Before and until we have achieved AI singularity and personhood, a machine is different from a purely natural phenomenon in the sense that the former is necessarily a human agent and the latter is not.
By drawing a line on the sand between human agents you agree to treat as such and human agents that you do not, you are assuming that human rights aren't unalienable, but depend on particular means to exercise them.
As an engineer, I don't believe in any substantial difference between my limbs, my construction tools, my internal and external memory, my e-mail account and my bank account. All of them are means in my possession I have an unalienable right to use individually in combination in order to achieve any lawful goal. The Bill of Rights reflects it in the First (regarding information messages) and in the Second (regarding physical objects).
I understand that it's possible not to consider property rights fundamental and all others either derivative or not rights at all. It is, however, one of the only two logically consistent ways to make sure that the rights of a random Peter and a random Paul never come into conflict. The other one is not to believe that humans have any rights at all, which neither of us would likely be willing to accept.
If you'd like to continue, I'll have to ask "your place or my place" because I am not quite sure we're going to fit within the intended topics of dw_news.
no subject
Yes.
Before and until we have achieved AI singularity and personhood, a machine is different from a purely natural phenomenon in the sense that the former is necessarily a human agent and the latter is not.
By drawing a line on the sand between human agents you agree to treat as such and human agents that you do not, you are assuming that human rights aren't unalienable, but depend on particular means to exercise them.
As an engineer, I don't believe in any substantial difference between my limbs, my construction tools, my internal and external memory, my e-mail account and my bank account. All of them are means in my possession I have an unalienable right to use individually in combination in order to achieve any lawful goal. The Bill of Rights reflects it in the First (regarding information messages) and in the Second (regarding physical objects).
I understand that it's possible not to consider property rights fundamental and all others either derivative or not rights at all. It is, however, one of the only two logically consistent ways to make sure that the rights of a random Peter and a random Paul never come into conflict. The other one is not to believe that humans have any rights at all, which neither of us would likely be willing to accept.
If you'd like to continue, I'll have to ask "your place or my place" because I am not quite sure we're going to fit within the intended topics of