384 réponses à ce sujet

[lolwut666]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

No, programs writing programs is entirely programmable. Infact, it's the established basis of the Geth development: even before the Geth considered themselves as having achieved sentienced, they were self-modifying and improving themselves. Because they were programmed to do just that.

If you program a machine to make a decision when various inputs are present, the decision making process is still pre-programed. The output may not have been intended, but the machine's processes for coming to its output are a result of its internal processes, and there's no way around that.

Right. That's just how the brain works, except that it's made of a different material.

Humans have ideas in the same way geth write a new program. Not literally in the same way, but the result is the same.

[Drachasor]

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Drachasor wrote...

Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams wrote...

Ok, it looks like we're not understanding one another. First, it would be helpful if you presented your working definition of sentience as I find the term to be vague. Tell me if this is your argument broken down.

1. Sentience implies a being has rights.
2. Geth are sentient.
3. Geth have rights.

1 and 2 are where I take issue, and depending on the nature of the Geth's "sentience," I may take issue with one more than the other.

So, you are not certain the Asari, Turians, etc have rights in the ME universe, correct?  Killing them or wiping them out might be just fine, according to you, yes?

Certainly, going by the example set by Legion, he's just as sentient as any of them are.  He has feelings, goals, regrets, etc, just like any member of those species.

1. I will say I'm a little averse to the whole idea of "rights," because they're absolutes based on unproven ideas. That's not the issue we're discussing. We're discussing whether or not the Geth are on the same level of "living" (for lack of a better term) as humans, Asari, Turians, etc.

2. Legion has not shown emotion. Emotion is only implied when asked about Shepard's armor, but hardly confirmed. A goal is the same thing as an objective, current computers have some form of that.

Emotion is indicated about the armor, about the Morning War, and about the Creators in general.  It's more understated than a typical American, but perhaps not more than some real people.

And current computers don't have dreams, they don't plan for tomorrow, they don't decide on what science to do and advance technology, and they don't make ethical decisions.  Legion does all this and more.  His goals are far beyond those a computer is capable of and far beyond those a VI in ME is capable of.  Closely related to this Legion also has values, such as valuing the self-determination of other Geth, and this is certainly not something the Quarians programmed into their menial labor servants who were not intended to be intelligent.  That is something the Geth came up with on their own.

Beyond this, again, on what basis do you say the Asari, Turians, etc are on the same level of living as you have decided humans are?  Literally, what are your criteria?

[nelly21]

I am amused at how much of an impact one character has had on the ME fanbase.

As for me. I think the best option is Xen's proposal. It offers the most efficient solution with limited blood shed. It leaves the Quarians with formidable land forces as well as a vast (although archaic) fleet.

[Cerberus Operative Ashley Williams]

Drachasor wrote...

Emotion is indicated about the armor, about the Morning War, and about the Creators in general.  It's more understated than a typical American, but perhaps not more than some real people.

I'm done with this conversation.

[Dean_the_Young]

Drachasor wrote...

There's no species that fakes being human, because you can't fake being sentient without being sentient.  That's the basis of the Turing test.  Being able to "fake" being creative and produce creative works is true creativity.  Being able to "fake" doing science and producing scientific progress is true science.

Except the Turing Test proved that people can't tell the difference between a well-crafted automatic responses and an actual user without additional examination: the Turing Test fails because it is possible to fake being sentient without being sentient. It's harder, but it's not impossible so long as you program a machine how to respond to various questions.

And then, on the flip side, the Turing Test fails in the other direction s well: it's possible to fool observers with someone who is sentient being thought to be not-sentient, whether because they have poor grammer or because they naturally are inclined to basic responses. Not only does the Turing Test fail to always detect non-sentience, but it can even fail to detect sentience.

Using the Turing Test as the measure of sentience is like declaring height to be the definitive determination of if someone is an adult: it ignores that there are short adults and tall kids.

[Drachasor]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Drachasor wrote...

There's no species that fakes being human, because you can't fake being sentient without being sentient.  That's the basis of the Turing test.  Being able to "fake" being creative and produce creative works is true creativity.  Being able to "fake" doing science and producing scientific progress is true science.

Except the Turing Test proved that people can't tell the difference between a well-crafted automatic responses and an actual user without additional examination: the Turing Test fails because it is possible to fake being sentient without being sentient. It's harder, but it's not impossible so long as you program a machine how to respond to various questions.

And then, on the flip side, the Turing Test fails in the other direction s well: it's possible to fool observers with someone who is sentient being thought to be not-sentient, whether because they have poor grammer or because they naturally are inclined to basic responses. Not only does the Turing Test fail to always detect non-sentience, but it can even fail to detect sentience.

Using the Turing Test as the measure of sentience is like declaring height to be the definitive determination of if someone is an adult: it ignores that there are short adults and tall kids.

There's never been a program designed that can consistently pass the Turing Test.  While it is true that in a very limited time frame with particualr conditions (say 5 minutes, via texting) human can fail, that's not the same thing is saying there exists even 1 human who can't consistently pass it.

[Silrian]

Drachasor wrote...

Silrian wrote...

@Drachasor If Human's are simply organic machines, they are the result of an accumulating chemical process in what we would usually call "lifeless matter". There is then no pointable boundary between lifeless and living matter leading to conclude that ALL matter, no 'matter' how complex, is at the core lifeless.

Not true at all.  Stuff that is alive is a lot more organized (a well-defined term) than non-living stuff.  It also works to maintain its organization againsts forces in the environment that would otherwise damage its order.

In more simple terms, living stuff is organized matter that behaves differently than non-living stuff.

That may well be true, but there is no INTRINSIC difference between the two, just how and by what powers they are (re)structured. It is eventually unmaintainable to that the state in which something is in is part of their material identity. The simple fact that one can become the other to such an extent that one is completely composed out of the other (living composed of lifeless) means that separate IDENTICAL properties can't be maintained. Thus I remain of the opinion that any form of 'materialism' in this way leads to ANY ethical judgment being (sometimes indirectly) completely arbitrary. To say it a bit less 'academical' (though obscuring the argumentation unfortunatly) materialism leads to the conclusion that any form of ethics is nothing more then an agreement (which could be the actual case, if materialism is indeed true).

On sidenote: thanks for the engaging discussion, I've only been really active about a week on these forums, but they sure don't dissapoint.

[nelly21]

Drachasor wrote...

Emotion is indicated about the armor, about the Morning War, and about the Creators in general. 

How are any of these examples indicative of emotion?

[Gill Kaiser]

I don't support any of them. After talking with Legion, it's clear that Rannoch is there for the taking. All the Quarians have to do is enter diplomatic relations with the Geth. The Quarians and Geth should be able to coexist with no bloodshed at all.

As such, Daro'Xen's plans are the most dangerous, as they would presumably interfere with any hope of peace. She has a touch of megalomania, and is likely the admiral least able to be reasoned with.

Han'Gerrel's plans are also dangerous, but he seems reasonable enough.

Zaal'Koris wants peace, but not Rannoch. Tali makes it clear that as far as habitable planets for the Quarians go, Rannoch has no equal. Zaal'Koris needs to be made aware of the Geth's true nature.

[Battlepope190]

The Geth are in the right here, so I support them, and anyone else who does. Damn Quarians.

[Dean_the_Young]

lolwut666 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

No, programs writing programs is entirely programmable. Infact, it's the established basis of the Geth development: even before the Geth considered themselves as having achieved sentienced, they were self-modifying and improving themselves. Because they were programmed to do just that.

If you program a machine to make a decision when various inputs are present, the decision making process is still pre-programed. The output may not have been intended, but the machine's processes for coming to its output are a result of its internal processes, and there's no way around that.

Right. That's just how the brain works, except that it's made of a different material.

Humans have ideas in the same way geth write a new program. Not literally in the same way, but the result is the same.

Not all people, not even all scientists, agree with that.

Moreover, even if we accept it's true, that in and of itself opens up entire new aspects of morality to questioning. If we are all deterministic reactions, organic free will is an illusion. Machines don't have it, and neither does chemistry: that calls almost everything of our cultures and ideas into question, from the matter of 'justice' (What is the logical basis of hurting someone for something they had not choice but to obey their programming?) to basic morality (If our choices are chemical reactions, then our moralities are also just the product of chemical processes and stimuli, and have no underlying truth behind them).

[Cypher0020]

I'd totally support Koris and the Qwib Qwib!

Hello! You cannot go wrong with a ship like that!

[Silrian]

Oh and for argument's sake, I think it's best to stop comparing technology from our present day to ME's universe (because believe me, mass effect violates a LOT of laws of physics) and just assume that the Quarians are unfathomable programmers. BTW does anybody know what the status of a Virtual Intelligence is compared to an A.I.? Because that could have a major impact on what computers are able to do in the ME universe and therefor also on our perspective of the Geth, being, possibly, mere computers.

[eye basher]

there's no proof that says the geth are sentient and no one should really take anything they say as true because for all we know some quarian built some programing into them to make them think they are sentient.

[Silrian]

@Dean_the_Young I like your avatar and I like what you're saying man!

[Dean_the_Young]

Drachasor wrote...

There's never been a program designed that can consistently pass the Turing Test.  While it is true that in a very limited time frame with particualr conditions (say 5 minutes, via texting) human can fail, that's not the same thing is saying there exists even 1 human who can't consistently pass it.

Programming has also only existed for the better part of a human lifetime, and much of that has been in times in which the physical capacity for programming was incredibly limited. Complexity of programs has grown exponentially over the decades, just like the computers that allow them to run. Arguing that because programs to date have inconsistent in their ability to fool repeated applications of the Turing Test misses the point that our programs this day and age are, still, incredibly basic. Complexity is a difficulty, not an impossiblity, and with each year the ability for more complex, capable programs go.

You might as well argue that because a child doesn't reach a certain test score repeatedly, that test score is sufficient. Children, and programming, grow in ability and complexity. Once you get a program that can fool the Turing Test, it doesn't mean the Program is sentient: only that the Turing Test is insufficient.

Given the existence of trolls, organic spammers, and simply the young and/or stupid, there are plenty of people online who, from the observor, can be separated from a script engine or not. That person may not be trying to pass the test... but they don't need to. It's everyone else's evaluations that matter to whether they recognize the person or not.

[Dean_the_Young]

Silrian wrote...

Oh and for argument's sake, I think it's best to stop comparing technology from our present day to ME's universe (because believe me, mass effect violates a LOT of laws of physics) and just assume that the Quarians are unfathomable programmers. BTW does anybody know what the status of a Virtual Intelligence is compared to an A.I.? Because that could have a major impact on what computers are able to do in the ME universe and therefor also on our perspective of the Geth, being, possibly, mere computers.

A VI is roughly equivalent to one Geth program. (Source: Legion.) The Geth are fundamentally a lot of non-disputed 'dumb' programs that are made to interact with eachother in more complex patterns.

[jamesp81]

Aramintai wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

I support Admiral vas Qwib Qwib.

I mean, come on. Qwib Qwib.

This. The most sensible guy of them all, and you should give him credit for graceful bearing of a joke name like that.

Sensible?  We are talking about a guy who attempted to get an innocent person convicted of treason in order to further his own political agenda.  Sensible is not a word I would use to describe him.

[KotorEffect3]

Though I hate Qwib Qwib (mainly because he is a douchebag during Tali's trial), he is also correct about trying to find a peaceful solution with the Geth. So I guess it could be said I don't like the guy personaly but I agree with his position politically.

[Dean_the_Young]

eye basher wrote...

there's no proof that says the geth are sentient and no one should really take anything they say as true because for all we know some quarian built some programing into them to make them think they are sentient.

It doesn't even have to be as basic as that. It can be an example of self-categorization gone amuck: the Geth (for various pre-designed influences) consider 'sentience' to mean one thing, whether or not anyone else shares the same interpretation, and conclude that they meet the requirements for it.

Concluding that they do, however, doesn't mean they are: I remember a demonstration lecture in college about how you could program a computer to recognize animals by identifying parameters (number of legs, proportions of heads, etc.). The ability to identify was only as accurate as the quality of the programming, however, as was demonstrated when a picture of a t-rex was classified as a kangaroo: by the parameters of the computer's programming, the t-rex best fit the classification for kangaroo as opposed to other animals (two legs, tail, small forearms, etc.). Did that mean the t-rex was a kangaroo? No. But that computer thought it was... because it was programmed to make that sort of wrong conclusion.

[Aramintai]

jamesp81 wrote...

Aramintai wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

I support Admiral vas Qwib Qwib.

I mean, come on. Qwib Qwib.

This. The most sensible guy of them all, and you should give him credit for graceful bearing of a joke name like that.

Sensible?  We are talking about a guy who attempted to get an innocent person convicted of treason in order to further his own political agenda.  Sensible is not a word I would use to describe him.

All three admirals had a political agenda intertwined with this trial. Disregard the emotional part of Tali's trial and you will see that what he stands for makes more sense, than what the others two are suggesting. That is, if you want both geth and quarian fleets at your side and not warring with each other.

[nelly21]

KotorEffect3 wrote...

Though I hate Qwib Qwib (mainly because he is a douchebag during Tali's trial), he is also correct about trying to find a peaceful solution with the Geth. So I guess it could be said I don't like the guy personaly but I agree with his position politically.

I don't see how he is "correct". He wishes to move on and find another planet to settle on. Wonderful in theory, but lacking in practice. Who will grant them a new colony world? The Citadel has expressed no interest in doing so. At this point, the galaxy has been explored. most habitable worlds are colonized. Most of the worlds that have not been colonized have remained so due to any number of undesirable conditions. Colonizing these worlds would force the entire race to physically adapt to the new conditions, in effect rewriting millions of years of genetic code. As it is, the quarians would have to readapt to conditions on their home planet and they have only been removed from there for three centuries.

So no, Qwib Qwib's solution is far from being "correct".

Modifié par nelly21, 09 mai 2011 - 09:45 .