The 3 Laws

[Razorofoccam]

1. A human being cannot injure a human being or, through inaction
Allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A human being need not obey the orders of another human being
except where such would conflict with the first law.

3. A human being may protect its own existance beyond the reqirements
of the first and second laws. Unless one wishes to sacrifice life for the continued existance of another.
As condoned by the inaction section of law #1

Occam

[gnrm23]

dr asimov, i presume?



heh...

[DiffKettleOfFish]

what a wonderful world it would be if we all lived by those laws, too...

[thumontico]

Why are humans exclusive in this ethical circle?

What choice is one left with if another does not obey such laws and must defend oneself?

[Razorofoccam]

Just a play on the three laws from asimovs books...
Revamped in a mediocre fashion in the new movie.

What happens if another does not follow the rules.?
Then you defend yourself...

There are no 'human' morals and ethics outside of human heads.
Just like fairness, beauty and love.
We agree on a code... [but many do not]

The core or rational morality is the old favourite..
"Do unto others as you would have then do unto you."
All else..including religious morality..are amendments to this.

Occam

[BlackGuardXIII]

And it harm none, do what you will.


Live and let live.

Do not do unto others that which you would not want done unto you.

[_CT]

your freedom ends where the freedom of somebody else starts.



(where the hell did i get that from heh o_O)

[Hikaru Zero]

your freedom ends where the freedom of somebody else starts.

That is a VERY good quote, CT. I have never seen that one before, but I've always believed in the idea that human being have inherent rights (whether they are God-given or not depends on what you believe in =P), such as the right to live. The limit of one's freedom occurs when that person tries to extend it in such a way that it infringes on the rights (inherent or otherwise) of another person. Unfortunately, people do this all the time, unchecked, and there is no way to fix it if the victim of the situation can't do anything about it.

Regardless, great quote.

[_CT]

Yep, I love it... I wish I could take credit for it, but I read it somewhere else in a book I think...
It applies to so much, from harming to hindering to irritating people, etc etc.

[thumontico]

Occam, what about the 'insane' or sadists or masochists?

How does this moral code apply to actions that do not directly affect others?
The Golden Rule is incapable of covering these and many other situations.

Hikaru, How can rights be inherent if there is no God to make them such (assuming nihilistic reality)

[BlackGuardXIII]

Occam, what about the 'insane' or sadists or masochists?

How does this moral code apply to actions that do not directly affect others?
The Golden Rule is incapable of covering these and many other situations.

Hikaru, How can rights be inherent if there is no God to make them such (assuming nihilistic reality)
'And it harm none, do what you will.'

I take this to mean self included.

The insane, s and m ers, etc. are exceptions. Every rule has some, it seems.

[Hikaru Zero]

Occam, what about the 'insane' or sadists or masochists?

How does this moral code apply to actions that do not directly affect others?
The Golden Rule is incapable of covering these and many other situations.

Hikaru, How can rights be inherent if there is no God to make them such (assuming nihilistic reality)

Simple logic, my friend. ;)

If we did not have the right to exist, we would not have been born into this world to begin with. All of us, by having the virtue of sentience, and by the virtue of having a physical body, have life. And by having life, we have the right to keep that life; whether it is a gift from above (or below), or whether it just sort of happened that way. Furthermore, we have the inherent right to freedom: That is, we have the inherent right to do anything that does not conflict with the freedom of others. Now, this right is often broken (slavery, etc.) just as the first one is (murder), but if you are purposefully limiting someone else from doing what they want (unless it's in the defense of your own inherent rights, or the inherent rights of others), then that is where your freedom ends; you are not free to take the lives of others, or to limit the freedom of another person.

Now, if you're nihilistic, you just don't care. The rights you or others have, be they inherent or otherwise, mean nothing to you. The rights definately still exist (and basic morality in all cultures is derived from them), you just don't care whether they exist or not.

If there is no God to give life, then life still just appeared on its own. Regardless of how life sprung up, it still did just that, and that inherently gives you the right to life.

[thumontico]

I still fail to see why rights can be inherent. You say being alive gives you the right to live. What do you form this assertion upon? I assume you form them on your personal ethics. What makes those ethics righteous? If morality and ethics are a product of thought, they do not exist inherently. You must derive them from experience and observations.

That is not my meaning of nihilism. Lack of absolutes in the area ethics was operative concept in my reference.

Now I agree all life has the right to live. But it is not inherent, for it would need some sort of objective source. The 'right' must be created and sustained by society and the individuals within it.

[Razorofoccam]

Occam, what about the 'insane' or sadists or masochists?

How does this moral code apply to actions that do not directly affect others?
The Golden Rule is incapable of covering these and many other situations.

Hikaru, How can rights be inherent if there is no God to make them such (assuming nihilistic reality)
Thumontico

Sadists and masochists tendencies are resolved by
a: masochists hurt themselves...That is their right.
b: Sadists either have permission from a victim..
A thing entrenched in our society but not oft spoken about..
Or they do not.
If they do not then they violate the inherent rights of others.
And those others may wield any power they wish to prevent
that violation.

Do you mean how the code may 'indirectly' effect others?
Like a child left fatherless because dad tried to gratuitously take
anothers life and was killed in the event?

That.. Is firstly the responsibillity of 'dad'
And secondly, the society that dad committed a tresspass against.
It should not have allowed the situation to reach that point.

There is NO golden rule...
Just the rule that works best..
That results in least loss of our inherent rights.

As to the insane

They, and the SO many that are borderline by social definition.
And that includes genius.
Are the variables in the system called the human race.
We do not even know what consciousness is.
So our definition of insanity is a house of cards built on sand..

Occam

[Razorofoccam]

I still fail to see why rights can be inherent. You say being alive gives you the right to live. What do you form this assertion upon? I assume you form them on your personal ethics. What makes those ethics righteous? If morality and ethics are a product of thought, they do not exist inherently. You must derive them from experience and observations.

That is not my meaning of nihilism. Lack of absolutes in the area ethics was operative concept in my reference.

Now I agree all life has the right to live. But it is not inherent, for it would need some sort of objective source. The 'right' must be created and sustained by society and the individuals within it.
Thumontico

You ask what is a right?
You say it needs an objective source?

Well WE exist objectively.
Or we could not say we do.

As objectve beings..We agree what is a LAW and through action of our physical beings...
We make phenomena that result in an objective reality we wish.

Our minds...A thing of objective reality...Bends reality to the will of the mind.
We are the objective source...
[of what we do]

Occam

[thumontico]

I disagree only in the hypocrisy of the value of human lives over other animals in your code. Because we are humans does not infer relation to only other humans. Unnecessary destruction of life is very apparent and accepted in this society, and that disturbs me.

Perhaps we are objective. But ethics are relative. It must be made known that an ACTUAL agreement must be made. Contract.

There is no objective source, for there would have to be a 'perfect' being from which they were thought. Such a being does not exist in reality. Absolute morals, however, do exist within a contractual society. But only within THAT society, verily.

[geckopelli]

Maybe we need a Frank Herbert-type gom jabbar test to see who qualifies as a human being.

There seem to be plenty of homo sapients out there desguised as "Human Beings"!

[Razorofoccam]

There is no objective source, for there would have to be a 'perfect' being from which they were thought. Such a being does not exist in reality. Absolute morals, however, do exist within a contractual society. But only within THAT society, verily.
Thumontico

Verily indeed

And thus we move up the ladder.
Societies.

Social morality.. pyongyang moraility is not geneva morality.

Are humans so stupid?

Occam

[Razorofoccam]

Pyongyang morality

Is why occam drags this thread to the fore

Occam

[heeh2]

man i seen that shit on "i robot"

[Razorofoccam]

I robot brushes against such concepts
It is about the status of a thinking mind...and qualification of such
Can a machine intelligence have moral status? YES, it can.

Occam

[heeh2]

i still dont understand what this post is about because these laws arnt any better than the ones already in affect that describe these 3 and more with much greater detail.....

so im still confused......is this about people, robots or just laws that one can choose to obey or defy, can be cracked by logic or what....whats going on

[Columbo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics

this tells you a lot about it
Asimov's Laws are perfect for plotting stories, but useless in real life. Some have argued that, since the military is a major source of funding for robotic research, it is unlikely such laws would be built into the design. SF author Robert Sawyer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sawyer) generalizes this argument to cover other industries, stating: The development of AI is a business, and businesses are notoriously uninterested in fundamental safeguards — especially philosophic ones. (A few quick examples: the tobacco industry, the automotive industry, the nuclear industry. Not one of these has said from the outset that fundamental safeguards are necessary, every one of them has resisted externally imposed safeguards, and none has accepted an absolute edict against ever causing harm to humans.)[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics#_note-26)
Maybe we need a Frank Herbert-type gom jabbar test to see who qualifies as a human being. There seem to be plenty of homo sapients out there desguised as "Human Beings"! Ha Ha ! thats the funniest thing I read in this thread

[Razorofoccam]

i still dont understand what this post is about because these laws arnt any better than the ones already in affect that describe these 3 and more with much greater detail.....

so im still confused......is this about people, robots or just laws that one can choose to obey or defy, can be cracked by logic or what....whats going on heeh2

'A HUMAN BEING' is the first words in post #1
It's an adaption of the asimov robotics laws to the human world.

And they are superior to what we have...
Private citizens are currently being frozen out of law enforcement
A theif can sue those they steal from.
A violent person can charge a defeneder of his/her home with 'excesive force'.
Many states in the US and occams Australia do not allow a person to
use whatever means needed to protect family.

Soon, if you dont call 911 and wait for rsponse YOU will be as much a criminal as the one that rapes and butchers your children.
IF YOU DEFEND YOURSELF WITH FORCE PROSCIBED BY OTHERS IN THEIR COMFORTABLE OFFICES.
Occam says if a guy comes in his house and grabs his kid.. with knife in hand. Occam will kill him..end of story.

Occam

[heeh2]

i guess people get so cought up with fineprint that they dont realize how simple it would be to create and enforce laws.....and people exploit the loupholes all the time....

[Columbo]

i guess people get so cought up with fineprint that they dont realize how simple it would be to create and enforce lawsNot true - It would be terribly difficult to write laws into a robot - it would lead to catachlysmic errors - see the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics

[Razorofoccam]

Ahem

'A HUMAN BEING' is the first words in post #1
It's an adaption of the asimov robotics laws to the human world.

There is no MI yet and wont be for quite some while.
Machine Intelligence is but placing it's first footstep

Occam spoke of humans, only.

Occam

[BlackGuardXIII]

I've read many accounts of dogs, and other animals exhibiting noble, selfless traits which it seems few humans share. For example, a police dog, after his master was shot, was shot in the face. He chased down the crook, and held him cornered until backup arrived to arrest him. He then died. Half his head was gone....

[Razorofoccam]

BG13

Greets friend..
again you post that which requires much thought..
How do you manage to draw so much emotion from occam with so few words?

thanks

Occam

[BlackGuardXIII]

'He made me so angry!'
'She depressed me so much.'
'That show bored me.'
etc.
I believe that those common phrases are misnomers. We don't have to get angry, depressed, bored, etc., we choose to. If not, we are giving power over ourselves to others, in which case we are still complicit in it.
You support me. You don't try to, and you don't mean to, but you do. If not for you, and a few others, I'd feel very alone on this thing we call the web.
Thank you my good sir, you are a gentleman and a scholar.
God be wit' ye.

[Columbo]

He chased down the crook, and held him cornered until backup arrived to arrest him. He then died. Half his head was goneSounds like a friggin horror story man, was his eye hanging down on a thread of nerves and part of his brain coming out etc - gory stuff man - no wonder the crim gave up - I think I woulda give up and wanted some time to think about that horror show the world just put on

[Razorofoccam]

Thank you my good sir, you are a gentleman and a scholar.
God be wit' ye.
BG13

That has yet to be proven. And if proved.. soon lost in the misama of altered history.
Occam feels as u do... maybe it is looking into the abyss too long, as
Nieschtze proposed. After a while, it looks back into you.
And ALL changes.

Occam

[ListenToTheBand]

BG13

That has yet to be proven. And if proved.. soon lost in the misama of altered history.
Occam feels as u do... maybe it is looking into the abyss too long, as
Nieschtze proposed. After a while, it looks back into you.
And ALL changes.

Occam
Your humility is dubious.
I can appreciate you non usage of "I" in most of your posts however...

But denial of ego does not necessarily suggest humility.

[Razorofoccam]

Please dont speak of my way of speaking
And occam will not speak of your............

As for occams humillity. You know me not.. have never met.. have hardly talked.
Dont pretend wisdom by judging another..
Dont put ones foot in the tigers cage.

You are 134 on list of people with 'issues' on occams use of language.
[over 8 years]
Occam prevailed in 134 cases... think smart.. think...
"better things to argue about"

Occam

[ListenToTheBand]

Please dont speak of my way of speaking
And occam will not speak of your............

Occam
speak of my....?

[BlackGuardXIII]

Not proven you say? And that is important because.......?
Friends need no proof, and enemies won't believe it anyway.

Is it humble to believe that one is no better than anyone, and is it any better or worse to feel that no one is any better than he?
I may be better than many others at one thing, but someone is bound to be better than I.
It doesn't mean the person is better.
In a world of individuals comparison is ludicrous.

[ListenToTheBand]

Not proven you say? And that is important because.......?
Friends need no proof, and enemies won't believe it anyway.

Is it humble to believe that one is no better than anyone, and is it any better or worse to feel that no one is any better than he?
I may be better than many others at one thing, but someone is bound to be better than I.
It doesn't mean the person is better.
In a world of individuals comparison is ludicrous.I agree with everything here except your second line, for how can one be an enemy of something they feel does not exist.

Perhaps those who believe view those who don't as an enemy. I cannot villianize something that I don't believe in. Being mindful of that allows me to still embrace those that do believe in god, even if they refuse to embrace me.

I will never challange the social teachings of Jesus, I will simply deny that he is god.

I guess calling me an athiest is somewhat inaccurate. I'm more of a humanist than anything.

[BlackGuardXIII]

I didn't literally mean enemy, so I should have found a better word. Maybe antagonist, detractor, critic.... I like critic, so lets go with that one.
"Be who you are and say what you mean, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter won't mind.' Dr. Suess