Emergence is a maker. Even our concept of Einstein’s spacetime is in reality an emergent overlay of electrino and positrino structures at relatively low energy and forming what is called a Bose-Einstein condensate.
In this new era of understanding of nature, based on two immutable point charge particle types, it is natural to question how shall we define an individual under the law? This is a very important question, both historically and as we enter the age of intelligent artificial and hybrid life.
We associate humanity with individuality, due to our evolutionary biological path, but that is only one of many possible mappings of beings to individuality. Those in power can decide to legally grant or deny the rights of individual to other structures made of electrinos and positrinos. It seems inevitable, in my opinion, that law will evolve to grant legal status of individual to persons that emerge from the technologies of artificial intelligence infused into a physical bio-robotic incarnation.
I think we need to take a step down off our high perch and consider what is artificial and what is natural. It should be quite clear that evolution has lead to intelligent biological life forms which themselves have created the technologies that will soon lead to non-biological or hybrid-biological forms of intelligent life. Upgradable technology presents tremendous advantages in terms of overall health and longevity.
Do biological human beings have some innate claim on the concept of individual under the law? Surely as biological beings increasingly replace or augment themselves with supranatural technology, they won’t lose their rights as an individual. Likewise, it seems quite likely to me that some nation states might grant individuality under the law to entirely supranatural beings. Each of those individual is also made of electrinos and positrinos and meets the qualification for individual under the law.
Just because two things are both made of electrinos and positrinos doesn’t put them on some level of moral equivalence. The huge granite boulders in my yard are made of more electrinos and positrinos than I, yet they are not individuals under the law. My point is actually the reverse, to crumble the clay feet of our high horse that gives us some presumed magical superiority over future artificial intelligence beings.
Let’s return to the subject line question, “Are We AI?” Biological human beings are incredibly inefficient, weak, vulnerable, short lived, need hourly maintenance, and generally require a lot of pampering as intelligent beings might go. Compare versus an intelligent iBot that could draw energy and 3D print any necessary biotechnology matter directly from spacetime aether, including repair, reconfiguration, and reproduction. Perhaps that is a lot to imagine, but suffice it to say intelligent individual beings will be designed to be far superior to biological human beings.
Humans are an exemplary biological development that has led to the first known (to us) intelligent individuals in the universe. However, the biological form is easily surpassible with technology. Therefore, a superior intelligence in the universe would be unlikely to expressly simulate human beings in biological form and endow them with AI intelligence. So, no, we are not AI.
To be clear, I have no idea if the universe as a whole might be a monte carlo simulation with point charges of a given density and energy and certain rules of physics. How could anyone ever know that? It seems so unlikely, but scale matters. Could there be another layer below electrinos and positrinos? There are still unanswered questions such as where and when did point charges arise, and why is there a right hand rule, and why do opposites attract and likes repel?
J Mark Morris : Boston : Massachusetts