

· Given the nature of physical entities (quanta) and the laws that govern their behavior, there is no principle of autonomy (free-choice). Quanta cannot make free-will decisions at any level of organization, especially the macroscopic (such as complex organizations of quanta called human beings).

· There are no such things as choices made by free-will. All actions are determined by antecedent causes. Given the antecedent causes, the actions cannot be other than what they are.

· Consequently, there is no such thing as moral responsibility. A machine (a thermostat on the simple scale, a human being on the complex scale) cannot be held morally responsible for what it is determined to do.

geocities.com/athens/delphi/2517/Four1.html

[Mr_Doom]

If everything is determined by causality and physics, and this includes our brain activity, memories, thoughts, choices, and actions, then how can we be responsible for what we do?