677 réponses à ce sujet

[SandTrout]

marshalleck wrote...

There is nothing submissive about assimilating the Reapers into our species. It's quite the opposite actually.

While I agree in a very general sense, Saphra's thread does not even attempt to make that point.

On topic: The nature of conciousness does not matter. Either the Geth's processing powers classify them as an adaptive threat, or they do not. Obviously, they do, so we should treat them as such.

The exhibit religeous and self-preservation behaviors as well, which we can exploit.

'Abomination' is a purely emotional word and attempting rational debate about weather or not the Geth are an abomination is pointless without first defining what characteristics would be used to classify something as an abomination in a general sense.

[Sisterofshane]

con·scious·ness/ˈkänCHəsnəs/Noun
1. The state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
2. The awareness or perception of something by a person.

I think that the geth fit this definition

[Bogsnot1]

joriandrake wrote...

Bogsnot1 wrote...

joriandrake wrote...

stop feeding the troll

Awwww, but I wanna feed it and hug it and squeeze it and take care of it.

only if you adopt it and take it home

Seeing as its a mythological creature, it means I can abuse it and the RSPCA cant get involved 

[Dexi]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...

You're claiming that something with no brain cannot have consciousness, yes?

Yes!

A brain must be organic and it must possess neurons, incorporating many chemical interactions as well.

I disagree that consciousness can be created by anything which simulates the processes of a brain. We simply don't know enough about brains or consciousness itself.

After all, we just had a poster here arguing that consciousness could exist completely separate from the body, existing even in rocks. Do you think that's possible?

My position is this: consciousness is the result of our unique, organic brains. The same with the sensation of pain. You could build a machine that senses the environment, including damage to itself, and have it react appropriately. However I do not believe it would feel pain. Pain can only be felt by something which has an organic nervous system and brain like ours.

I say again that two things which fulfill the same function are not necessarily the same thing. They are different. This can be very important.

Humans have legs and spiders have legs. However their legs, while serving the same purpose, are very different in their design and operation. A human leg has bone and muscle. A spider leg has an exo-skeleton and operates on what is basically a hydraulic system.

So you can have a machine which reproduces and reacts to its environment, but it's experience is nothing like a human's or even an animals. It is more like a virus than a monkey. It exists without life, sustaing no actual life functions, but is still capable of taking actions under the right circumstances. What I mean is, if a virus recieves the right "inputs" it can do things which make it seem to be alive.

Virus aren't commonly regarded as being alive however.

Inverness Moon wrote...

My console analogy is relevant here. In that case, the console is the organic (human) brain, and the emulator on a computer is the synthetic brain (geth network, quantum bluebox, etc.). The importance here is not he physical makeup (whether it is an actual console or not), but that the emulator produces the same output as a console does with the same input.

Anyhow, that is the last time I'm going to bring that up.

Are you going to respond to my art fraud example?

Your emulator behaves identical to the real console, but it is not the console. If you take a console game you can't play it in the emulator since there is no slot to put it in.

I don't think your example really works though since essentially you are just taking one computer and swapping it for another. You could write down that emulator on paper as well, including the game, and everything, and play it out by hand if you wanted. The same with the physical console.

Let's me ask you another question:

If we reach a point at which we can break an entire person's mind down into computer code and we write that code down on paper and start giving it the approrpriate inputs so that the code perfectly simulates the person's mind, on paper, is it really that person? If you burned the paper you'd written all this code down on would it be murder? Would the simulated mind you are interacting with be real, would it be experiencing anything?

My point is there is a fundamental difference between a real being and a simulated one. As of ME2 geth are simulated beings, not real ones. The physical bodies we interact with are completely secondary to what geth are. They're just physical vessels to allow the geth programs to interact with the environment.

You cannot transplant a human's mind in another vessel. It is the unique result of that physical brain. You can however transplant or copy a geth into as many vessels as you like.

It really saddens me to see such a bright mind so enclosed. 

Modifié par Dexi, 31 juillet 2011 - 09:25 .

[GodWood]

joriandrake wrote...
1. I am not trolling, saying to stop feeding one doesn't make you one

Jumping in the middle of a discussion and spamming that one of the people is a troll [contributing nothing to said discussion] just because you disagree with them seems pretty trolly to me.

Now cease your trolling lest I get the spray.

[Bogsnot1]

So, by Saphra's definition, neither the Reapers (which he/she is trying to convince us to join as the only way for humanity to survive), nor the Virtual Aliens, are actually alive, and therefore are abominations.

[SandTrout]

@Saphra Deden,

Then you are admitting that you are, on this topic, being guided by a personal dogma that refuses to grant artificial creations the same rights as organic life-forms?

Note that I am not trying to attack you, just trying to clarify some points of this discussion.

[Sisterofshane]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...

I'm surprised you can so blatantly contradict yourself. You claim that consciousness cannot be created by anything that simulates a brain, but acknowledge that you don't know enough about brains or the consciousness itself.

Well I've got to draw the line somewhere else I wind up like what's-his-face and start protesting for rock rights.

On this I agree. No rights for rocks.

However, Saphra I think your "line" is morphing into a bubble, which is impenetrable to facts and common sense.

[SandTrout]

Actually, my dogma refuses to consider anything other than another human being to have the same rights as I have. You are actually far more 'accepting' than I am, so there is no need to get defensive about it.

As I have stated, until we agree on the definition of 'abomination', then there can be no rational discussion that can take place with regards to anything's status as an abomination.

[xXljoshlXx]

GodWood wrote...

joriandrake wrote...
1. I am not trolling, saying to stop feeding one doesn't make you one

Jumping in the middle of a discussion and spamming that one of the people is a troll [contributing nothing to said discussion] just because you disagree with them seems pretty trolly to me.

Now cease your trolling lest I get the spray.

Aren't you doing the same exact thing?

[GodWood]

My motivations are just

[SandTrout]

GodWood wrote...

My motivations are just

Ah, the justification of tyrants throughout history! How refreshing! /sarcasm.

[Sisterofshane]

SandTrout wrote...

Actually, my dogma refuses to consider anything other than another human being to have the same rights as I have. You are actually far more 'accepting' than I am, so there is no need to get defensive about it.

As I have stated, until we agree on the definition of 'abomination', then there can be no rational discussion that can take place with regards to anything's status as an abomination.

With this I agree.  This is why this thread looks to have morphed into an ideaological discussion of which none of us can win.
At least I can argue for or against a definition, but against someone's philosophical and moral beliefs?  I can't expect anyone here to have had the exact same, life-shaping experiences that I have had.  And even if they did, there is no guarantee that they would precieve and analyze them exactly as I would.

What is it Samara said about humans?  Something along the lines of if there are three different humans in the room, there will be six opinions?  So true.

Anyway, quick! Back on topic.

a·bom·i·na·tion/əˌbäməˈnāSHən/Noun1. A thing that causes disgust or hatred.2. A feeling of hatred.

Since the OP fails to state his/her definition, I offer up the dictionary definition.

To which I say, no the Geth are not an abomination.  Maybe for the Quarians, but not for me.

EDIT:Why won't the damn color stay on this post!

Modifié par Sisterofshane, 31 juillet 2011 - 09:51 .

[SandTrout]

By that definition, I consider the Reapers an abomination, as well as communists.

Go figure.

[Homebound]

how r the geth abominations?

[Bogsnot1]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Bogsnot1 wrote...

So, by Saphra's definition, neither the Reapers (which he/she is trying to convince us to join as the only way for humanity to survive), nor the Virtual Aliens, are actually alive, and therefore are abominations.

You could argue that, certainly.

I'm not a fan of Reapers and I don't want to join them, but I think it might be necessary. I think an artificial construction composed of human genetic material, that continues on as humanity in a new form, is better than total extinction.

I suspect though that Reapers are not just machines, but are in fact organic beings which have merged so totally with their technology that they appear to be one and the same.

Ship of Theseus?

You didnt bother answering the question in regards to the Virtual Aliens, who were once flesh and blood, but are now purely digital being. DO they count as abominations that can be destroyed without soiling your conscience, or do they count as sentient beings who have the full rights of flesh and blood creatures?

And, to use the Ship of Theseus argument, do you mean to tell me, that dispite our advancements, we are still the same lemur-like creatures who were a food source for various reptilian species up until 65 million years ago?

[Phaelducan]

Ray Kurzweil.