(no subject)
Some thoughts about the classic speculative fiction problem of what is human?... (Nothing original, I'm sure.) That is to say, if another intelligence is relatable enough to be mistaken for human (think the Turing test), then what keeps us from considering it human?
One might argue such things as biology, as a major point, but that gets philosophically fuzzy when sentience and sapience are part of the deal. See, people have historically denied others their humanity despite biology, so... philosophically speaking, why can't we also extend humanity to others despite biology? Some might thus retreat from philosophy and stay within the strict bounds of biology for their argument. Fine.
But that still doesn't address the ethical and moral issues of facing another human-like intelligence. Biology can't and shouldn't try to define such relationships, because the sciences should be considered blind to ethical issues. Science as a process, and a science as a field, are means by which to attain understanding. They have no moral nor ethical position inherent in them. If we face another human-like intelligence, knowing their DNA (or lack thereof) will not tell us a single damn thing about how we should be treating them.
I consider the only moral, ethical answer (and while morals and ethics are not the same thing, here they are in conjunction) is to err on the side of inclusion. Exclusion has taken a heavy toll in blood and suffering within our own species already -- and if we face another species? There's no moral reason to exclude another human-like intelligence from the "human" experience. If there is common ground, then as moral agents we are obligated to share it. Only if it is impossible to relate are we freed from the ethical duty to do so -- socially, intellectually, and emotionally.
Yes, that means allowing people to fall in love with things like robots. Even if the robots aren't "truly" intelligent, and only simulating emotions according to programming. Only the truly incommunicable, such as most animals, should not be considered de facto valid participants in the so-called human experience (so, no, I'm not advocating bestiality, despite having little problem with the overall idea of relationships with nonhumans).
Always, always err on the side of inclusion.
One might argue such things as biology, as a major point, but that gets philosophically fuzzy when sentience and sapience are part of the deal. See, people have historically denied others their humanity despite biology, so... philosophically speaking, why can't we also extend humanity to others despite biology? Some might thus retreat from philosophy and stay within the strict bounds of biology for their argument. Fine.
But that still doesn't address the ethical and moral issues of facing another human-like intelligence. Biology can't and shouldn't try to define such relationships, because the sciences should be considered blind to ethical issues. Science as a process, and a science as a field, are means by which to attain understanding. They have no moral nor ethical position inherent in them. If we face another human-like intelligence, knowing their DNA (or lack thereof) will not tell us a single damn thing about how we should be treating them.
I consider the only moral, ethical answer (and while morals and ethics are not the same thing, here they are in conjunction) is to err on the side of inclusion. Exclusion has taken a heavy toll in blood and suffering within our own species already -- and if we face another species? There's no moral reason to exclude another human-like intelligence from the "human" experience. If there is common ground, then as moral agents we are obligated to share it. Only if it is impossible to relate are we freed from the ethical duty to do so -- socially, intellectually, and emotionally.
Yes, that means allowing people to fall in love with things like robots. Even if the robots aren't "truly" intelligent, and only simulating emotions according to programming. Only the truly incommunicable, such as most animals, should not be considered de facto valid participants in the so-called human experience (so, no, I'm not advocating bestiality, despite having little problem with the overall idea of relationships with nonhumans).
Always, always err on the side of inclusion.