[p2p-research] Free flipper! argues scientist

[Ryan Lanham]

On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Andy Robinson <ldxar1 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, I suppose it would have to have an intentionality of its own - though
> actor-network theorists would maintain that 'objects' have intentionality of
> sorts in any case.  ...  A machine modified by someone who relates to it in
> a craft modality soon takes on a personality of sorts.  Benjamin's collector
> and the "redemption" of objects come to mind here.
>

The issue has been dealt with some, but not very well.  Here is Wired on the
topic:  http://www.wired.com/culture/culturereviews/magazine/17-02/st_essay

There are the three laws of robots from Isaac Asimov...robots should obey,
not hurt each other and not hurt humans...

You are right of course that we tend to abuse our power; my own fear is that
is the very reason why we will have problems with robots.

Power plays a key role.  We are very used to being dominant.  It is only in
old age or extreme illness we become dependent--and generally it isn't much
liked.  I think it would be interesting to pose the question of robot rights
to the severely disabled...especially the physically disabled.

Colonialism to P2P is a spectrum on which these issues fall.  An essential
element of P2P we often ignore is mutual respect.  But what does that
entail?  Rights?  At least according to the U.S. political philosophical
roots, rights are not granted; they are recognized.  When would people
protect machines' rights?

People protect animals...there are shelters.  What would a shelter for
machines look like?  It is easy to imagine at a certain point, but what is
hard to imagine is a threshold.  I don't want to see a lizard abused.  I'd
offer it shelter as would many.  That's sort of low standard of emotion and
interchange.  I know it knows pain, I suppose.  Pain is useful in an
evolutionary sense, so I'm sure robots would get it reasonably quickly.
Their tolerances would of course be set higher.  But maybe a mosquito feels
pain and I would not offer it shelter, nor a small fish.

Soon (probably this year) sythesized life will be created.  Similar issues
will start to apply.  What if we could build (through synthetic biology)
life forms as sophisticated as a lizard.  Would these be held to different
standards of what it is to be living?  The same questions could arise when
people are augmented by machines.  Let's say 30% of a brain could be
replaced by a computer.  Would we hold that to be an individual.  One thinks
of Stephen Hawking...clearly human...but how do we know?  Imagine his speech
synthesizer saying Hawking like things without the mangled body attached.
There are interesting questions of threshold.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100103/36b9fdda/attachment.html>