Internet-based Life?

[JFrankA]

sugarb,

Therefore, how can we KNOW that some of them wouldn't "feel" trapped? While it may seem fun and interesting to try anyway, from *my* viewpoint of reality, that risk isn't one worth taking. It seems to me that this world already has plenty of sentient beings that are miserable, or angry, or on the brink of madness.

Good point

Are you saying that it's better not to create a new race of sentient life forms if a small percentage is angry by the fact that they can't experience another reality?

Let's put it this way: all of us are trapped on this Earth and in this reality. I am an atheist, but let's say god came down to Earth, proved he existed and the stated that he was the one who made humans the way we are. Then I would be angry at god for sticking me on this prison of a planet, stuck in the reality he created. I couldn't jump to a reality that he would exist in: a reality that a) I couldn't survive in and b) I can't even imagine how it works.

Even though in my limited life, on this small prison rock & reality I've lived on, indeed, we've all lived on, I've experienced some beautiful and wonderful things, being stuck on the "prison Earth", this "prison reality universe", without any hope of seeing other realities has made me very angry and miserable. Maybe putting me on the brink of madness.

Now maybe the majority of people wouldn't be angry or miserable, I don't know. Dispite that, the question is this: Would god be considered cruel?

(Please note: I am not trying to pull theism/atheism debate into this, just illustrating a point. Please no offense meant to anyone here).

To go a little further with that, there are many things that we humans created that make some people miserable and angry and may actually bring them to the brink of madness. A lot of people don't react that way. Shall we NOT create anything, that we have in our own reality that we ourselves created out of neccessary if a couple of people are angered or miserable by it?

 

[INRM]

JFrankA,

Well first of all your argument is flawed

1.) We are not god or gods
2.) If we were to create internet based life we would be essentially playing god. I don't believe it's right to play god.

INRM

 

[sugarb]

Are you saying that it's better not to create a new race of sentient life forms if a small percentage is angry by the fact that they can't experience another reality?

Let's put it this way: all of us are trapped on this Earth and in this reality. I am an atheist, but let's say god came down to Earth, proved he existed and the stated that he was the one who made humans the way we are. Then I would be angry at god for sticking me on this prison of a planet, stuck in the reality he created. I couldn't jump to a reality that he would exist in: a reality that a) I couldn't survive in and b) I can't even imagine how it works.

Even though in my limited life, on this small prison rock & reality I've lived on, indeed, we've all lived on, I've experienced some beautiful and wonderful things, being stuck on the "prison Earth", this "prison reality universe", without any hope of seeing other realities has made me very angry and miserable. Maybe putting me on the brink of madness.

Now maybe the majority of people wouldn't be angry or miserable, I don't know. Dispite that, the question is this: Would god be considered cruel?

(Please note: I am not trying to pull theism/atheism debate into this, just illustrating a point. Please no offense meant to anyone here).

To go a little further with that, there are many things that we humans created that make some people miserable and angry and may actually bring them to the brink of madness. A lot of people don't react that way. Shall we NOT create anything, that we have in our own reality that we ourselves created out of neccessary if a couple of people are angered or miserable by it?

Hi JFrank

But we aren't talking about creating "things". We're talking about creating sentient beings. Huge difference, no? In a sense, it would be hard to NOT bring the word "god(s)" into the discussion.

Let me try throwing this in, as an example of what I'm saying. Very often, in reaction to a disturbing story in the news, or even in discussions about political issues, social welfare programs, personal responsibility, the issue of irresponsible child bearing comes up. We can't take credit, obviously, for creating humans. We just, like other animals, have offspring that happen to BE human. (That sounds weird). But we didn't make ourselves...God did, nature did, a biggo explosion did, whatever.

Yet, we, as thinking, feeling, sentient beings, are sometimes inclined to say "They should have stopped at two children", or "They should have made sure they wanted kids before they acted irresponsibly", or "Maybe they should have been sure they could provide for a litter before they gave birth to one". Things of that nature. And we aren't creating, we're just propagating!

Now, take what amounts to a literal "creation" of a totally different kind of sentient life. Should we not consider at least as many things as we expect of ourselves in propagating? Before we "create"? Really...whatever one believes (God, nature, whatever)...we would be taking on the role of what WE can't even fully understand! We would be putting ourselves in the position to be railed at for every injustice, cursed for every type of agony (real or imagined...because, well...sentient beings even in an electric world might just imagine...), and maybe even prayed to for help, answers, comfort.

To go a bit further, we really AREN'T trapped here. The stats tell us that a lot of people, for whatever reason, get sick of it here and end their participation. Sad, horrible (to me), but they do. Young and old alike.

So...if you were to create these beings, would you NOT give them that option? And if you did give them that option, how would you feel when some of them took it?

Personally, I don't think it's possible, what we're discussing. But...I have to admit, it's a fascinating imagining. To answer your question, though...no, I don't think we should not make THINGS that might upset or make someone else miserable. But that's not the same thing as creating totally new, sentient BEINGS. And to answer your first question, yeah, I think it would probably be better to NOT create them if any of them would experience the kind of misery we already can't eliminate from the world.

I agree that there are many beautiful things here, in this life. But again, we really didn't "create" them, unless the things referred to are works of art, music, and such. We didn't create mountains or trees or bodies of water (well, sometimes we make lakes...but we didn't create what fills them, lol). We really didn't create the most beautiful parts of this life...which is, in my opinion, what makes them such awesome things to appreciate and contemplate.

But, for other beings, you're putting them in the position of the scenario you described, only place yourself in the role of "god", and them in the role of knowing YOU made them. Maybe some of those beings would like us, and be completely happy. Maybe some of them would be apathetic. But others would just flat out hate us, right? For the very reason you describe. Are you really up to that? To satisfy a curiosity? Would you really be prepared to, for however long "eternity" lasts, make sure these beings had the environment maintained that you created them in? How could you do that? Or...would you create them and then just let them be destroyed when you got bored, or when you finally realized that we couldn't sustain them? Out of curiosity...would you feel guilty if you did create these sentient beings, and found out a year and a half later that, given our resources, you had to let them all die so that we could continue having OUR needs/wants met?

One thing I sure realize, lol...I ain't "god" material. It's amazing how many questions even an idea brings up.

 

[sugarb]

Oh, and God has been, and still is, considered cruel. Even I've thought of God as cruel. And will again. I know me, I know how I think

 

[Ikarus]

I'm a bit pressed for time, but I have a couple of things I want to respond to.

JFrankA,

Well first of all your argument is flawed

1.) We are not god or gods

True. Premise accepted.

2.) If we were to create internet based life we would be essentially playing god.

False premise.

To create living forms and invent new species is not new to humans. But it doesn't make us gods. In fact, the entire discussion becomes all sticky and yuckie if you equate creating life with being god... Besides having to define "life", which I think might be relevant in this discussion, you'd also be forced to define God. And God is such a vague concept, that you shouldn't want that, unless you want to pointlessly kill the discussion.

I don't believe it's right to play god.

False conclusion.

And where is you "second of all"?

Hi JFrank

But we aren't talking about creating "things". We're talking about creating sentient beings. Huge difference, no? In a sense, it would be hard to NOT bring the word "god(s)" into the discussion.

We have created, and we continue to do so on a large scale, sentient beings in much the same way as we have created furniture, bread and many other "things". Cows, for example, are injected with semen from fit bulls. We control that, completely. The selected cows produce offspring at our will. An inseminator does that. Not god. There's absolutely no point in calling the inseminator a god-figure, I'm sure you agree.

Now, with cows, we know pretty much what will happen from inductive reasoning. We don't know for sure what this internet creature will turn out to be like, and how it will behave. So I think your next point is a lot more valid. But I just want to make the point that the act of inception or creation itself is not godly and doesn't make anyone a god. Not even if we create something that is living.

(...)
Now, take what amounts to a literal "creation" of a totally different kind of sentient life. Should we not consider at least as many things as we expect of ourselves in propagating? Before we "create"? Really...whatever one believes (God, nature, whatever)...we would be taking on the role of what WE can't even fully understand! We would be putting ourselves in the position to be railed at for every injustice, cursed for every type of agony (real or imagined...because, well...sentient beings even in an electric world might just imagine...), and maybe even prayed to for help, answers, comfort.

This is about parenting, maintaining, monitoring and nurturing, if it needs that.. Asking yourself to what degree we have responsability for their wellbeing because we are their "inventors", makes sense to me.

(...)
I agree that there are many beautiful things here, in this life. But again, we really didn't "create" them, unless the things referred to are works of art, music, and such. We didn't create mountains or trees or bodies of water (well, sometimes we make lakes...but we didn't create what fills them, lol). We really didn't create the most beautiful parts of this life...which is, in my opinion, what makes them such awesome things to appreciate and contemplate.

The appreciation of beauty is completely subjective. I happen to like architecture very much and I find beauty in certain interactions with other people. And the process of evolution is a wonderful thing to be aware of, too, I find. And I frequently admire the stories people tell and the ideas they produce. To appreciate the world is for sapient beings. And to feel existential angst, too. I hear "sentient" often in this thread. Now I'm not sure which one we are talking about. Sapient or sentient? If the former... Well, I hardly know how you, or any other human being, judges the world. I certainly can't predict anything about the way a digital creature would see his world. But I have no reason to think that their life on the internet would be void of stimuli and experiences and interactions that are appreciatable in the same way that we can choose to appreciate the givens in our world.

But, for other beings, you're putting them in the position of the scenario you described, only place yourself in the role of "god", and them in the role of knowing YOU made them. Maybe some of those beings would like us, and be completely happy. Maybe some of them would be apathetic. But others would just flat out hate us, right? For the very reason you describe. Are you really up to that? To satisfy a curiosity? Would you really be prepared to, for however long "eternity" lasts, make sure these beings had the environment maintained that you created them in? How could you do that? Or...would you create them and then just let them be destroyed when you got bored, or when you finally realized that we couldn't sustain them? Out of curiosity...would you feel guilty if you did create these sentient beings, and found out a year and a half later that, given our resources, you had to let them all die so that we could continue having OUR needs/wants met?

In an ideal situation, the creature is allowed to live indefinitely. Practically, it would probably be impossible to create such a situation.
I think one would need to evaluate regularly whether their existance is good for us, first, and second, if it is good for them (although the latter will be much much harder to judge, I suspect.) I think it is wrong to allow their existance to continue as long as they perform well. It is a cruel restriction. Good questions, really.

One thing I sure realize, lol...I ain't "god" material. It's amazing how many questions even an idea brings up.

And how lots of them, if not all, are already being discussed in other contexts, from religion, to philosophy, to fenomology etc.

 

[INRM]

Ikarus,

False premise.

To create living forms and invent new species is not new to humans. But it doesn't make us gods. In fact, the entire discussion becomes all sticky and yuckie if you equate creating life with being god... Besides having to define "life", which I think might be relevant in this discussion, you'd also be forced to define God. And God is such a vague concept, that you shouldn't want that, unless you want to pointlessly kill the discussion.

However creating a sentient being, and an entire "world" or universe for them to exist in is kind of like playing god.

False conclusion.

Why is it a false conclusion?

In an ideal situation, the creature is allowed to live indefinitely. Practically, it would probably be impossible to create such a situation.

Due to entropy... Nothing seems to last forever

I think one would need to evaluate regularly whether their existance is good for us, first, and second, if it is good for them (although the latter will be much much harder to judge, I suspect.)

Unfortunately when you create a sentient-being, killing it becomes tantamount to murder.

And how can you tell me judging whether their own existence is good for them is not playing god? That is pretty much the *embodiment* of playing god. How would you feel if somebody 1,000 miles away decides that living your life isn't good for you, and they have the ability to kill you even if you personally want to live? That is colossally arrogant


INRM

 

[Ikarus]

Ikarus,



However creating a sentient being, and an entire "world" or universe for them to exist in is kind of like playing god.

Well, if you insist that this is the definition of god, okay, then we are playing god.. You are making the discussion needlessly complicated though, because now, instead of wondering whether it is ethical to create a world for a sentient, we find ourselves asking whether it is ethical to be a god by your personal definition.

And again, what kind of world do we put cows and cute rodents in? They're in small man-made environments with no freedom whatsoever. Is that playing God? Not by my definition. Are we going to argue about the definition of God now? Oh Goody!

(Let's not..)

Why is it a false conclusion?

Because it follows from a false premise.

Due to entropy... Nothing seems to last forever

There is no life, without death. Every beginning has an end.

Unfortunately when you create a sentient-being, killing it becomes tantamount to murder.

INRM

Damn hippies...

 

[INRM]

Ikarus,

Because it follows from a false premise

Which is?

Damn hippies...

Oh so you're saying that we should be able to create beings with sentience on par with human beings and delete or shut them down, kill them, whenever we choose?


INRM

 

[sugarb]

Well, if you insist that this is the definition of god, okay, then we are playing god.. You are making the discussion needlessly complicated though, because now, instead of wondering whether it is ethical to create a world for a sentient, we find ourselves asking whether it is ethical to be a god by your personal definition.

And again, what kind of world do we put cows and cute rodents in? They're in small man-made environments with no freedom whatsoever. Is that playing God? Not by my definition. Are we going to argue about the definition of God now? Oh Goody!

(Let's not..)


Because it follows from a false premise.


There is no life, without death. Every beginning has an end.



Damn hippies...

But...again, we didn't "create" cows. We utilize cows, but we didn't "create" or "invent" cows. I don't think it's a valid comparison, the world we put cows in...because...well, cows are already here, in OUR world. We section off parts of it for the cows, and yeah, we're probably really, really greedy about it. Self-serving, even.

Again, that is different than creating a whole new being. I'm a little confused as to how it wouldn't be "playing god". Depends on what one thinks of creation, I suppose, but god or random luck of the draw, the fact remains that our ancestors and the cows ancestors were there. Cows didn't "create" us, and we didn't "create" cows. We share the same world. What I thought this was about was creating a sentient being to inhabit a world, not our own, that we've already created (the internet).

And I don't see how that changes the question. God or no god, our world, that we inhabit, would not be able to support these beings we are talking about creating. They wouldn't have bodies to protect them from the elements our world would expose them to. They would have no means of locomotion, other than through circuitry. One could safely assume that, outside of the box (our computers) they'd have no means of communication. So...in order to survive, they are confined.

Keep in mind that they are confined in a "world" that offers a whole lot of ways to affect OUR world. It isn't only questions of ethics or morality I'm considering (although granted, those are the biggies). It goes a little bit deeper. We have become quite dependent on the world we're talking about unleashing new lives into. New lives that may or may not be happy/fuzzy/content. We can hide financial information, military information, whatever, behind firewalls and whatever complex-over-my-head systems are in place. But...if these beings we create can adapt and evolve (which I think it would be unsafe to assume they could not), then what potential is there for a being created out of curiosity to turn around and bite our noses off?

Also, something else to consider...because I had actually thought of using zoos as an example of how we can create habitats for animals to survive where they weren't intended to be, and considered that perhaps I was looking at this whole thing about being confined wrong, until I realized the flaw in that: I can build a kennel for my dogs to live in. But I could live in it, too. I could build a hutch for rabbits. Nothing (except my size) would prevent me from being able to live in it, too. I could build a barn for cows and horses. But I could live in it too. Because for the most part, those of us inhabiting this world that were "created" by some means none of us can understand generally require the same basic things for survival. Temperature and humidity and food requirements may vary, but...generally speaking, I could inhabit the same area of just about any animal I'd choose to keep for whatever reason.

Not so with our hypothetical sentient beings.

In other words, animals and living creatures we already share this world with...we have an interest in sustaining and caring for this world, because we NEED it, kinda, to survive. As much as we feel dependent on the internet, the truth is, there was life before it and some day there may be life again without it...totally man-made. Like I said before, because we cannot control OUR world, we cannot determine with any degree of accuracy the sustainability of the world we're offering our new "creations". IF we were to do such a thing, then I think that means we'd have a responsibility to them as much as to ourselves. Perhaps more, because, after all, we made them.

Is it ethical to play god? Well, I think people do it every day, in big ways and small ways. I think that a lot of sickos like to have the power of life and death, and unfortunately, it is usually animals and children suffering because of it, at least in our culture. In others, certain ethnic groups suffer because of it. Internationally, unfavored (or not cared about) nations suffer for it. To me? Playing god involves life and death, moreso than just egomania (power). My definition is, therefore, rather simplistic, since it doesn't involve changing the course of the world or the future of mankind or whatever. Therefore, I phrase it "playing" god

Eh, I've lost my train of thought. Sorry.

 

[JFrankA]

*facepalm*

I knew I shouldn't have brought god into this.... My mistake.

The point I am trying to make, and have been all along is this:

It is a matter of perspective what is cruel or not. Simply. If I you one person chained to a wall and another person whipping the chained person - is that cruel?

You don't know. It may look cruel on the onset, you may percieve it to be cruel but you don't know until you communicate the chained person, see where you are, get motives and basically get more information.

With a sentient being from the internet, you would be perceiving a completely different environment than anything you are living in. I mean completely. Would they need Oxygen like we do? Would they eat the same way we do? Would they have senses the same way we do? Would they even have bodies the same way we do? Would they even have the same ethics we do? Would they even have the same perceptions as to what is life than we do?

The answers to all of these are "No". They would be so different from what we are, that it would be more different that us compared to a tree or an amoeba. But we are going by our own preconceived notions of what we think is cruel or not. We can't do that. We are just assuming.

Unless we establish a reliable communication and accurate language between these beings and us, we should not assume that the creation of such a species is cruel. Dangerous? Perhaps, we really don't know that either, but that, we can prepare for. But if we avoid the dangers (on both their side and ours), then labeling a creation as "cruel" is going by a preconceived notion that is untested.

Being cruel is something just as subjective as giving pleasure. We may all have a common notion as to what it is, but take away that common notion, i.e. now that notion is in the perception of a completely different being with completely different values and completely different needs to survive; then we can't even begin to say what is considered being cruel to these beings.

What we would have to do, is ask them. And we can't do that without creating them first.

And no, creating a species of sentient beings is NOT playing god. Indeed, they may not even have any concept of what a god would be. They may not need to reason to believe in one.

...the point is we just don't know and we can't know if it's cruel to create an internet species until we try.

And sorry, I think it wouldn't be cruel so long as they have the correct "bodies" to survive, grow, evolve and thrive in their environment.

And no, creating a species of sentient beings is NOT playing god. It's just like making a child, which is a creation. Just because it didn't poof from non-existence doesn't mean it's not a creation. Indeed, if we did ever have the technology to create a species of internet sentient life, that wouldn't have poofed from non-existence either. It would have come from a few million years of evolution, a few hundred years of technological research and a couple of decades of computer program coding instead of a few million years of evolution, a couple of hours of sex and nine months of growing inside someone.

 

[sugarb]

*facepalm*

I knew I shouldn't have brought god into this.... My mistake.

The point I am trying to make, and have been all along is this:

It is a matter of perspective what is cruel or not. Simply. If I you one person chained to a wall and another person whipping the chained person - is that cruel?

You don't know. It may look cruel on the onset, you may percieve it to be cruel but you don't know until you communicate the chained person, see where you are, get motives and basically get more information.

With a sentient being from the internet, you would be perceiving a completely different environment than anything you are living in. I mean completely. Would they need Oxygen like we do? Would they eat the same way we do? Would they have senses the same way we do? Would they even have bodies the same way we do? Would they even have the same ethics we do? Would they even have the same perceptions as to what is life than we do?

The answers to all of these are "No". They would be so different from what we are, that it would be more different that us compared to a tree or an amoeba. But we are going by our own preconceived notions of what we think is cruel or not. We can't do that. We are just assuming.

Unless we establish a reliable communication and accurate language between these beings and us, we should not assume that the creation of such a species is cruel. Dangerous? Perhaps, we really don't know that either, but that, we can prepare for. But if we avoid the dangers (on both their side and ours), then labeling a creation as "cruel" is going by a preconceived notion that is untested.

Being cruel is something just as subjective as giving pleasure. We may all have a common notion as to what it is, but take away that common notion, i.e. now that notion is in the perception of a completely different being with completely different values and completely different needs to survive; then we can't even begin to say what is considered being cruel to these beings.

What we would have to do, is ask them. And we can't do that without creating them first.

And no, creating a species of sentient beings is NOT playing god. Indeed, they may not even have any concept of what a god would be. They may not need to reason to believe in one.

...the point is we just don't know and we can't know if it's cruel to create an internet species until we try.

And sorry, I think it wouldn't be cruel so long as they have the correct "bodies" to survive, grow, evolve and thrive in their environment.

And no, creating a species of sentient beings is NOT playing god. It's just like making a child, which is a creation. Just because it didn't poof from non-existence doesn't mean it's not a creation. Indeed, if we did ever have the technology to create a species of internet sentient life, that wouldn't have poofed from non-existence either. It would have come from a few million years of evolution, a few hundred years of technological research and a couple of decades of computer program coding instead of a few million years of evolution, a couple of hours of sex and nine months of growing inside someone.

I don't think it was a mistake to mention god. After all, it really doesn't matter...doesn't take "god" to bring up ethics and morality and issues of conscience! Those are the things that give me the heebie jeebies...not so much the issue of "playing god".

You're right. We can't know if it's cruel or not, unless we do it. But...that's the problem, isn't it? Let's say we do it, and it IS cruel. Then what? My question is, is it worth that risk? Do the potential positives (which are what?) outweight the potential negatives?

And I don't mean to argue or cause upset, but...you answered no to your own question of will they have the same ethics as we do quite assertively. You can't KNOW that, anymore than we can "know" creating them would be cruel. That's a preconceived notion, too. You haven't asked them yet I mean, remember...we would be the ones creating them. Programming them? Whatever. So...there's going to be at least a little bit of us in them, right?

You are correct. "Cruelty" can sometimes be subjective. No, taking a whip to a chained person isn't always "cruel". Not if that person is consenting and willing...and I'll even go so far as to say it isn't cruel if it's punishment for certain crimes--child abuse, for instance. Battery. Murder. Not a popular opinion, though. However...I think all of us would agree that chaining and whipping a non-consenting adult, a minor, or an innocent adult, or an animal even, for no reason whatsoever, IS cruel. Particularly if it's just for enjoyment of, or to satisfy a curiosity on the part of, the person wielding the whip.

 

[INRM]

Sugarb,

You're right. We can't know if it's cruel or not, unless we do it. But...that's the problem, isn't it? Let's say we do it, and it IS cruel. Then what? My question is, is it worth that risk? Do the potential positives (which are what?) outweight the potential negatives?

I do not think there are any serious potential positives if any at all other than to satisfy mental masturbation, I could be wrong of course, regardless I don't see how they could outweigh the negatives from an ethical and moral standpoint.

We would be playing god, creating sentient lives for intellectual curiousity, sentient lives that could potentially not like being part of some video-game, not to mention shutting off the simulation would be tantamount to committing murder if not genocide (if there were a lot of them)

There is no god. Just because no god exists doesn't mean we should take over the role. We are not god, and we shouldn't be playing god


INRM

 

[Ikarus]

The algorythm may turn sentient and the sentient may eventually turn sapient. I think, however, that this distinction might be important. It will not turn sapient to start with, I think.

Sentient means it is aware of it's surrounding. It can utilize "senses" and respond primitively.

All ethical values are projected from our perception onto them. If you want to do that for a sentient, why not do so for real world animals? I think you should come to the same conclusion about them. (for example: killing animals is tantamount to murder. Look up the normal definition of murder and you will see a flaw in your reasoning, I reckon...)

 

[INRM]

Ikarus,

However, for one, when we kill animals, we generally do it because we need food. That is honestly the only scenario where I can even consider killing animals. And even then I'm not a big fan of it. Especially since I am unaware of the level of self-awareness some of them possess.

On the other hand holding animals captive and experimenting on them for the sake of some kind of intellectual curiosity is not right. Particularly when it comes to monkeys, and dolphins/whales (as they obviously seem to possess similar self-awareness to us).

Creating internet based life that could reach a level of awareness that would be considered on par with a human being (i.e = aware of surroundings, self-aware, can understand, or is aware of the concept of death, and their own death, and capable of having desires) and is capable of voicing their desire to NOT be part of such an experiment is immoral. Killing, or terminating the life of such an organism while it might not fit the legal definition of murder could be considered equivalent.


INRM

 

[sugarb]

The algorythm may turn sentient and the sentient may eventually turn sapient. I think, however, that this distinction might be important. It will not turn sapient to start with, I think.

Sentient means it is aware of it's surrounding. It can utilize "senses" and respond primitively.

All ethical values are projected from our perception onto them. If you want to do that for a sentient, why not do so for real world animals? I think you should come to the same conclusion about them. (for example: killing animals is tantamount to murder. Look up the normal definition of murder and you will see a flaw in your reasoning, I reckon...)

Hi, Ikarus. You bring up a really good point and I have to admit to being a little hypocritical in my real-world response to it.

We DO, sometimes (even most of the time, probably) project our ethical values onto animals. Odd, eh? I mean, with the exception of livestock (mainly cows, pigs, and chickens), society does have ethical standards for the treatment of animals. Even regarding "food" animals, we've started seeing more and more demands for better treatment of them before we eat them.

I hadn't exactly thought of it in the terms you bring up. We have protected species, and killing them is most certainly a crime (if you get caught). We have established hunting seasons, and laws regarding exactly how we can hunt and how many of whatever is in season we can kill. Not following those guidelines is a crime. In many states, animals are considered property. Therefore, killing an animal that doesn't belong to you is a crime. Even the little fishies are protected by size limits and numbers.

I fish. I don't consider it murder when we fish (because we catch and release, but...I have accidentally killed a fish), and I don't consider it murder when other people fish and keep their catch. I don't consider everyone buying a hamburger an accessory to murder. Not a big fan of beef, but I do like chicken. I don't consider myself an accessory to a crime for eating a chicken strip.

Actually, even "food" animals are raised and distributed with laws and restrictions in place. Not that those laws keep them alive, mind you

So, I guess my point is, in a way, we DO project our values and ethics, most certainly, onto animals. We're just a little bit inconsistent about it. We also mostly (not everyone agrees) hold an understanding that people who display cruelty toward animals might have a tendency to eventually display cruelty toward other people. And there's that subjective "cruelty" again, but I think most reasonable people can distinguish between cruelty and acts of consent.

Unlike INRM , I do believe in God. That, to many here, automatically might dismiss my opinions as nonsense. However, I don't believe in a mainstream god. And I don't believe that God sits back just waiting for us to screw up. I think, for me, my concept of God wouldn't be accepted by most Christians. God doesn't give me the answers for things. In my view, he gave me a mind to sort things out on my own...and frankly, I'm not even SURE he's really all that interested in the majority of things we do. But if he is, I think he'd be rather pleased with the folks that DON'T use him to justify or excuse or explain everything. So, when I discuss morals or ethics, I'm not coming at it from a "God" perspective. I'm coming at it from the perspective I'm facing things from...and that's as a mere human.

As humans, to certain extents we can empathize with animals. We know what pain feels like, we know what hunger feels like, we know what it's like to be scared or hurt, some of us know what it's like to be abused. Some people have to tendency to believe that animals "feel" and "think" like we do. I think there are similarities, but obviously animals aren't as spoiled as we are. They don't need beds and couches and silverware and gifts for every Hallmark occasion. But...we can empathize with many aspects of their lives, so...many people feel a need to protect, and put in place protections for, animals.

What we're discussing, sentient beings in a world of information...of course I can't KNOW for sure, but...it seems to me that, while it may be projecting, we would quite possibly empathize with them on a level different from, but just as real as, animals. Intellectually, perhaps. I don't know about you, but, for me personally, it is my mind that really makes my existence interesting. It is communication that makes me feel like a part of this world. So, when we discuss creating beings whose lives would be almost TOTALLY on that plane...well...to me, anyway, ethics and morals have to apply. If these beings were created, I doubt, somehow, that their "primitive" would be the same primitive our ancestors probably experienced. They won't need to learn how to make fire, or build shelters, or hunt for food. Maybe they won't have to feel pain, or ever feel a physical injury. But...as much emphasis as we place on the physical, I think the truth is, it is our thoughts, our emotions, all those things we can't fully understand yet, that cause us the most pleasure, torment, whatever. The most extreme of our senses.

Why would we even consider creating them if we couldn't communicate with them? What would be the point? I mean, if we're talking about creating something primitive, that can't even communicate with us (although I was under the impression they'd be able to enjoy a gazillion experiences from all over the world through the internet--not true if they can't communicate even basically), what exactly ARE the positives?

 

[Beerina]

Kinda off the topic a bit, but what would be considered the criteria of an internet entity actually being alive? Would it be the evidence of emotions? Spontaneous thought and reaction? The aware of self? The ability to learn? The ability to adapt to any environment?

It need not be alive in that sense, or even directed and coherent. Or even technically Internet-based.

For example, memes travel and expand thru the Internet much faster than the olden days. More importantly, they "adapt" much more quickly, too. I don't know if I'd consider a meme to be a "thing" in that sense, much less an intelligent thing. More like a set of (inconsistent) stories adopted en-mass by individuals, voluntarily, or sometimes involuntarily (viz. "Kim Jong Il is Fearless Leader!" and "Everybody must join a universal, single-payer health care system!" <-- Single-payer was adopted by the meme about 6 years ago in the US when many alternative models were floated, including the insurance industry just flat-out picking up the uninsured and dealing with it themselves.)

 

[INRM]

Awareness of itself I would have to say would definetly be a critical quality...