677 réponses à ce sujet

[SalsaDMA]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

The run times aren't sentient though.

Uh, yeah: hence why I said they have to work in groups to be conscious.

Right, just testing you.

Saphra, your argument here is irrelevant.  They now have a group-consciousness, and they're not looking to go back to individual run times and lose said conciousness.  That would be like me trying to damage my brain.

Because humanity never performed ill-advised brain surgery whose only effect was to damage the brain, right?

[Phaelducan]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Yes, but you specifically called it a "malfunction".  The geth were not functioning wrongly, just unexpectedly. 

Performing in an unexpected manner is the very essence of malfunctioning. Especially when life-critical systems are involved.

Look up the definition of "malfunction".  It specifically says to function wrongly, or not at all.
The geth were designed to become more intelligent.  They did just that.
It would be the same as saying my liver was "malfunctioning" because it managed to filter more toxins from my bloodstream than was humanly possible.  It is still doing what it was designed to do, just in a manner that people generally believe to be impossible.

they were designed to be able to pool computational powers to deal with more complex tasks, not unlike graphic cards of today are designed to be able to be linked up to be able to deal with more complex tasks.

They were not designed to become sentient.

If your gfx card suddenly tells you that it won't let you play games unless it is allowed to sit on screens with the compiled works of greek philosophers for an hour every second hour you would rightfully deem your gfx card is behaving in an un-intended manner, and would claim the card was malfunctioning.

Claiming sentience, while the intended purpose was not so, IS 'functioning wrongly', and thus it is a technical malfunction.

You seem to confuse wanting to increase computational power with wanting to make sentient life, which seems to be quite a stretch as far as arguments go.

You can think of the Geth as a species what you want, but claiming it was intended that they should become a species is ignoring the lore and evidence in it.

This is a straw man. No one is saying the Quarians were trying to make sentient life. The argument is that they DID make sentient life. Intention is irrelevant. You are attacking an argument no one is making.

[Terumitsu]

SalsaDMA wrote...
Because humanity never performed ill-advised brain surgery whose only effect was to damage the brain, right?

I believe the context of that last bit was in conjuction with a sane, rational mind that had the choice of it's own brain being damaged simply for the sake of being damaged.

Drug use doesn't count as the intent there is to gain a 'high' off of the chemicals.

Modifié par Terumitsu, 01 août 2011 - 03:59 .

[Phaelducan]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

The run times aren't sentient though.

Uh, yeah: hence why I said they have to work in groups to be conscious.

Right, just testing you.

Saphra, your argument here is irrelevant.  They now have a group-consciousness, and they're not looking to go back to individual run times and lose said conciousness.  That would be like me trying to damage my brain.

Because humanity never performed ill-advised brain surgery whose only effect was to damage the brain, right?

Another straw man. The argument is that for the Geth to revert back to non-sentience it would be akin to a human purposefully giving themselves brain damage... for no other reason then to damage their brain.

What is it with this thread today? 

[Terumitsu]

Phaelducan wrote...

What is it with this thread today? 

It's BSN in fine form!

[Phaelducan]

Terumitsu wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

What is it with this thread today? 

It's BSN in fine form!

Usually with a thread this long that hasn't been locked it's due to at least in part to rational discourse. Once logical fallacies start getting thrown around it's only a matter of time until a mod comes in. Straw men come first, then ad hominem, then ad infinitum, then Woo comes in with "End of line."

Edit: I think it's Woo who uses that, feel free to correct me if it's not.

Modifié par Phaelducan, 01 août 2011 - 04:04 .

[TobyHasEyes]

Phaelducan wrote...

Terumitsu wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

What is it with this thread today? 

It's BSN in fine form!

Usually with a thread this long that hasn't been locked it's due to at least in part to rational discourse. Once logical fallacies start getting thrown around it's only a matter of time until a mod comes in. Straw men come first, then ad hominem, then ad infinitum, then Woo comes in with "End of line."

Edit: I think it's Woo who uses that, feel free to correct me if it's not.

 You forgot a foray into real world politics, ending in posts considering the similarities between the rival posters views.. and the ****s

 Edit: Never knew n*a*z*i*s was banned

Modifié par TobyHasEyes, 01 août 2011 - 04:06 .

[Thargorichiban]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

Terumitsu wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

What is it with this thread today? 

It's BSN in fine form!

Usually with a thread this long that hasn't been locked it's due to at least in part to rational discourse. Once logical fallacies start getting thrown around it's only a matter of time until a mod comes in. Straw men come first, then ad hominem, then ad infinitum, then Woo comes in with "End of line."

Edit: I think it's Woo who uses that, feel free to correct me if it's not.

 You forgot a foray into real world politics, ending in posts considering the similarities between the rival posters views.. and the ****s

 Edit: Never knew n*a*z*i*s was banned

It's banned because most arguments on the internet seem to ultimately end with some sort of comparison to them or Hitler.

[Phaelducan]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

Terumitsu wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

What is it with this thread today? 

It's BSN in fine form!

Usually with a thread this long that hasn't been locked it's due to at least in part to rational discourse. Once logical fallacies start getting thrown around it's only a matter of time until a mod comes in. Straw men come first, then ad hominem, then ad infinitum, then Woo comes in with "End of line."

Edit: I think it's Woo who uses that, feel free to correct me if it's not.

 You forgot a foray into real world politics, ending in posts considering the similarities between the rival posters views.. and the ****s

 Edit: Never knew n*a*z*i*s was banned

I know, right? I tried to use it earlier for the expess purpose of a real-world historical reference. Totally denied. 

[Sisterofshane]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Yes, but you specifically called it a "malfunction".  The geth were not functioning wrongly, just unexpectedly. 

Performing in an unexpected manner is the very essence of malfunctioning. Especially when life-critical systems are involved.

Look up the definition of "malfunction".  It specifically says to function wrongly, or not at all.
The geth were designed to become more intelligent.  They did just that.
It would be the same as saying my liver was "malfunctioning" because it managed to filter more toxins from my bloodstream than was humanly possible.  It is still doing what it was designed to do, just in a manner that people generally believe to be impossible.

they were designed to be able to pool computational powers to deal with more complex tasks, not unlike graphic cards of today are designed to be able to be linked up to be able to deal with more complex tasks.

They were not designed to become sentient.

If your gfx card suddenly tells you that it won't let you play games unless it is allowed to sit on screens with the compiled works of greek philosophers for an hour every second hour you would rightfully deem your gfx card is behaving in an un-intended manner, and would claim the card was malfunctioning.

Claiming sentience, while the intended purpose was not so, IS 'functioning wrongly', and thus it is a technical malfunction.

You seem to confuse wanting to increase computational power with wanting to make sentient life, which seems to be quite a stretch as far as arguments go.

You can think of the Geth as a species what you want, but claiming it was intended that they should become a species is ignoring the lore and evidence in it.

And I think that you are misunderstanding the meaning of malfunction, as well as the meaning of intelligence.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malfunction
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligence

The Neural Network allowed the Geth to be "more intelligent" by allowing them to free up computing power generally taken up lower-level processes.  They were designed to be able to adapt to new and difficult circumstance ON THEIR OWN.  This is different from your GFX card, which only links up to improve processing speed, but still has parameters programmed into it's basic functions.  The geth were designed not only to become faster in groups, but more adaptive.  This is what let to their eventual sentience.

Back to your graphics card example, if my graphics card suddenly managed to have a higher resolution then I had
ever expected it to because it managed to free up more processes and
become more efficient, I would not call that a malfunction.  It's doing exactly what it was designed to do.

So yes, if my graphics card suddenly wanted to determine how I use my computer, then yes.  I would call it a malfunction, as it was never designed to adapt intellectually/physically to the way I use my computer and change it's own behavior accordingly.  The Geth were designed to just do that.  They just did it better than any Quarian (supposedly) expected.

And I've already admitted that the Quarians probably never fully expected to create sentient life.  But within the game itself Tali admits that while creating the Geth, the Quarians were skirting the boundaries of AI technology.  And sometimes when you play at the edge of cliff, you fall off.  So no, I'm not ignoring the lore or the evidence.  I merely have a different opinion.

[Sisterofshane]

Phaelducan wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Yes, but you specifically called it a "malfunction".  The geth were not functioning wrongly, just unexpectedly. 

Performing in an unexpected manner is the very essence of malfunctioning. Especially when life-critical systems are involved.

Look up the definition of "malfunction".  It specifically says to function wrongly, or not at all.
The geth were designed to become more intelligent.  They did just that.
It would be the same as saying my liver was "malfunctioning" because it managed to filter more toxins from my bloodstream than was humanly possible.  It is still doing what it was designed to do, just in a manner that people generally believe to be impossible.

they were designed to be able to pool computational powers to deal with more complex tasks, not unlike graphic cards of today are designed to be able to be linked up to be able to deal with more complex tasks.

They were not designed to become sentient.

If your gfx card suddenly tells you that it won't let you play games unless it is allowed to sit on screens with the compiled works of greek philosophers for an hour every second hour you would rightfully deem your gfx card is behaving in an un-intended manner, and would claim the card was malfunctioning.

Claiming sentience, while the intended purpose was not so, IS 'functioning wrongly', and thus it is a technical malfunction.

You seem to confuse wanting to increase computational power with wanting to make sentient life, which seems to be quite a stretch as far as arguments go.

You can think of the Geth as a species what you want, but claiming it was intended that they should become a species is ignoring the lore and evidence in it.

This is a straw man. No one is saying the Quarians were trying to make sentient life. The argument is that they DID make sentient life. Intention is irrelevant. You are attacking an argument no one is making.

Actually, I think that intention does make a difference.  It would give everyone a perspective as to why the Quarians were doing this (creating Geth) in the first place, and give people a more definitve point in which to take a moral stand on whether the choice to terminate them was/is correct.

Example, some people here may believe that their sentience is not such at all, but just a problem with their functioning, and that they should be exterminated.  If we could determine that the Quarians had indeed designed them to become (unexepectedly) Sentient, then could we then sway their original opinions?

Specifics matter when it comes down to arguments of a philosophical and moral nature.

[jamesp81]

Terumitsu wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Though the source of the geth's intelligence is synthetic, their intelligence and self-awareness itself is really not so different from our own organic intelligence.

That is not true in the slightest.  Their sentience and intelligence are very different from others.

That said, I don't view them as an abomination and I do think they are entitled the right to life as all other people are.

Edit: It somewhat pains me to admit that.  The idea of having a sentient being that is composed of software that runs on solid state, deterministic hardware, is just ridiculous.  If Geth platforms and computer systems were quantum computers it would make more sense, but no collection of silicon chips is ever going to be able exhibit sentience.  Ever.

 We are composed entirely of deterministic structures, molecules, atoms etc. Unless you are suggesting that the entirely deterministic structure that is the human brain has the magic ability to counter cause-and-effect, then we suffer from the same problem (which by the way I think we do)

Two points

I wouldn't call it magic, but I would call it free will.  Free will implies the ability to defy determinism.  So the real question is what the source of free will is?  Is there something inherent to the human brain that grants that ability that might be discovered and measured?  Or is that simply beyond the realm of science and in the realm of religion and faith, something that science will never be equipped to deal with?

Second of all, there is no proof that the human brain's components are completely deterministic.

I do know that however the Geth became sentient, that sentience is despite their hardware and software, and certainly not because of it.

I've studied AI in real life.  Trust me; it ain't happening on solid state electronic hardware.  It. Will. Not. Happen.  The fact that human beings have free will tells me there is something different about a human mind that silicon chips and solid state electronics lack, and always will lack.

Just to add to this quote pyramid but I thought that computation devices in the MEverse were optically based.

Also, funny thing about philosophy is that there are equal arguments for and against free will and determanism. Terrible thing about them is that, due to us being confined to the system (i.e. Existance), we have no idea which one is correct. I really only side with free will as the alternative is soul-crushingly bleak.

Though, one thing... Could you wax euclidative on the particulars of how hardware would be impedent to self-actualization?

A computer system can be modeled as a state transition diagram.  It's a simple diagram that consists of simple bubbles, each representing a possible state.  The correct input may move you from one state to another, or do nothing at all.  It's a very simple model used to explain basic concepts to students in college.  I'm sure you can google one up if you'd like to see it.

A computer system, no matter how complex, can be described by such a diagram.  These are not drawn for complex systems, as such a diagram describing Windows running on intel 64-bit architecture would be so large that I doubt there's enough paper in the country to draw it.  However, it is technically possible to create such a diagram.

And here's the thing; a computer system described by said diagram will never, never, ever, be in a state not described and documented in that diagram.  Ever.  When a computer displays a web page it doesn't do it because it decides to do what it was asked, it does it because billions of ones and zeroes line up in the right way to make it happen.  The page is displayed not due to choice; it is displayed because the system physically doesn't have an option to do otherwise.  People like to compare computers to a human brain but it's just not a good comparison.  A computer compares more favorably to, say a winch or pully.  The winch pulls things because physics leaves it no option; you apply the correct force and things happen.  With a computer, you apply the right set of zeroes and ones, and something happens.

Assuming free will exists (and we may as well assume it, since proving it is quite literally as impossible as proving any given collection of numbers is truly random), a computer system clearly does not demonstrate.  A complex, well programmed computer can mimic it, but not possess it.

For the Geth to be sentient, they require that something more that a human being has.

[cmmder shepard]

how can you hate the geth they want peace i choose the geth over the quarians anyday]

[jamesp81]

Sisterofshane wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

 Hence..

TobyHasEyes wrote...

 I think Saphra Deden is right to say that, considering how little we know about consciousness, sentience and its relation to the human brain, then we should be hesitant to outright attribute these qualities to structures which appear to resemble those parts of the brain we currently understand

 It is also true that a non-sentient being, especially a programmed one, can appear sentient. A very complex system can respond to stimuli (such as events, or conversations) in such a way that appear driven by conscious thought or at least unpredictable, and yet the system is entirely deterministic and  predictable (and as such is too complex for us to predict casually)

 The same is true of some of quotes put forward to prove geth sentience. A geth asking if geth have a soul, could of course be a sign of sentient life. It could equally be a sign of a complex machine which strongly resembles sentient life.

 From a strictly scientific point of view then, I struggle to say that I know outright that the geth are sentient, as it is a hard thing to study objectively

 From a moral point however, I think the consequences of our choices are thus

 - If we treat the geth as sentient; at best we are treating a sentient species with the respect we would typically suggest we should bestow on them, at worst we are treating a computer like it cares what we do

 - If we treat the geth as non-sentient; at best we aren't wasting empathy or sympathy on a computer, at worst we are refusing to treat a sentient species with dignity and are being extremely oppressive, cruel etc.

 For me then, considering we don't yet know either way, I feel the best option is to treat them as you would treat a sentient species, and maybe in the long run through co-operation you can find out if this is a worthless venture (which to me is a less repugnant consequence than oppression)

 If we don't know, isn't the least morally repugnant option to presume they do have the sentience they appear to have?

Hurrah to you sir.  This is the best argument I've heard yet.

Nobody seems to like that argument, however.  A lot of people get extremely upset when I apply it to....other issues.

[jamesp81]

cmmder shepard wrote...

how can you hate the geth they want peace i choose the geth over the quarians anyday]

Given how, for two centuries, the only communication had with any geth was in the form of gunfire, I find their claims of desiring peace at least a little suspect.

But, my goal in ME3 is to get the Quarians and Geth to get along.  You know, before the Reapers eat everyone.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

Of course they are abominations, for they are malfun-icarum and they must be expelled from the galaxy.
The order dictates!

[Sisterofshane]

jamesp81 wrote...

Terumitsu wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

jamesp81 wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Though the source of the geth's intelligence is synthetic, their intelligence and self-awareness itself is really not so different from our own organic intelligence.

That is not true in the slightest.  Their sentience and intelligence are very different from others.

That said, I don't view them as an abomination and I do think they are entitled the right to life as all other people are.

Edit: It somewhat pains me to admit that.  The idea of having a sentient being that is composed of software that runs on solid state, deterministic hardware, is just ridiculous.  If Geth platforms and computer systems were quantum computers it would make more sense, but no collection of silicon chips is ever going to be able exhibit sentience.  Ever.

 We are composed entirely of deterministic structures, molecules, atoms etc. Unless you are suggesting that the entirely deterministic structure that is the human brain has the magic ability to counter cause-and-effect, then we suffer from the same problem (which by the way I think we do)

Two points

I wouldn't call it magic, but I would call it free will.  Free will implies the ability to defy determinism.  So the real question is what the source of free will is?  Is there something inherent to the human brain that grants that ability that might be discovered and measured?  Or is that simply beyond the realm of science and in the realm of religion and faith, something that science will never be equipped to deal with?

Second of all, there is no proof that the human brain's components are completely deterministic.

I do know that however the Geth became sentient, that sentience is despite their hardware and software, and certainly not because of it.

I've studied AI in real life.  Trust me; it ain't happening on solid state electronic hardware.  It. Will. Not. Happen.  The fact that human beings have free will tells me there is something different about a human mind that silicon chips and solid state electronics lack, and always will lack.

Just to add to this quote pyramid but I thought that computation devices in the MEverse were optically based.

Also, funny thing about philosophy is that there are equal arguments for and against free will and determanism. Terrible thing about them is that, due to us being confined to the system (i.e. Existance), we have no idea which one is correct. I really only side with free will as the alternative is soul-crushingly bleak.

Though, one thing... Could you wax euclidative on the particulars of how hardware would be impedent to self-actualization?

A computer system can be modeled as a state transition diagram.  It's a simple diagram that consists of simple bubbles, each representing a possible state.  The correct input may move you from one state to another, or do nothing at all.  It's a very simple model used to explain basic concepts to students in college.  I'm sure you can google one up if you'd like to see it.

A computer system, no matter how complex, can be described by such a diagram.  These are not drawn for complex systems, as such a diagram describing Windows running on intel 64-bit architecture would be so large that I doubt there's enough paper in the country to draw it.  However, it is technically possible to create such a diagram.

And here's the thing; a computer system described by said diagram will never, never, ever, be in a state not described and documented in that diagram.  Ever.  When a computer displays a web page it doesn't do it because it decides to do what it was asked, it does it because billions of ones and zeroes line up in the right way to make it happen.  The page is displayed not due to choice; it is displayed because the system physically doesn't have an option to do otherwise.  People like to compare computers to a human brain but it's just not a good comparison.  A computer compares more favorably to, say a winch or pully.  The winch pulls things because physics leaves it no option; you apply the correct force and things happen.  With a computer, you apply the right set of zeroes and ones, and something happens.

Assuming free will exists (and we may as well assume it, since proving it is quite literally as impossible as proving any given collection of numbers is truly random), a computer system clearly does not demonstrate.  A complex, well programmed computer can mimic it, but not possess it.

For the Geth to be sentient, they require that something more that a human being has.

Actually, if we compare people to computers, it's easier to suppose upon the concept of free will than you would think.

Think again of your computer program.  When it encounters a certain set of definable stimuli, it operates within an established manner, based upon a predetermined set of programming and parameters.

Now imagine a human being.  Our coding is our genetics, our hardware is our physical body, and our defined parameters are our ethical and moral upbringing.  When presented with stimuli, the cells react based upon our genetic pre-disposition to release chemical/electrical signals within the body, which the brain interprets and, based upon our up-bringing, reacts accordingly.  This just happens to be such a complex and subtle process that most people attribute it to "free will".  And, according to evolutionists, this was not always the case.  Our life was much less complex (think in terms of a virus - simple replication on a cellular level), and thousands of years of condtioning (essentially programming - recieving input) hard-wired us into what we are today.
Is it not possible that in a technologically advanced future that we might be able to achieve this level of complexity within machines?
And, as relating to this thread, if this is exactly the case with the Geth and other life forms, what exactly is it that makes them indistinguishable from us?  And, are any of these differences just cause to terminate them from existence?

[TobyHasEyes]

jamesp81 wrote...

A computer system can be modeled as a state transition diagram.  It's a simple diagram that consists of simple bubbles, each representing a possible state.  The correct input may move you from one state to another, or do nothing at all.  It's a very simple model used to explain basic concepts to students in college.  I'm sure you can google one up if you'd like to see it.

A computer system, no matter how complex, can be described by such a diagram.  These are not drawn for complex systems, as such a diagram describing Windows running on intel 64-bit architecture would be so large that I doubt there's enough paper in the country to draw it.  However, it is technically possible to create such a diagram.

And here's the thing; a computer system described by said diagram will never, never, ever, be in a state not described and documented in that diagram.  Ever.  When a computer displays a web page it doesn't do it because it decides to do what it was asked, it does it because billions of ones and zeroes line up in the right way to make it happen.  The page is displayed not due to choice; it is displayed because the system physically doesn't have an option to do otherwise.  People like to compare computers to a human brain but it's just not a good comparison.  A computer compares more favorably to, say a winch or pully.  The winch pulls things because physics leaves it no option; you apply the correct force and things happen.  With a computer, you apply the right set of zeroes and ones, and something happens.

Assuming free will exists (and we may as well assume it, since proving it is quite literally as impossible as proving any given collection of numbers is truly random), a computer system clearly does not demonstrate.  A complex, well programmed computer can mimic it, but not possess it.

For the Geth to be sentient, they require that something more that a human being has.

 If we are attributing moral significance to the Geth on the basis of free will, then I suppose we do have to enter into this discussion..

 Why do we have to assume free will exists? Conceivably you could have a much much more complex computer system, which was programed to react to external stimuli and accept certain stimuli as new commands in its program structure, but commands which would be entered into (and subtley alter) an immensely complex command system. Given enough time, and very limited access to that initial command system, then we would be stood observing a system we know too little about to predict its actions, or its internal commands (or whatever term is applicable).. without the forethought of knowing the system we would conclude that it was acting randomly or freely. How would that structure be different from the human mind (which has an initial command structure which also dictates how it develops, and is formed in such a way as to take in external stimuli as commands)?

 As our brains are too complex for us to understand (or to potentially ever understand) , as is the shared Geth conscious (again, potentially too complex to ever understand), we interpret the actions of others as free will. Our own subjective experience supports the illusion.

 That is not to say that we should give up on the idea of free will; as determinism is a law of nature human actions can do nothing but live in concordance with it (aka we cannot say 'seeing as though free will is an illusion, we should do x, y and z)

 It is a useful illusion however, in so ar as it supports a view of life we enjoy. However when it is used to decide status, then we should recognise it as what it is.. an illusion

[SalsaDMA]

Phaelducan wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

The run times aren't sentient though.

Uh, yeah: hence why I said they have to work in groups to be conscious.

Right, just testing you.

Saphra, your argument here is irrelevant.  They now have a group-consciousness, and they're not looking to go back to individual run times and lose said conciousness.  That would be like me trying to damage my brain.

Because humanity never performed ill-advised brain surgery whose only effect was to damage the brain, right?

Another straw man. The argument is that for the Geth to revert back to non-sentience it would be akin to a human purposefully giving themselves brain damage... for no other reason then to damage their brain.

What is it with this thread today? 

And this exact procedure have been performed in the past. Humans undergoing cuts in the brain to 'cure' them of various psycological issues.

Don't tell me people already forgot stuff that happened in the 20'th century.... <_<

[SalsaDMA]

Phaelducan wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Yes, but you specifically called it a "malfunction".  The geth were not functioning wrongly, just unexpectedly. 

Performing in an unexpected manner is the very essence of malfunctioning. Especially when life-critical systems are involved.

Look up the definition of "malfunction".  It specifically says to function wrongly, or not at all.
The geth were designed to become more intelligent.  They did just that.
It would be the same as saying my liver was "malfunctioning" because it managed to filter more toxins from my bloodstream than was humanly possible.  It is still doing what it was designed to do, just in a manner that people generally believe to be impossible.

they were designed to be able to pool computational powers to deal with more complex tasks, not unlike graphic cards of today are designed to be able to be linked up to be able to deal with more complex tasks.

They were not designed to become sentient.

If your gfx card suddenly tells you that it won't let you play games unless it is allowed to sit on screens with the compiled works of greek philosophers for an hour every second hour you would rightfully deem your gfx card is behaving in an un-intended manner, and would claim the card was malfunctioning.

Claiming sentience, while the intended purpose was not so, IS 'functioning wrongly', and thus it is a technical malfunction.

You seem to confuse wanting to increase computational power with wanting to make sentient life, which seems to be quite a stretch as far as arguments go.

You can think of the Geth as a species what you want, but claiming it was intended that they should become a species is ignoring the lore and evidence in it.

This is a straw man. No one is saying the Quarians were trying to make sentient life. The argument is that they DID make sentient life. Intention is irrelevant. You are attacking an argument no one is making.

Wrong. There was an argument going of wether or not it was a gltich/malfunction/bug that the Geth became sentient which I replied to.

Read up on the thread before making such claims.

[SalsaDMA]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Back to your graphics card example, if my graphics card suddenly managed to have a higher resolution then I had
ever expected it to because it managed to free up more processes and
become more efficient, I would not call that a malfunction.  It's doing exactly what it was designed to do.

It would stiull be a malfunction. It would be a beneficial malfunction, but still a malfunction. It's not doing what it was designed to do when it does something unexpected. The effect may be positive, but it does not make the effect any more intended.

That would be like claiming that designing a car to go 80 miles per hour, and then discover that it actually goes 120 miles per hour is because the car was designed to do so. It isn't. The design is malfunctioning, but in the case of the car with what one would normally asume to be a positive effect.

If you ignore malfunctioning designs purely because they exceed design parameters you are ignoring designs intent. You cannot learn from malfunctioning designs if you ignore to accept that exceeding parameters in any direction outside of intended design is due to bad design. This becomes even more relevant when dealing with system or life critical systems/designs, case in point: the Geth.

They were designed to solve tasks as a tool and nothing more. Someone forgot to put limiters somewhere and the design literally blew in their face and caused the death of the majority of the quarian race. It's as big a design flaw as you can get, really. The design behaved in an undesired and unexpected manner due to a designflaw and this flaw caused the death of millions of lives.

[nicksmi56]

TheCrakFox wrote...

I think creating them in the first place was a mistake, but now we're past the point of no return. Getting rid of them would be genocide, and that of course is not such a nice act to perform.

This

[SalsaDMA]

James, actually there have already been research done into fuzzy logic, although it's still not perfected as far as I know. The basic premise of it, however, is that instead of representing data with 'yes'/'no' (or 1 and zero, if you prefer) it is represented with 'yes'/'no'/'maybe'. It's a couple of years since I read about it last in a magazine, but I suspect people are still fiddling with it and in a technological advanced enough society it could be deemed possibly to create a proper system utilizing such data proper. Especially if you start considering quantom mechanics as a base for data mechanics, instead of conventional switches.

Edit: and before any slams me with details on the subject of fuzzy logic: I'm just making a very broad exposure in very basic terms to make the knowledge of the concept appearant. So people don't asume 2 bit logic is the only way to deal with programming.

Modifié par SalsaDMA, 01 août 2011 - 07:54 .

[Phaelducan]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Yes, but you specifically called it a "malfunction".  The geth were not functioning wrongly, just unexpectedly. 

Performing in an unexpected manner is the very essence of malfunctioning. Especially when life-critical systems are involved.

Look up the definition of "malfunction".  It specifically says to function wrongly, or not at all.
The geth were designed to become more intelligent.  They did just that.
It would be the same as saying my liver was "malfunctioning" because it managed to filter more toxins from my bloodstream than was humanly possible.  It is still doing what it was designed to do, just in a manner that people generally believe to be impossible.

they were designed to be able to pool computational powers to deal with more complex tasks, not unlike graphic cards of today are designed to be able to be linked up to be able to deal with more complex tasks.

They were not designed to become sentient.

If your gfx card suddenly tells you that it won't let you play games unless it is allowed to sit on screens with the compiled works of greek philosophers for an hour every second hour you would rightfully deem your gfx card is behaving in an un-intended manner, and would claim the card was malfunctioning.

Claiming sentience, while the intended purpose was not so, IS 'functioning wrongly', and thus it is a technical malfunction.

You seem to confuse wanting to increase computational power with wanting to make sentient life, which seems to be quite a stretch as far as arguments go.

You can think of the Geth as a species what you want, but claiming it was intended that they should become a species is ignoring the lore and evidence in it.

This is a straw man. No one is saying the Quarians were trying to make sentient life. The argument is that they DID make sentient life. Intention is irrelevant. You are attacking an argument no one is making.

Wrong. There was an argument going of wether or not it was a gltich/malfunction/bug that the Geth became sentient which I replied to.

Read up on the thread before making such claims.

See? This is what happens. People forget what they are actually writing. Look up like 7 lines and you see YOU citing "but claiming it was intended." No one was claiming that the Quarians intended for the Geth to evolve, so for you to attack the argument = straw man.
You are putting words in people's mouth. The belief that A = Quarians chose to evolve the Geth into sentient beings OR B = the Geth malfunctioned is fallacious. The case has been made that there are other possibilities, whether you choose to accept them or not.
Numerous fallacies here actually. Just because you can't believe something does not make it untrue, and just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they can't read what you posted. 
Use logic, it really works. If you truly think that the geth malfunctioned, use the framework for what a malfunction is (use the actual definition, not your interpretation of what you think it is) and how what happened to the geth meets that criteria. You have not done so to this point.
To Shane, it is important for context, BUT it isn't ok for people to debunk ideas for "proof" of their argument if no one is actually making the case for that idea in the first place.