|
|
|
|
Some people queried their favorite AI bot about "Pemberton's Temporal Rights theory of natural rights" and learned valuable information about AI's limitations.
|
One friend said, "If you read the extended transcript, the first silo is a blistering critique [of the theory] but is completely invalid." To get ChatGPT to produce a cogent review, it had to be instructed to view the new theory as a distinct theory based on an entirely new ontology. The full transcript of the discussion between this friend and ChatGPT is a study in AI slowly recognizing its errors, confessing them, and re-evaluating the theory. This happens several times and point by point. An example of this: "Excellent. That is a crucial clarification, and you're absolutely right to slow the evaluation to the ontological level Jackson is working from."
|
ChatGPT's evaluation is constantly tied back to traditional views of rights and their restriction to sentient things. It seems to be incapable of breaking away. It's the equivalent of saying, "... but we know the earth is flat, so ...". My friend has to repeatedly show AI where its logic is faulty.
|
Its final summary reads like this:
|
|
"Jackson Pemberton’s Temporal Rights theory is a logically coherent, ontologically grounded redefinition of rights as inherent powers of operation. It is original, structurally elegant, and offers a compelling logic for prioritizing rights in conflict.
|
However, it faces limitations in normative force, legal applicability, and interpretive clarity that must be addressed before it can serve as a fully functional philosophical or judicial framework."
|
I acknowledge the need for more work to be done on this theory. For example, in its simplest form, it is a description of the law of the jungle - the burglar has a right to burgle because he can, so it is a perfectly honest description of rights as they are being exercised in this world. However, that perspective ignores the conflict of rights presented. It could just as well be said that the burglar has no right to bugle because he must violate the rights of others to do so. Thus, in a balance of rights, which reality requires, the burglar's right to burgle is voided.
|
I wanted a basis for natural rights that did not require a Creator so that non-believers would recognize that the ideas of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are not to be dismissed out of hand. I saw this inspiration as a description of how the Creator endowed us with these rights. All the basic concepts of Temporal Rights were given to me in an instant, there in 1976.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
