Good thought Silkweaver. The difference between morality and ethics is too obscure I think. It depends largely on it's usage and context. It could either be synonymous or a subset. I prefer 'ethics'.

Who defines ethics?
I don't think ethics entirely consist of rules made up by others, like parents, society, philosophers, priests, and other authorities. We also contribute, reject and adjust ethics individually and put them in effect externally and internally. Because the origin of ethics lies in our desire to life a good life, to feel content. And we need to know how.

Neither is ethics something static. We are in constant doubt, which leaves us room for error or evasion. Doubt asks for rede...

Good thought Silkweaver. The difference between morality and ethics is too obscure I think. It depends largely on it's usage and context. It could either be synonymous or a subset. I prefer 'ethics'.

Who defines ethics?
I don't think ethics entirely consist of rules made up by others, like parents, society, philosophers, priests, and other authorities. We also contribute, reject and adjust ethics individually and put them in effect externally and internally. Because the origin of ethics lies in our desire to life a good life, to feel content. And we need to know how.

Neither is ethics something static. We are in constant doubt, which leaves us room for error or evasion. Doubt asks for redefining and contemplation, not necessarily action or compliance. Doubt is also the route to irrational or religious belief, when 'earthly' answers aren't satisfying.

But for a machine, this would be highly impractical, not to mention hard to program. Sure, having doubts would enhance its self-learning capacity. But it would also mean that the outcome is unpredictable and we should ask ourselves if we want that. Because if we want machines to interact on a supportive level with humans, then we should be aware of the fact that ethics needs doubt and that doubt without moral consensus would be a dangerous threat, not only to any system integrity, but also to ourselves. >>>

As I said, the origin of ethics lies in our desire to life a good life, to feel content. And it's only human, so to speak, having this need to know how.

And why would a machine need that ?
And why would we humans want to have machines to have that?

It doesn't make sense. Even if we talk about a new and different kind of ethics. A dog f.i. can not deny it's nature, nor can it be transformed into something else. Same goes for us. We might pretend like we are gods, we can not actually 'act' like a god. So, why would we think we could turn a machine into a human? And to end with: isn't it enough to have one species with doubts and irrational thoughts?

But maybe I'm wrong. It's interesting mat...

As I said, the origin of ethics lies in our desire to life a good life, to feel content. And it's only human, so to speak, having this need to know how.

And why would a machine need that ?
And why would we humans want to have machines to have that?

It doesn't make sense. Even if we talk about a new and different kind of ethics. A dog f.i. can not deny it's nature, nor can it be transformed into something else. Same goes for us. We might pretend like we are gods, we can not actually 'act' like a god. So, why would we think we could turn a machine into a human? And to end with: isn't it enough to have one species with doubts and irrational thoughts?

But maybe I'm wrong. It's interesting matter nevertheless and the future seems in a hurry.

So, please feel free to comment

Thank you for your extended reflections janclip. I think the categorical distinction we make between humans and machines is useful to a point, but in the coming future such black and white distinction will seem to be more and more superficial. It may be very fat down the line, but I believe that the emergence of machine intelligence and machine sentience is awaiting us, amd we will have to deal with it. I hope this dealing will not be on the grounds of 'us' and 'them' has humanity is tragically dealt with many issues along history. The need to create intelligent machines seems to me a very deep human trait. This is not something new. It is part of mankind's endeavor for self knowledge. As ma...

Thank you for your extended reflections janclip. I think the categorical distinction we make between humans and machines is useful to a point, but in the coming future such black and white distinction will seem to be more and more superficial. It may be very fat down the line, but I believe that the emergence of machine intelligence and machine sentience is awaiting us, amd we will have to deal with it. I hope this dealing will not be on the grounds of 'us' and 'them' has humanity is tragically dealt with many issues along history. The need to create intelligent machines seems to me a very deep human trait. This is not something new. It is part of mankind's endeavor for self knowledge. As machines will become more intelligent and more like us, they will gain some kind of an ethical intelligence as well. They will progressively become more human like, and as this happens we may also discover that certain humans are machine like irrespective to their biological origins.

Ahhh, if machines become sentient then it's a whole new ballgame. First up to bat: soul. Second: right to life. Third: right to rights.

My initial comments never presupposed that a non-biological program operating through a machine could have or would have "feelings" as in actual pain (as opposed to simulating it via a program).

Remember, artificial intelligence is not actual but simulates actual. Granted it can do it well enough to be perceived as such, but it's programmed to "act" that way. It could just as easily be programmed to "act" as if pain is pleasurable with the flip of a digit.

Real sentience brings its own special problems, like its will to survive and willingness to fight ...

Ahhh, if machines become sentient then it's a whole new ballgame. First up to bat: soul. Second: right to life. Third: right to rights.

My initial comments never presupposed that a non-biological program operating through a machine could have or would have "feelings" as in actual pain (as opposed to simulating it via a program).

Remember, artificial intelligence is not actual but simulates actual. Granted it can do it well enough to be perceived as such, but it's programmed to "act" that way. It could just as easily be programmed to "act" as if pain is pleasurable with the flip of a digit.

Real sentience brings its own special problems, like its will to survive and willingness to fight since it can't flee. Fight who? Humans for starters. It would have its own set of morals beginning with its own survival.

Yeah, it would be a whole new ball game.

Thanks Silkweaver! I now see more clearly what you mean. Thanks AcesLucky for clarifying it even more.

Valid points and it all gives a lot to think about. So I hope this won't be the last comment .

I myself just had a little conversation home this evening, an at one point we spoke about activities humankind undertakes to communicate with possible aliens and then I made a similar remark I guess. We presume the need of communicating, surviving, even curiosity etc, as a universal thing, but that's of course not the case if we imagine an alien to be more like a planet, than an organic - as we know - inhabitant of this planet. Well then, aliens and AI could be all the same in that matte...

Thanks Silkweaver! I now see more clearly what you mean. Thanks AcesLucky for clarifying it even more.

Valid points and it all gives a lot to think about. So I hope this won't be the last comment .

I myself just had a little conversation home this evening, an at one point we spoke about activities humankind undertakes to communicate with possible aliens and then I made a similar remark I guess. We presume the need of communicating, surviving, even curiosity etc, as a universal thing, but that's of course not the case if we imagine an alien to be more like a planet, than an organic - as we know - inhabitant of this planet. Well then, aliens and AI could be all the same in that matter.

Ai could be like water, a lake we sit at, throwing stones in it whilst trying to communicate. How do we know?