social sciences

Sexbots are Persons, Too?

January 6, 2014 by Michael LaBossiere 23 Comments

In my previous essays on sexbots I focused on versions that are clearly mere objects. If the sexbot is merely an object, then the morality of having sex with it is the same as having sex with any other object (such as a vibrator or sex doll). As such, a human could do anything to such a sexbot without the sexbot being wronged. This is because such sexbots would lack the moral status needed to be wronged. Obviously enough, the sexbots of the near future will be in the class of objects. However, science fiction has routinely featured intelligent, human-like robots (commonly known as androids). Intelligent beings, even artificial ones, would seem to have an excellent claim on being persons. In terms of sorting out when a robot should be treated as person, the reasonable test is the Cartesian test. Descartes, in his discussion of whether or not animals have minds, argued that the definitive indicator of having a mind is the ability to use true language. This notion was explicitly applied to machines by Alan Turing in his famous Turing test. The basic idea is that if a person cannot distinguish between a human and a computer by engaging in a natural language conversation via text, then the computer would have passed the test.

Crudely put, the idea is that if something talks, then it is reasonable to regard it as a person. Descartes was careful to distinguish between what would be mere automated responses and actual talking:

How many different automata or moving machines can be made by the industry of man […] For we can easily understand a machine’s being constituted so that it can utter words, and even emit some responses to action on it of a corporeal kind, which brings about a change in its organs; for instance, if touched in a particular part it may ask what we wish to say to it; if in another part it may exclaim that it is being hurt, and so on. But it never happens that it arranges its speech in various ways, in order to reply appropriately to everything that may be said in its presence, as even the lowest type of man can do.

While Descartes does not deeply explore the moral distinctions between beings that talk (that have minds) and those that merely make noises, it does seem reasonable to regard a being that talks as a person and to thus grant it the moral status that goes along with personhood. This, then, provides a means to judge whether an advanced sexbot is a person or not: if the sexbot talks, it is a person. If it is a mere automaton of the sort Descartes envisioned, then it is a thing and would presumably lack moral status.

Having sex with a sexbot that can pass the Cartesian test would certainly seem to be morally equivalent to having sex with a human person. As such, whether the sexbot freely consented or not would be a morally important matter. If intelligent robots were constructed as sex toys, this would be the moral equivalent of enslaving humans for the sex trade (which is, of course, actually done). If such sexbots were mistreated, this would also be morally on par with mistreating a human person.

It might be argued that an intelligent robot would not be morally on par with a human since it would still be a thing. However, aside from the fact that the robot would be a manufactured being and a human is (at least for now) a natural being, there would be seem to be no relevant difference between them. The intelligence of the robot would seem to be what it important, not its physical composition.

It might also be argued that passing the Cartesian/Turing Test would not prove that a robot is self-aware and hence it would still be reasonable to hold that it is not a person. It would seem to be a person, but would merely be acting like a person. While this is a point well worth considering, the same sort of argument could be made about humans. Humans (sometimes) behave in an intelligent manner, but there is no way to determine if another human is actually self-aware. This is the classic problem of other minds: all I can do is see your behavior and infer that you are self-aware based on analogy to my own case. Hence, I do not know that you are aware since I cannot be you. From your perspective, the same is true about me. As such, if a robot acted in an intelligent manner, it would seem that it would have to be regarded as being a person on those grounds. To fail to do so would be a mere prejudice in favor of the organic.

In reply, some people believe that other people can be used as they see fit. Those who would use a human as a thing would see nothing wrong about using an intelligent robot as a mere thing.

The obvious response to this is to use reversing the situation: no sane person would wish to be treated as a mere thing and hence they cannot consistently accept using other people in that manner. The other obvious reply is that such people are simply evil.

Those with religious inclinations would probably bring up the matter of the soul. But, the easy reply is that we would have as much evidence that robots have souls as we do for humans having souls. This is to say, no evidence at all.

One of the ironies of sexbots (or companionbots) is that the ideal is to make a product that is as like a human as possible. As such, to the degree that the ideal is reached, the “product” would be immoral to sell or own. This is a general problem for artificial intelligence: they are intended to be owned by people to do onerous tasks, but to the degree they are intelligent, they would be slaves.

It could be countered that it is better that evil humans abuse sexbots rather than other humans. However, it is not clear that would actually be a lesser evil—it would just be an evil against a synthetic person rather than an organic person.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Discerning Lies

December 6, 2013 by Michael LaBossiere 4 Comments

In my profession, I am lied to on a regular basis. Since I have been a professor for quite some time, I have learned a fair amount about the ways of lying. It also helps that I teach critical thinking and include a section on assessing credibility.

Interestingly enough, many people think that they can discern whether or not a person is lying by examining their behavior. This is presumably based on the assumption that there are behavioral clues to indicate when a person is lying. These include the usual signs of nervousness or anxiety such as a failure to make eye contact, sweaty palms, seeming tense, and so on. Unfortunately for those who need to discern lies from truth, such behavior is not actually an indicator of lying. People lie without showing any signs of nervousness and people show these signs when they are not lying.

One argument for this can be based on the obvious fact that there are plenty of successful liars. As has been said, a successful con artist will seem quite honest-after all, if he seemed dishonest he would not be successful. As such, it is quite reasonable to believe that there are people who lie without showing the signs that a liar is alleged to show.

Naturally, it might be countered that some people are skilled at lying and show no signs of their deceit or that others are merely bad at detecting said behavior (or both). This is, of course, worth considering.

My own experience has been that people are generally good at lying without showing any physical signs they are lying. Over the years, I have lost count of the number of times students have lied to me with perfectly calm voices, solid eye contact and no sign of discomfort. The only reason I knew they were lying was because I had clear evidence of this. One of my most amazing experiences was when a student came to my office to say that I had lost her test. I showed her that I had counted the tests, had everyone sign in, and also collected an assignment. All tests were accounted for, she had not signed in and I had no assignment for her. She left, then came back to say that she missed the test because she was sick. Her behavior was completely normal-no change of tone, no nervous behavior and so on. I said that she would need to bring an excuse from the Dean. She left, then came back a bit later to tell me that she had been in a car accident, which is why she missed the test. I again said she would need an excuse from the Dean. Now, it might be claimed that I was oblivious to incredibly subtle behavioral clues that she was lying that someone else might have caught. However, she showed no discernible anxiety-she merely conveyed an air of boredom and disdain. It seemed like the whole thing was routine to her and she was apparently put out by my failure to simply go along with her.

After a spike in students trying to change answers or names on returned tests, I started taking photos of all the answer sheets with my iPod touch. When a student would come in with an exam claiming that I had made a mistake, failed to record a test grade or that I had lost a test, I’ll whip out my iPod and look through the photos. Interestingly, the students never showed any signs of being nervous-even when the photos exposed a lie. It seemed like lying was but a tactic that had failed and they took it in stride with no change in behavior.

It might be countered that I was dealing with a few master liars or that I am simply incapable of basic observations regarding anxiety. In regards to the first, it is certainly possible that I have encountered many master liars over the years. After all, I have about 300 students a year and have been teaching for a couple decades, so I could certainly be encountering people who are unusually skilled at lies. It is also possible that although I am capable of observing behavior, I simply cannot discern anxiety caused by lies or other lying behavior, although I can detect other anxiety just fine (such as that shown by students who are worried about failing).

I do not want to convey the impression that my students are unusually prone to lying. Based on my experience with other people, they seem to be quite normal and most of my students do not lie to me (if only because there is no need to do so).

Interestingly enough, I do see what would be regarded as behavioral indicators of lying from people who I know are not lying. After all, signs of anxiety or stress can result from many causes that have nothing at all to do with lying. Also, some people just normally exhibit behavior that is wrongly taken as signs of lying, such as being unwilling to make eye contact, nervous laughter, and seeming tense.

Not surprising, the only really reliable way to tell when people are lying is to have actual evidence indicating they are saying untrue things. This is not to say that people never show physical signs they are lying-sometimes people do show nervousness or guilt when lying. But, trying to go by the alleged behavioral clues is a recipe for getting things wrong.

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Disparity

May 30, 2012 by Michael LaBossiere 75 Comments

Image representing Mark Zuckerberg as depicted... — Image via CrunchBase

While the economic meltdown did considerable damage, two interesting side-effects were that it led to serious consideration of economic issues and gave rise to a loose movement critical of business as usual. Not surprisingly, one core point of political and moral concern is the income inequality in the United States. While such inequality has always been present, what has made this an ever greater concern is that fact the disparity has significantly increased.

While income has been increasing in the United States, it has been especially great for the top 1%. Their after-tax income increased 275% from 1979 to 2007. This is in sharp contrast with the increase enjoyed by the other economic classes. The next economic class, the top 20% (excluding the top 1%) had a 65% increase in earnings. Those in the bottom 20% also saw an increase, but this was only 18%.

Given that all the classes saw an increase in after-tax income, it could be wondered why there might be any ground for concern. After all, if everyone is making more, then things would seem to be good.

The obvious reply is, of course, that while everyone is (on average) getting more, some people (the 1%) are getting very much more. In terms of income share, the lower 80% saw a decline of 2-3 percentage points while the folks in the top 20% enjoyed an increase of 10 percentage points (thanks mostly to the gains of the 1%). This does seem to provide some grounds for concern.

To use an obvious analogy, imagine a business. Suppose that everyone got raises, but Sally(already the highest paid) got 275%, Bob 65%, and Sam 18%. While getting a raise is good (actually, being employed at all is good these days), Sam might have some concerns about why Bob and Sally got so much more. Bob would also probably be somewhat concerned about the fact that while he got more than Sam, he got far less than Sally. After all, such disparity does provide at least some grounds for worrying that something is not right. Perhaps, for example, Sally’s raise was the result of her connections and some (or much) of her increase was taken from what was actually generated by Bob and Sam.

However, Sam and Bob’s concerns could be unfounded. After all, each person might have received exactly the deserved raise. Perhaps, for example, while Sam was somewhat more productive, Sally was vastly more productive. Or perhaps Sally invented something that the company patented and was properly rewarded. As long as Sally exceeded Sam and Bob based on a legitimate standard or standards (such as productivity or inventing things), then the disparity could be reasonably justified on the basis that it was earned fairly. This also assumes, of course, that Sally, Sam and Bob were working under comparable conditions. If, for example, Sally was given an abundance of assistance and support while Sam was required to do without, then this would be a relevant factor.

Turning back to the general income disparity, perhaps the 1% earned their 275% increase by simply outdoing the lower classes in ways that would legitimately justify the disparity. As might be imagined, there is considerable dispute over what justifies income. Fortunately, this is a relative situation in terms of comparing the classes. As such, whatever standards (such as productivity or inventiveness) that are used to justify an increase could be applied to all the classes (with some likely exceptions). As such, if the 1% did proportionally better than the 99% in terms of these standards, then the disparity could be justified. Provided, of course, that the conditions were comparable.

One common way to justify the disparity is to point to the massively profitable start up technology companies. These companies, such as Google, have created quite a few millionaires (and some billionaires). So, for example, it could be argued that someone like Mark Zuckerberg earned his billions through his efforts. In contrast, it could be contended that the young people of Zuckerberg’s age who died in service to their country legitimately earned considerably less (even taking into account the “free” funeral). After all, they could have created Facebook and become billionaires instead of going off to die in foreign lands. The same underlying principle would, of course apply across the board. For example, while Mitt Romney makes vastly more than most Americans, it could thus be asserted that he justly earned his large income. Those who elected to be firefighters, police, teachers, nurses, professors, electricians and so on also earn their money, but they justly earn considerably less. As such, the disparity is justified.

Of course, one might suspect that this sort of stock justification is circular. Those who make more income are justified in making more because they make more. Likewise, the 1% are justified in their 275% increase because they made 275% more income. This seems to boil down to saying that they earn more because they earn more. This is like is like questioning a person who has taken a huge slice of cake and being told that her slice is big because it is a big slice. This sort of circularity fails to satisfy. What is needed is not just an appeal to the obvious fact that people who make more do make more, but rather some justification for the disparity.

One way to counter this is to argue that I have it wrong. The correct view, at least when it comes to earned income, is that people like Mark Zuckerberg generate vast amounts of money and hence are entitled to a significant cut of that money because of the value they generate. This is not, it could be argued, circular. It is like a cook who makes a bigger cake-his slice would thus be bigger. Those who do not create as much profit, such as Captain Jesse Ozbat (killed on May 20, 2012 at the age of 28) justly earn less. Sticking with the cake analogy, those who bake small cakes get smaller slices.

While this might seem to justify the disparity, it actually seems to simply reveal the foundation of the disparity. To be specific, the broader disparity exists (in part) because of the disparity in value placed on specific jobs. So, for example, Zuckerberg became a billionaire because of the way he was rewarded for what he does. Likewise for the millionaires Mitt Romney and Barrack Obama. Those who are mere teachers, professors, soldiers, electricians, plumbers, roofers, farmers and so on are rewarded to a vastly smaller degree because of the far lesser value placed on what they do. This disparity at the individual level obviously enough provides the foundation for the disparity that exists when considering the various economic classes in the United States. It is, I think, not unreasonable to inquire whether or not the value system that governs income is just or not. It might, of course, be quite just-but this is not something that can simply be assumed.

My Amazon author page.

Can Everyone be Wealthy?

October 20, 2011 by Michael LaBossiere 29 Comments

Emma Goldman (the tattoo, not the person)

It is sometimes asked whether or not everyone can be wealthy. This depends, obviously enough, on what is meant by “wealthy.” Determining what “wealthy” means requires sorting out the nature of wealth.

As might be imagined, there is a fair amount of debate about the true nature of personal wealth. While this oversimplifies things, a fairly standard view of wealth is that it consists of the net economic value of a person’s assets minus their liabilities. To be a bit more specific, these assets typically include possessions (cars, guns, art, computers, books, appliances, and so on), monetary resources (cash, for example) and capital resources. Not everyone buys into the stock view, of course. For example, Emma Goldman claimed that “real wealth consists in things of utility and beauty, in things that help to create strong, beautiful bodies and surroundings inspiring to live in. But if man is doomed to wind cotton around a spool, or dig coal, or build roads for thirty years of his life, there can be no talk of wealth.” As another example, some thinkers include non-economic goods (such as knowledge) within the realm of wealth. To keep thing simple and within our current economic system, I will limit the discussion to the “stock” account of wealth (that is, economic assets).

In our current economic system, it is obviously not the case that everyone is wealthy. When this fact is brought up, some folks like to claim that even the poor of today are wealthier than the wealthy of the past. In some ways, this is true. After all, the typically poor person in North America or the United Kingdom has possessions that not even the greatest pharaoh or Caesar possessed (such as a microwave oven). In many other ways, this is not true. After all, a wealthy noble of the past would have land, structures, gold, art, and so on that would make him a wealthy man even today. Also, there is the obvious fact that there are poor people today who are as poor as the poorest people in human history in that they possess just the tatters on their backs and just enough food to not die (at least for the moment). In any case, the fact that the sum total of wealth of humanity is greater now than in the past (even taking into account that there are so many more of us) does not tell us much beyond that (such as whether the current distribution is just or whether we can all be wealthy or not).

Getting back to the main subject, what needs to be determined is what is meant by “wealthy.” As noted above, I am limiting my discussion to economic wealth, but a bit more needs to be said.

In some ways, wealth can be seen as being analogous to height. A person has height if they have any vertical measurement at all. Likewise, a person has wealth if she has any economic assets in excess of her liabilities. This could be as little as a single penny or as much as billions of dollars. Obviously, everyone could (in theory) have wealth, just as everyone can have height. But, of course, a person is not wealthy just because s/he has wealth, no more than a person is tall simply because s/he has height. On the other side, lacking wealth is described as being destitute and lacking height is described as being short.

Continuing the analogy, being wealthy or wealthier can be seen as analogous to being tall or taller. Being tall means having more height than average and being taller than another means having more height than that person. Likewise being wealthy would seem to mean having more wealth than average and being wealthier than another means having more wealth than that person. If this view is correct, then we cannot all be wealthy anymore than we can all be tall. Obviously, we could all have the same height or the same wealth, but the terms “tall” and “wealthy” would have no application in these cases. As such, we cannot all be wealthy-if we had the same amount of wealth, then no one would be wealthy.

It could be contended that being wealthy is not a matter of comparison to the wealth of other people, but rather a matter of having economic assets that meet a specified level. Depending on how that level was specified, then everyone could (in theory) be wealthy. Of course, the question of whether or not such a level should be considered wealthy or not would be a matter of debate.

It might be contended that focusing on whether or not everyone can be wealthy is not as important (or interesting) as the question of whether or not everyone can be well-off in the sense of having adequate resources for a healthy and meaningful existence. This is, of course, a subject for another time.

Wealth

October 19, 2011 by Michael LaBossiere 53 Comments

WTP made the following comment:

Mike, I will ask again…If, as you assert, the amount of wealth is constant and we are all fighting over the pieces of a finite pie…There are more people alive today than ever before and they are all wealthier than those in the relative hierarchic economic layers of the past. Where did this extra wealth come from? Once we get through that perhaps we can discuss: Where does wealth come from? How is it created?

I assured him that I would answer these questions, so here it goes.

One rather important matter is what is meant by “wealth.” After all, this is a normative (value) term and tends to be a matter of considerable dispute. For example, does wealth include only physical and economic property in the strictest sense, or should it also include other things of value, such as knowledge? However, to keep it simple I will go with a fairly stock account of wealth and take it to refer to items of economic value in a fairly limited sense. As such, wealth would consist of such things as valuable natural resources (oil, gold, silver, wood, water, land, and so on), capital resources, money, and physical possessions (such as guns, cars, works of art, computers, books, and such).

The amount of wealth is not constant and I do not believe that I ever claimed it was constant. Rather, my point has been that wealth seems to be a zero-sum game. That is, at any given moment, there is a finite amount of wealth and any increase in my wealth would entail a decrease in the wealth available to or possessed by another. For example, the land I own is land others do not own, thus reducing the wealth available to others (if only by a miniscule amount).

The sum total of wealth can, obviously increase. To use an obvious example, there are far more houses now than ever before. As far as where they came from, they were obviously built by people using material resources that have presumably been around since the beginning (matter & energy after all, change form but cannot be created nor destroyed-at least on some accounts).

You are right that people alive today are, in general, more wealthy than their counterparts in the past. It is also true that poorer people today are relatively wealthier than people who would have been considered wealthy in the past. One factor in this change is that advances in technology and the rise of a consumer economy mean that people have access to far more things and, of course, there is a significant motivation to sell people said things.

In terms of where the extra wealth has come from, giving a complete picture would require several books. However, I can briefly discuss some major causes.

First, there is the development of new technology. As noted above, one impact of this is that it provides more stuff to own (and hence more wealth relative to the past). Today, for example, I have a plethora of things my ancestors did not, such as a phone, a truck, lights, a Kindle, a modem, a router, a laptop, a flashlight, a fridge and so on. Another impact is that workers become more efficient (or can be replaced). So, instead of having to make things like a bow, spear, and clothing with great personal labor, weapons and other items can be mass produced by machinery-hence there will be more stuff for less effort, thus allowing an increase in wealth.

Second, there was the development of new financial systems which allow the “creation” of wealth by various means (some of which seem to be rather destabilizing to the general economy) such as investing, credit default swapping, junk bonds, corporate raiding and so on. A more complicated and larger economic system allows for there to be more monetary wealth-although this sometimes seems to be “creating” wealth out of nothing.

As far as where wealth itself comes from, that depends on the specific sort of wealth you are talking about.

Material wealth obviously originated in the creation/origin of the universe (that is where the stuff comes from). Once we had the earth and people, people could start acquiring material goods like land and resources. These resources can be made more valuable by the addition of labor, thus creating wealth. They can also be made more valuable by other means, such as creating scarcity and controlling pricing. These material goods can be acquired in various ways, fair and foul. The classic method is, of course, conquest.

Given that the earth is finite, the material wealth is also finite, thus creating a zero-sum game. To use an obvious example, any land I own is less land that other people can own. Everyone could, of course, be fairly well off. After all, a finite amount of wealth divided among a finite number of people could still allow for people to have a fairly robust amount of stuff. Obviously, however, this is not the sort of world we live in: very few people have most of the stuff.

Monetary wealth is obviously a social construct: we made up the financial game and the “creation” of wealth depends on the sort of game being played at any given time. For example, some folks “created” wealth by clever repackaging of toxic assets. Other people “create” wealth by working and investing their money (which is supposed to give them more money). In many ways, this is “fictional” wealth in that we are literally just making this stuff up and its value depends entirely on how far we are willing to all play make-believe. Yes, I play the game-it is a convenient way to handle exchanges in some ways. But, I always remember that it is just a game we are playing (I work, I get some paper, I hand the paper to someone and they give me an apple).

In theory, there could be an infinite amount of money (not physical currency, of course). However, simply creating more money will not actually create more wealth-it would mainly just result in inflation. As such, money is also effectively a finite resource and the more I have, the less there is available for others (in a practical sense).

Thus, wealth is effectively finite and we are in a zero sum game.

Just Doesn't Get It

August 9, 2011 by Michael LaBossiere Leave a Comment

Rhetoric of Reason — Image via Wikipedia

When it comes to persuading people, a catchy bit of rhetoric tends to be far more effective than an actual argument. One rather neat bit of rhetoric that seems to be favored by Tea Party folks and others is the “just doesn’t get it” device.

As a rhetorical device, it is typically used with the intent of dismissing or rejecting a person’s (or group’s) claims or views. For example, someone might say “liberals just don’t get it. They think raising taxes is the way to go.” The idea is that the audience is supposed to accept that liberals are wrong about tax increases on the grounds that its has been asserted that they “just don’t get it.”Obviously enough, saying “they just don’t get it” does not prove that a claim or view is in error.

This method can also be cast as a fallacy, specifically an ad hominem. The idea is that a claim should be rejected based on a personal attack, namely the assertion that the person does not get it. It can also be seen as a genetic fallacy when used against a group.

This method is also sometimes used with the intent of showing that a view is correct, usually by claiming that someone (or some group) that (allegedly) disagrees is wrong. For example, someone might say “liberals just don’t get it. Raising taxes on the job creators hurts the economy.” Obviously enough, saying that someone (or some group) “just doesn’t get it” does not prove (or disprove) anything. What is needed is, obviously enough, evidence that the claim in question is true. In the example, this would involve showing that raising taxes on the job creators hurts the economy.

In general, the psychology behind this method seems to be that when a person says (or hears)”X doesn’t get it”, he means (or takes it to mean)”X does not believe what I believe” and thus rejects X’s claim. Obviously enough, this is not good reasoning.

It is worth noting that if it can be shown that someone “just doesn’t get it”, then this would not be mere rhetoric or a fallacy. However, what would be needed is evidence that the person is in error and thus does not, in fact, get it.

social sciences

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: