ignorant question here, but: how should scientists resolve the ethical questions surrounding the topic of creating and/or experimenting on systems that are reasonably expected to be capable of intelligence and/or consciousness - or, are reasonably expected to, in a relatively consistent environment, naturally grow into a system innately capable of intelligence and/or consciousness?
And I'll slightly clarify to say that I'm more specifically interested in sort of...the first principles approach to the ethical consideration, as opposed to trying to ask just about the current status quo in modern legal systems.
As an aside, you may also note that I've explicitly avoided specifying whether such systems are composed from an organic/biological substrate or an inorganic/synthetic one. Until the hard problem of consciousness is solved, some part of me that enjoys dark humor occasionally toys with a thought experiment where neural nets may define and/or support a similar, though likely more limited form of consciousness, where in the face of our lack of a rigorous understanding of the nature of qualia, something like the back-propagation algorithm could possibly be phenomenologically similar to torture.
Probably not, obviously(?), but like I said, dark humor thought experiment :P
The brain in a jar is reasonably suspected to not be conscious. Maybe if we manage to provide it with external stimuli like in the Matrix movie, but that a bit of a stretch at this point in time.
>Using stem cells from four donors, the team made 314 brain organoids in 16 batches, with around 72 percent of them forming optic cups. These structures began to appear by the 30-day mark and matured within 50 days, which the team says is a similar time frame to when human embryos develop retinas. The study shows that the technique is reproducible, although further work will need to be done to keep them viable for longer, in order to use them for study.
[+] [-] haunter|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] miej|4 years ago|reply
And I'll slightly clarify to say that I'm more specifically interested in sort of...the first principles approach to the ethical consideration, as opposed to trying to ask just about the current status quo in modern legal systems.
As an aside, you may also note that I've explicitly avoided specifying whether such systems are composed from an organic/biological substrate or an inorganic/synthetic one. Until the hard problem of consciousness is solved, some part of me that enjoys dark humor occasionally toys with a thought experiment where neural nets may define and/or support a similar, though likely more limited form of consciousness, where in the face of our lack of a rigorous understanding of the nature of qualia, something like the back-propagation algorithm could possibly be phenomenologically similar to torture.
Probably not, obviously(?), but like I said, dark humor thought experiment :P
[+] [-] type0|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ogwh|4 years ago|reply
I don't remember the reasoning behind each side but perhaps this settles it.
[+] [-] type0|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 8eye|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] haunter|4 years ago|reply
>Using stem cells from four donors, the team made 314 brain organoids in 16 batches, with around 72 percent of them forming optic cups. These structures began to appear by the 30-day mark and matured within 50 days, which the team says is a similar time frame to when human embryos develop retinas. The study shows that the technique is reproducible, although further work will need to be done to keep them viable for longer, in order to use them for study.