Open the Pod Bay Doors Hal
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-07-2016, 10:48 PM
RE: Open the Pod Bay Doors Hal
(28-07-2016 10:29 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-07-2016 09:45 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  As someone has already noted, that was not the scenario in the movie.

You are nit picking. The scenario doesn't have to match the movie exactly. The movie is just an interesting/entertaining way to convey that violinist type arguments are only compelling if you have no fear of every being the violinist.

The Hal type thought experiment shows there is something seriously wrong with "Its my body therefore it is my choice" line of argumentation.

Fine, you wanna ignore your responses and stick to bullheadedness about ignorance.

What an AI sentience can do isn't a given to be what people see that as a direct correlation to what human biological beings scenarios are... and the US Constitution as you mentioned has nothing in there about granting anything in relation to AI scientific so of course it doesn't have that right. It isn't a topic that can exist unless you amend or add precedent to give it rights. That's easily clear to anyone knowing the scenarios of what terminologies they are actually using.

But I'm sure you'll just ignore more points on the actual merits of pointing out the non-argument this scenario is and you've gone into terrible posting Tomasia territory where he'll try desperately to make up some terrible baby or illusion arguments instead of using Platos Cave which is what he's trying to get at... when you have an analogy of connection, making up your own in a elongated effort to match the scenario is folly. But then he and you will continue to post like that, bickering about I've got this analogy case.. and never GOING ON, go on to make an argument. Stating the scenario isn't an actual argument.Making an argument would be detailing why HAL killing those inside him is an unjustifiable choice, because that's not even a given to something as a garbage case. Arguments with tons of assumptions and elements taken on as presumption are very low tier critically thought out arguments. Raise your level of mental critique. Just repeating, this shows its garbage.. this shows its a problem.. doesn't make it so.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 11:01 PM
RE: Open the Pod Bay Doors Hal
(28-07-2016 10:48 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  What an AI sentience can do isn't a given to be what people see that as a direct correlation to what human biological beings scenarios are... and the US Constitution as you mentioned has nothing in there about granting anything in relation to AI scientific so of course it doesn't have that right. It isn't a topic that can exist unless you amend or add precedent to give it rights. That's easily clear to anyone knowing the scenarios of what terminologies they are actually using.

Rights don't have to be spelled out in the Constitution anymore. This is the 21st century and the courts are now able to find any rights they want to find in it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 11:09 PM
RE: Open the Pod Bay Doors Hal
Blowjob, even if we grant full personhood status to a fetus (which the law does not grant), you are somewhat misstating the situation, in terms of the rights of one individual versus the bodily integrity of another.

A better analogy, which I have used before, would be that you and I go out drinking one night, and you accidentally pass me a glass of contaminated moonshine. I didn't want to, but you talked me into it. As a result of our drinking spree, I develop total kidney failure. As you learn I am in the hospital, and rush to visit me, you are tested on arrival and found to have the only kidneys in the world that would serve as a transplant to save my life.

My question is thus: Do we have a moral (and more importantly, legal) right to invade your bodily integrity against your will, despite the risk to your life in such a surgery, to preserve mine, even though you are the reason I am there, and my life is dependent on your organs in order to continue?

We cannot take your kidney without your permission in order to save my life, regardless of how I got into that circumstance. The same applies to the rights of women to not have their bodies used for growing another person and then putting them at risk of death in childbirth (the odds of death due to childbirth in the USA is something like 15 times that of an abortion, if I recall correctly from the last time I had this discussion), and all without even considering all the other incumbent social and financial costs of having a child.

In short, if you think your body cannot be legally invaded in order to preserve my life, yet you think a woman has a lesser right to control over her body than you do, then you are just a misogynist, and may safely be ignored. If you think that we can go in and get your kidney on my behalf, then I'd be curious to hear your legal argument for how that law would even work.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
28-07-2016, 11:27 PM
RE: Open the Pod Bay Doors Hal
(28-07-2016 11:01 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(28-07-2016 10:48 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  What an AI sentience can do isn't a given to be what people see that as a direct correlation to what human biological beings scenarios are... and the US Constitution as you mentioned has nothing in there about granting anything in relation to AI scientific so of course it doesn't have that right. It isn't a topic that can exist unless you amend or add precedent to give it rights. That's easily clear to anyone knowing the scenarios of what terminologies they are actually using.

Rights don't have to be spelled out in the Constitution anymore. This is the 21st century and the courts are now able to find any rights they want to find in it.

Why, if you read carefully, I specifically said "or add precedent to give it rights" which is expressly pointing out court influence. So congrats on boiling down a post about your topic into ignoring and trying to counter with the point already stated in the post... Care to add anything about the actual topic of how you still are just presuming AI rights cary to human rights in your analogy?

Why do you complain about posting of people yet just ignore ever discussing the topic you proclaim to be "arguing?" Is it deliberate or do you not see this as a trend of your behavior?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 11:40 PM
RE: Open the Pod Bay Doors Hal
(28-07-2016 11:09 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  A better analogy, which I have used before, would be that you and I go out drinking one night, and you accidentally pass me a glass of contaminated moonshine. I didn't want to, but you talked me into it. As a result of our drinking spree, I develop total kidney failure. As you learn I am in the hospital, and rush to visit me, you are tested on arrival and found to have the only kidneys in the world that would serve as a transplant to save my life.

Your thought experiment fails. In real abortion and in the Hal type thought experiment, one being is engaging in an act to kill another being. In your thought experiment doing nothing results in the death of the other being. It is one thing to outright kill another human being and another thing to take no action to save another human being.

The violinist thought experiment and the Hal type thought experiments are much closer to real abortion than what you concocted.

But consider this concocted thought experiment which is in the same vain as yours. Two women with two nursing babies are traveling by plane. The plane crashes at a remote location. One mother and one baby survive. But the surviving baby is not the child of the surviving mother. It will be two weeks until rescue and the baby will only survive if it is now nursed by the woman who lost her child. Is the woman who lost her child morally obligated to nurse the infant who is not hers? Based on what you argued in this thread, it would seem to be that you would not think it a crime if the baby is allowed to starve to death......which is really a callous position.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2016, 11:57 PM
RE: Open the Pod Bay Doors Hal
At work.

(O_o)

Dafaq direction did this thread go.

Hal, as depicted by Clark, was never portrayed as an AI or AA.

The movie is even ambiguous, though the regression scene as memory blocks are removed is powerful even that is not stating/showing that the computer is anything more than its programs.

As for the unborn side of things, I believe I've asked Heywood this before but which has more rights. A cancerous growth... or a three week old developed ball of cells?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 12:01 AM
RE: Open the Pod Bay Doors Hal
(28-07-2016 11:57 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  As for the unborn side of things, I believe I've asked Heywood this before but which has more rights. A cancerous growth... or a three week old developed ball of cells?

In some states, if you do something to cause a miscarriage in a woman 3 weeks pregnant you can be charged with a crime.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 12:05 AM
RE: Open the Pod Bay Doors Hal
At work.

And your actual answer to that side of the question might be?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2016, 12:20 AM
RE: Open the Pod Bay Doors Hal
(28-07-2016 11:40 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Your thought experiment fails. In real abortion and in the Hal type thought experiment, one being is engaging in an act to kill another being. In your thought experiment doing nothing results in the death of the other being. It is one thing to outright kill another human being and another thing to take no action to save another human being.

Very well, we shall change my thought experiment to you poisoning me, and I am dying as a result of your poison, and only your kidneys can save me from your action. Can we legally justify invading your bodily integrity in order to save me?

And "doing nothing" is not the action; it's you refusing to let them take the kidney, which is itself an action. Try to keep up.


(28-07-2016 11:40 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  The violinist thought experiment and the Hal type thought experiments are much closer to real abortion than what you concocted.

Only if you deliberately attempt to be obtuse about it.

(28-07-2016 11:40 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  But consider this concocted thought experiment which is in the same vain as yours.

vein*

(28-07-2016 11:40 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Two women with two nursing babies are traveling by plane. The plane crashes at a remote location. One mother and one baby survive. But the surviving baby is not the child of the surviving mother. It will be two weeks until rescue and the baby will only survive if it is now nursed by the woman who lost her child. Is the woman who lost her child morally obligated to nurse the infant who is not hers? Based on what you argued in this thread, it would seem to be that you would not think it a crime if the baby is allowed to starve to death......which is really a callous position.

This is not a question of bodily integrity. If we went in, as society, and forcibly removed milk to give to the other baby, then we would have something like an equivalence. And no, the answer is that she is not obligated under law to care for a child when her own survival may be at stake. We might consider it moral to do so, anyway, regardless of the cost to her own survival odds, but that is a wholly separate question.

Keep in mind, here, that the question of abortion is whether or not to leave it as a private matter between a woman and her doctor or to intervene under law as a society, a question of bodily integrity under the law versus some (hypothetically) overriding moral obligation to preserve the life of the developing fetus at the expense of that right to bodily integrity (which our courts have determined is a First Amendment right). My analogy was an attempt to bring that issue to light, and your dodge of that fundamental question tells me that you have no intention of being honest about what is actually under discussion, here.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
29-07-2016, 01:06 AM
RE: Open the Pod Bay Doors Hal
(29-07-2016 12:20 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Keep in mind, here, that the question of abortion is whether or not to leave it as a private matter between a woman and her doctor or to intervene under law as a society, a question of bodily integrity under the law versus some (hypothetically) overriding moral obligation to preserve the life of the developing fetus at the expense of that right to bodily integrity (which our courts have determined is a First Amendment right). My analogy was an attempt to bring that issue to light, and your dodge of that fundamental question tells me that you have no intention of being honest about what is actually under discussion, here.

I didn't start this thread to argue that abortion was wrong. I started it to demonstrate that an argument people use to defend pro-abortion rights is flawed. When you ask questions about abortion and they have nothing to do with the subject of this thread, its not a dodge if I ignore your irrealavent question.


The reason the "my body my choice" argument is garbage is because it only makes sense when you are not the violinist or Dave.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: