We as a species have tended to have difficulty from time to time figuring out what makes someone a “person.” At various points in time, we’ve said that people with dark skin aren’t really “people,” or people who worship thus-and-such an imaginary friend rather than the imaginary friend we prefer aren’t “people;” hell, much of the world still believes, in this day and age, that women aren’t people, or that Jews aren’t people. The Tutsi tribe in Rwanda believes that the Hutu tribesmen aren’t people, and the opinion appears to be shared in the other direction.
And we ain’t seen nothing yet.
A lot of people don’t see it coming just yet, but it’s racing toward us with the ferocity of a freight train driven by a crack-addled monkey with a toothache: there’s going to come a time, and those of you on my friends list who are younger than I am will probably live to see it, when debates about whether or not black people have souls, and the attendant wars which have followed those debates, will look like a minor squabble at a Boy Scout camp.
So, as a public service for those of you who’re going to be faced with this particular poser, I offer a quick, easy rule you can remember when you’re trying to puzzle out the right thing to do:
Gays? Yep, they’re people. Dark-skinned folk? Yep, they’re people, too. Stay with me, here.
Clones? People. Experimental monkeys with augmented brains? You got it–people. Artificial intelligences? Uh-huh…people. Constructs made by mapping a person’s brain into a neural network simulation? People.
Now, there are certain rules you have to live by when you’re dealing with people. First, if you do something, and after that thing you do, a person isn’t there any more, that probably isn’t cool. Switching off the AI? Dropping the clone into the waste-disposal chute? Murder. Even if the experiment didn’t go quite the way you intended.
Second, a funny thing about people is that you can’t own ’em and you can’t sell ’em; we’ve been through this already, and it’s a settled point, m’kay? Yep, even if you owned the computer you built the simulation on, as soon as the upload is done and the person you’ve uploaded looks through the Webcam you’ve thoughtfully hooked up and says “Whoa, so this is what it’s like to be inside a computer!” it ain’t your computer any more. Sorry. Maybe you can, I don’t know, take a tax writeoff or something.
If it’s sapient, it’s a person. Pretty simple really. That ought to help get you through a few moral conundrums.
So then, what about a clone made only a functional brainstem?
And, for that matter, what about (that age old debate) a fetus?
I mean, in theory what about the WOPR mainframe?
The first two aren’t sapient. The last arguably is, and should be treated accordingly. (Of course, it’s generally kosher to defend yourself against a person who’s trying to kill you, even if that person’s an AI…)
So then, what about a clone made only a functional brainstem?
And, for that matter, what about (that age old debate) a fetus?
I mean, in theory what about the WOPR mainframe?
(previous comment deleted and this one posted in its place, because I realized as soon as I hit “post comment” that I really needed to phrase it better)
If it’s sapient, it’s a person.
What are your criteria for determining sapience?
Seconded. Because I swear that many animals I have known are sapient.
What are your criteria for determining sapience?
C’mon, now, I can’t give you ALL the answers…something’s got to be left as an exercise to the reader! 🙂
Seriously, sapience is something that may be hard to qualify; there’s likely going to turn out to be some gray area between sapience and non-sapience. Still, anything that’s clearly on this side of the line deserves personhood merely by having the ability to claim it.
Still, anything that’s clearly on this side of the line
if this criterion ever settles any case i’ll be thrilled.
and surprised.
(previous comment deleted and this one posted in its place, because I realized as soon as I hit “post comment” that I really needed to phrase it better)
If it’s sapient, it’s a person.
What are your criteria for determining sapience?
What about a homo sapiens who’s frozen cryogenically?
Hmm. Good question. “Non-sapient, but only temporarily so,” I’d say. A person who’s under anaesthetic doesn’t appear sapient, for example, but that condition is only temporary.
Curses! There goes my “assassinate the arch-nemesis in his sleep” loophole!
What about a homo sapiens who’s frozen cryogenically?
Seconded. Because I swear that many animals I have known are sapient.
Dude… you like SO need to put a rush on getting Citizen Cyborg. Or steal my copy. Or something.
Yes, I do! Every quarter, I get an Amazon gift certificate for referrals from my Web site (which is usually about enough to get one book), andthat’s the one I’m looking at when the next quarter rolls around.
If you’re not willing to wait, the Borders on Dale Mabry carries it. I’m reading it now (during those brief moments when I take a break from being a total Firefly fanboy), and while the author seems to have a chip on his shoulder about Extropians the book is nonetheless excellent!
Dude… you like SO need to put a rush on getting Citizen Cyborg. Or steal my copy. Or something.
The first two aren’t sapient. The last arguably is, and should be treated accordingly. (Of course, it’s generally kosher to defend yourself against a person who’s trying to kill you, even if that person’s an AI…)
What are your criteria for determining sapience?
C’mon, now, I can’t give you ALL the answers…something’s got to be left as an exercise to the reader! 🙂
Seriously, sapience is something that may be hard to qualify; there’s likely going to turn out to be some gray area between sapience and non-sapience. Still, anything that’s clearly on this side of the line deserves personhood merely by having the ability to claim it.
Hmm. Good question. “Non-sapient, but only temporarily so,” I’d say. A person who’s under anaesthetic doesn’t appear sapient, for example, but that condition is only temporary.
Yes, I do! Every quarter, I get an Amazon gift certificate for referrals from my Web site (which is usually about enough to get one book), andthat’s the one I’m looking at when the next quarter rolls around.
Curses! There goes my “assassinate the arch-nemesis in his sleep” loophole!
If you’re not willing to wait, the Borders on Dale Mabry carries it. I’m reading it now (during those brief moments when I take a break from being a total Firefly fanboy), and while the author seems to have a chip on his shoulder about Extropians the book is nonetheless excellent!
Still, anything that’s clearly on this side of the line
if this criterion ever settles any case i’ll be thrilled.
and surprised.
Oh, except bigots. They’re not people at all.
Turtle? Ruling on bigots, please?
You know, funny thing about bigots–they’re still sapient. Unpleasant, perhaps, but sapient nonetheless.
*kicks rock* Yeah, I know. It’s unfortunate though.
Oh, except bigots. They’re not people at all.
Turtle? Ruling on bigots, please?
You know, funny thing about bigots–they’re still sapient. Unpleasant, perhaps, but sapient nonetheless.
*kicks rock* Yeah, I know. It’s unfortunate though.
Hi there,I hope you don’t mind but I added you.
I came across your journal while visiting poly guide/bdsm do’s and don’ts
also..I am a huge fan of Firefly…it really is to brilliant for television
Not at all…welcome aboard!
cool,my next paper has to be a total opinion paper:Polyamory Vrs mongomy
(if my spelling is stupid its because I have been up all night writing a term paper)
Hi there,I hope you don’t mind but I added you.
I came across your journal while visiting poly guide/bdsm do’s and don’ts
also..I am a huge fan of Firefly…it really is to brilliant for television
I go one further.
To define sapient, the critter/citizen needs to be able to explain sapience, as a subjective experience.
This form of introspection should weed out the bigots, since they spend all of their cranial processing power defining reality as something screwed up by others, and thus lack the self-awareness of why reality is screwed up by themselves.
Two birds, baby, two birds. Stone, count it, just one.
Wow.
As elegant as your solution is, though, it would weed out a lot of people I’ve met, and even a couple of people I’ve dated–which, it might be argued, is not necessarily a bad thing, but I’m still skeptical about the morality of not treating them as people nonetheless…
The mere threat of denying them a ruling of sapience might scare more than a few into abandoning their xenophobia.
It’s a salve to your moral quandary, nothing more. I’ve found there are few quick fixes to problems as fundamental as, for example, the existance of folks who exist in diametric opposition to the correct opinion. Strangely, they feel the same way about us. . . .
I go one further.
To define sapient, the critter/citizen needs to be able to explain sapience, as a subjective experience.
This form of introspection should weed out the bigots, since they spend all of their cranial processing power defining reality as something screwed up by others, and thus lack the self-awareness of why reality is screwed up by themselves.
Two birds, baby, two birds. Stone, count it, just one.
I usually go by the possesion of logic (i.e., sapience), self-awareness and emotion. Somehow, it doesn’t seem nearly so troubling to end the existence of an AI if the AI itself has no opinion on the matter.
Is emotion a necessary and intrinsic part of sapience? Would you say that a television Vulcan is not sapient?
No, I would say that sapience isn’t all that’s required for humanity. Sapience covers logic and maybe self-awareness, but I think at least a little emotion is also necessary.
Well, hmm. A normal person is an emotional being; but let’s say someone experienced some kind of brain damage that erased his ability to experience emotion. He’d certainly experience life much more differently than everyone else, and would probably lose his ability to empathize with the people around him, but would he cease being a person?
Yeah, I think so.
I usually go by the possesion of logic (i.e., sapience), self-awareness and emotion. Somehow, it doesn’t seem nearly so troubling to end the existence of an AI if the AI itself has no opinion on the matter.
Not at all…welcome aboard!
Wow.
As elegant as your solution is, though, it would weed out a lot of people I’ve met, and even a couple of people I’ve dated–which, it might be argued, is not necessarily a bad thing, but I’m still skeptical about the morality of not treating them as people nonetheless…
Is emotion a necessary and intrinsic part of sapience? Would you say that a television Vulcan is not sapient?
cool,my next paper has to be a total opinion paper:Polyamory Vrs mongomy
(if my spelling is stupid its because I have been up all night writing a term paper)
The mere threat of denying them a ruling of sapience might scare more than a few into abandoning their xenophobia.
It’s a salve to your moral quandary, nothing more. I’ve found there are few quick fixes to problems as fundamental as, for example, the existance of folks who exist in diametric opposition to the correct opinion. Strangely, they feel the same way about us. . . .
No, I would say that sapience isn’t all that’s required for humanity. Sapience covers logic and maybe self-awareness, but I think at least a little emotion is also necessary.
Well, hmm. A normal person is an emotional being; but let’s say someone experienced some kind of brain damage that erased his ability to experience emotion. He’d certainly experience life much more differently than everyone else, and would probably lose his ability to empathize with the people around him, but would he cease being a person?
Yeah, I think so.