I had a crazy idea I'd like to share.

I had before an idea for the description of the being as such: there's the One (Being), there's the Multiple (the objects we get through senses), but then there's Intermediate Categories. These are the categories you get when you abstract from a multiple: I'm a multiple; but I'm a man, that is a human being, that is an animal and so on until you reach the Being.

So, in this idea, the sciences are what happens when you select an intermediate category and describe it. The techniques are when you get one and try to open its possibilities. I won't go further, it's not well descripted yet, but imagine there's the obvious difference between poetry for poets and poetry for literature theory.

Ok but then... I realized I may have got into this idea because I actually live a situation in life that's very odd. I liked so many things since birth that I got commitments with many people and techniques. I had to move from city sometimes, so I always had to restart things, but as it was since childhood, as a child I decided never forget the best I got in each place (and people), and it's cute and so, but actually turned out into a curious situation.

I, for instance, right now need to be at the same time a poet, a programmer, a clothing seller and a teacher. You can't see how crazy it is, but it did got me many ideas about what is life, how it works, how looks, language and knowledge influences a carreer and a social cyrcle and so on. That's a very enriching situation. Still, pretty shitty, I got smashed by the weight and right now have to restart life. Still, carrying the weight.

So then I had to start thinking starting my life for real. It means having more than one life. I realized yesterday that's the empiric source of my idea of the Being. Because first of all, I'm at the same time all of these things and none of them. It doesn't feel like being an actor, because although I have to act differently in each place, I'm not pretending. For instance, the poet and the seller need to have two different personalities, but I'm both of them.

I'm venting this because this at first kind of break the sense of identity. Each "life" I'd need to have to take these things serious have even a nickname on their own. But then I realized these are intermediate categories, while I, the truth self, is something before all of this. It's either the whole of them combined, but that's the price I have to pay for existence (I actually don't really like/identify with any of these lifes, although I feel positively resposible for them), or this empty self whose only property is to be curious. I'm essentially curious, then, but that, in time, means having a body and leaving a track necessarily. Thus, the price comes.

I then thought, but that's out of the point: if there could be an afterlife where the curiosity, without body, can live by itself and get knowledge without a price, that would be actually pretty fun.

I'm not sure if it's still worth to answer your question, since you may have finished the essay, but in any case, for the discussion itself, well, AI probably will have rights.

I think there are 3 points of comparison that makes the topic clearer.

1st: the rights of animals.

There are a bunch of rules that are basically about preservation of life. Some places may go further, some may not, but still this is the point in consideration. In my country if someone poisons or runs over an animal, if it is discovered, you have to at least pay something (and in running over, you get bad points in your driving license).

2nd: the rights of the owner, also just like pets.

One thing is to own something in nature; another one is on society. Owning on society means you need to have rights to guarantee that if it is taken from your, or if there's such a risk, you have the possibility to get back or avoid the problem. So rights to avoid breaking, stealing and so on.

3rd: patents and copywrights.

Specially if you're considering only the software, not the robot itself, this is pretty much the thing. As a software, it's like any other. So there will have the rights of protecting from being hacked, copied, modified without your permission and so on. We don't have a right about modifying the DNA of your pet, because it makes no sense more than "you have to steal the cat first", and that's illegal. But you can modify the "DNA of the software" without touching it directly. So there certainly will have eventually laws for this type of protection.

I hope it helps.

Do you guys know a work that talks about Plato's dialogues as a colection of techniques of thought?

I know this may sound kind of obvious, but, for instance,

- Hippias Major is the attempt to define something from what we know, but then showing the limit, hence we have to abandon the knowledge and restart later with more knowledge.

- Phaedrus has some techniques, but as I recall one of the main ones is the idea of, from an single object (argument) realizing the group in which it is part (the technique of argumentation, sophistry) and then studying the nature of this group by subdividing it in categories. [this is, by the way, what I'm trying to do with the dialogues themselves]

and so on.

I'm still pretty new on this, so I just read some dialogues. I do read philosophy, but I hadn't have the chance to read studies about them.

So, would you guys recommend me something on that line of investigation?