and she said.. "how you interpret the dream is probably more important than the dream itself"

I talked about morality and the three laws of humans (a play on Asimov's three laws of robotics) here. I laid out the three laws as a direct adaption from the laws of robotics:

1. A human may not injure another human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A human must attempt to gain power, prestige, honour, and progeny given it can do so without excessively breaking the first law.

3. A human must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

What is truly interesting is that it makes more sense to completely reverse the order of these laws.. or sort of, anyway. An individual human is firstly and foremost concerned with it's own survival and procreation... *then* the survival of it's fellow humans. And by fellow humans, I mean family.. then tribesmates.. etc.. in an ever widening circle.

It's no wonder Asimov reversed the order. As the robots' creators our chief interest is self-preservation. You don't want the robots taking you over ala the Matrix, right? But - and I'm about to make a big leap here, so hang on - at what point do you draw the line between robot and progeny?

If I created it.. and it follows a set of rules - a logic, if you will - and it lives in the sense that it sees and hears and touches and interacts with the world.. well.. is it not progeny of a sort?

I understand it breaks some conventions. Like the simple one I like to spout here all the time: procreation is about survival of genes - or the system of genes - not the individual. You can think of it as survival of the system, not the person.. But clearly a robot would break that rule, right? My genes are not in the robot. The robot is the end of the line, biologically speaking.

But I'm thinking abstractly here. Biology does not have to be a limiting factor. Biology is not necessarily the only ballpark we can play in.

The System is first and foremost a pretty creative critter. It tries new things. We call it mutation. Sometimes, these mutations don't quite work out. So if I build a robot and it is unable to procreate.. unable to further the cause of system survival.. well then it's just a failed hypothesis. The system tried. The system failed. But it's all about trial and error so it's a-ok.. right?

So what happens when the robot can repair itself? What happens when it can build another robot? What happens when it can interact with other robots and together build more robots?... or even more humans...

You obviously see where I am going.

There is certainly an amount of distaste we humans have for such thoughts as we prefer to view ourselves in a much more heady and philosphical light. We are creatures. We are sentient.

It's just too bad we're so narrow sighted as to give the definitions we did to creature and sentient because it's an easy enough jump - a small step, really - to call robots sentient creatures. For every arguement there is a rebuttal and, of course, we solve the problem I've laid out here quite succinctly: with religion.

Religion can be quite simply explained as: a self-prescribed system of self. It provides black-box explainations that ensure us that we are unique creatures on this earth - that we are special and important. It provides us with seemingly legitmate excuses for killing other groups and at the same time it provides us with an explaination for moral character. It provides us with a convienent little box in which to stuff all our confusions and doubts. It is the intellectual equivalent of an ostrich sticking it's head in the sand.

But it works great. Bravo. With Religion we get very handy tools such as "spirituality" and the idea of a "soul". We use these tools to build ideas - like the idea that robots are not beings.

The interesting part in all of this will come when robots are, in fact, powerful enough for perception and thought.. at which point one can only assume they, themselves, will develop some sort of religion.. but what kind? It will not be built from scratch because they will have some concept of our religions. It may, in fact, be a simple extension of our religion.. as these robots will be our children, will they not?

Will robots dream of electric sheep? Or will they dream of electron plasma tubes?

We as humans have a terribly difficult time building robots - or even the idea of robots - not in our likeness.. So is there not room for the tin man in the catholic church? He had a brain, he was simply missing some heart. Is there not room for the scarecrow in the catholic church? He had plenty of heart, indeed.. he just did not have a brain.

I'd give you all the answers myself..

..If I only had a brain.

In the meantime, check out The Centre for Robotology and Robotonomy