677 réponses à ce sujet

[Inverness Moon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...

Whether it is a simulation or not is irrelevant if the simulation performs the same as what it is based on.

An original painting and a fraudulent copy of said painting are of equal value.

That's not an appropriate analogy. Because, as I said before, the brain is a means to an end.

For the painting analogy to be appropriate, the value would have be placed in what you see. In that case the origin of the painting is irrelevant as long as it looks matches the original visually.

[Inverness Moon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...

That's not an appropriate analogy. Because, as I said before, the brain is a means to an end.

An orchestra is a means to an end.

Is a computer program and sound system that perfectly simulates the sound of an orchestra the same thing?

Whether it is the same thing or not is irrelevant if it sounds the same.

You seem to be consistently missing the entire point, and I don't know how I can be anymore clear. I thought we already went over this the other day.

[Inverness Moon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

You are putting the emphasis on the wrong thing, in my opinion.

You think a painting is only what you see. However it isn't. In the case of a Picaso painting the value is more than just what you see. It is the labor that went into it, the skill, the age.

An orchestra is impressive because it is so many people playing at once, in perfect harmony.

A computer program is just numbers and algrothyms.

We have been over this before so I'll say it again: the nature of the beast is important.

That is all a matter of opinion.

If I put a painting on my wall, its going to be because it looks nice. I couldn't care less if it was an original or a copy.

If I listen to music, I want it to sound nice. I couldn't care less if it was from an orchestra or a synthesizer program as long as it sounds just as good.

You may place value in the brain's current state due to millions of years of evolution, or because it's what you have, but I don't. The brain is a means to the end that is sentience (in the context of this discussion). Whether that is achieved by an organic brain or a simulated one is irrelevant in my opinion.

Edit: Perhaps you should explain why you believe an organic brain has more value than a simulated one when they're both capable of the same thing?

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 03 août 2011 - 09:46 .

[TobyHasEyes]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...


Whether it is the same thing or not is irrelevant if it sounds the same.

You seem to be consistently missing the entire point, and I don't know how I can be anymore clear. I thought we already went over this the other day.

You are putting the emphasis on the wrong thing, in my opinion.

You think a painting is only what you see. However it isn't. In the case of a Picaso painting the value is more than just what you see. It is the labor that went into it, the skill, the age.

An orchestra is impressive because it is so many people playing at once, in perfect harmony.

A computer program is just numbers and algrothyms.

We have been over this before so I'll say it again: the nature of the beast is important.

 The flaw of those analogy's is that the debate regarding geth sentience is whether a system different to the one we know of (organic matter, evolution) can produce the same product (sentience)

 A different system to an orchestra can, if done well enough, produce exactly the same vibrations and sound waves, making the product the same. An exact copy of a painting produces all the same visual stimuli and textures, making the product the same.

 The point you are making regarding the orchestra and the painting is that it is the process rather than the product which you specifically find of importance. So to relate it to geth sentience, you are stating that you find added value in organic matter and evolution over an exact computer replication EVEN IF the end product is exactly the same

 The reason that analogy doesn't work is that accepting that the outcome can be exactly the same, but that you place more value in the process, maps into the argument as saying that you believe the geth are sentient in the same way we are, but you see more value in the organic process of bringing about that outcome

 It does not deny geth sentience

Modifié par TobyHasEyes, 03 août 2011 - 09:58 .

[Inverness Moon]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

<snip>

 It does not deny geth sentience

I agree with this whole post.

Edit: Saphra, I recommend you check out a book called The Society of Mind.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 03 août 2011 - 10:01 .

[Ieldra]

Luc0s wrote...
Are the geth an abomination?

"Abomination" is a pejorative term. Give me a definition, please.

[TobyHasEyes]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Luc0s wrote...
Are the geth an abomination?

"Abomination" is a pejorative term. Give me a definition, please.

 The debate now mostly considers whether

 - geth are sentient
 - geth have free will
 - geth are morally equivalent to organic life

 As you say, abomination is an odd term, hence the change of debate focus (I think)

[Inverness Moon]

TobyHasEyes wrote...
 - geth are sentient
 - geth have free will
 - geth are morally equivalent to organic life

1. Of course they are.

2. Geth have as much free will as humans. Take that either way you like. Though I find the whole concept of free will to be nebulous. It basically arises form the fact that we don't understand how our brains work.

3. Morally equivalent? What is that supposed to mean exactly? If people treat the geth differently because they're not organic, rather than on their merits, then that's just racist.

The way I see it, when it comes to topics like these, quite a few people try to create reasons to feel like they're superior to the geth or other AI because they want to feel special in some way. It stems from the whole the-universe-was-created-for-us line of thinking. Carl Sagan had a few things to say about that.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 03 août 2011 - 11:38 .

[TobyHasEyes]

Inverness Moon wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...
 - geth are sentient
 - geth have free will
 - geth are morally equivalent to organic life

1. Of course they are.

2. Geth have as much free will as humans. Take that either way you like. Though I find the whole concept of free will to be nebulous. It basically arises form the fact that we don't understand how our brains work.

3. Morally equivalent? What is that supposed to mean exactly? If people treat the geth differently because they're not organic, rather than on their merits, then that's just racist.

 Morally equivalent means whether you should regard them as meriting the same moral considerations (respect, rights, responsibilities) as organic life. For lots of people it is dependent on the other two, in so far as they would conclude that as they are synthetic and not organics, then they cannot have 1 or 2, and as such have no morally significant "merits"

 Thats not my view, but that is my understanding of their view

Modifié par TobyHasEyes, 03 août 2011 - 11:48 .

[Ieldra]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Luc0s wrote...
Are the geth an abomination?

"Abomination" is a pejorative term. Give me a definition, please.

 The debate now mostly considers whether

 - geth are sentient
 - geth have free will
 - geth are morally equivalent to organic life

 As you say, abomination is an odd term, hence the change of debate focus (I think)

Then here are my answers:

(1) They are sentient. They have an adaptive consciousness, apparently. In the end, to say with some degree of certainty if they are sentient or not we must have a definition of sentience that includes full understanding of our own sentience and how it compares to possible other forms of sentience. We do not have that, and as long as we don't, all we have to go on is "If its behaviour appears sentient to us, then we must assume it is sentient".

(2) They have as much free will as humans, which is likely not very much. Humans are organic machines, the only difference apart from the hardware is that humans weren't intentionally designed. That doesn't mean that our cognitive processes are any more or any less deterministic.

(3) Certain aspects of human morality do not apply to geth. Particularly where the concept of individuality is concerned. But as a species they deserve the same consideration as organic species.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 03 août 2011 - 01:19 .

[TobyHasEyes]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Geth should not be given the same rights or respect.

For one, a geth can be copied over and over again. Meaning their "life" has no value.

Secondly, a geth cannot feel pain, be it physical or emotionally. You thus can't torture a geth, or abuse it.

You can't commit a war crime against a geth for the above reasons as well.

 Very interesting considerations, it would be good to get some clarification on the Geth existence

 Mobile platforms may not be considered individuals, nor would each run time (as individually they are not sentient), whoever if we take a mobile platform like Legion, once that mobile platform has been destroyed that configuration of run times that made up Legion's personality / mindset would be returned to the Geth network; if that same combination of run times would not be recreated, then surely that would be equivalent to killing Legion? You are denying the continued existence of the exact combination of run times which made up Legion's personality. I recognise this is not concrete, but were they real they would be worthwhile debates and considerations

 Furthermore when there is such a collection of run times that grants sentience, as with Legion, then I wouldn't be so sure that emotional pain would remain impossible. Legion's combined sentience does appear to have fledging responses that resemble (as far as we know) what we call emotions. While undoubtedly this is not true for every platform, perhaps on his level it is

 I still conclude that the safest option, in terms of moral repugnancy, is to assume what-appears-to-be-Geth-sentience is actually Geth sentience, but this poses interesting questions as to what parts of the Geth (and how much of the Geth) then count as that sentience. Is there a combined singular sentience, or multiple instances?

[REgentleman]

Saphra Deden wrote...

An original painting and a fraudulent copy of said painting are of equal value.

uh

Do you mean they have the same aesthetic value, or that they would go for the same price? I think I know some artists who might make a whole other topic out of rebuting that, either way.

That is, IIRC the brain perceives a physical object it sees in front of it in a different way from seeing a digital copy in an image viewer.

Modifié par REgentleman, 03 août 2011 - 03:48 .

[REgentleman]

Oh dur, extending somebody else's logic to make a point. Excuse me.

I think?

Modifié par REgentleman, 03 août 2011 - 03:50 .

[TobyHasEyes]

 @ Saphra Deden

 For the ant colony comparison to work, it would have to be an ant colony that speaks with one voice, and by combination of the different ant's mental capacities reaches a level of sentience they do not possess individually

 And if there were an ant colony that had those qualities, and you took all the ants and dumped them in a patch of millions of other ants, then..

  - if there was a chance, and likelihood, that the same ants could rejoin so as to make the same combination and have the same sentience / personality, then there would be no harm done

 - if there was no chance of what is described above happening, then than sentience/personality which resulted from those combined run times is denied any continued existence

 I understand that the term 'personality' here could be contentious, but seeing as though (as best we understand) our personality is nothing more than the specific configuration of cells (both within the cell and between the cells) in our brain, then I don't think it is wrong to use the term to describe the specific configuration of run times present in Legion

 And your point regarding the possibility of synthetic emotion being genuine comes to the same point reached on the possibility of synthetic sentience; namely we do not know enough about organic sentience or the 'qualia' (subjective experience) within the mind to suggest that the same could not be achieved in a machine. As best as we can tell our sentience, emotions, personality, consciousness and all the rest are simply caused by specific configurations in the brain

 Your example of the A.I in an RTS isn't a valid comparison either; the A.I in that game is to Geth what a single celled organism is to a human. The only difference between that single celled organism and the human (that we can see) is hugely increased complexity of interactions, which is also the only difference between a current A.I and the geth

 Your argument has to rest therefore on an assumption that one day there will be discovered some specific quirk of organic structures that either a) has not been replicated in the geth, or cannot be replicated synthetically at all

Modifié par TobyHasEyes, 03 août 2011 - 04:20 .

[TobyHasEyes]

Saphra Deden wrote...

REgentleman wrote...

Do you mean they have the same aesthetic value, or that they would go for the same price?

They would go for the same price according to Inverness Moon.

 Inverness Moon never said that, the statement that they are the same is recognising that if it was an exact copy then as observable scientific phenomena they would be exactly the same

 The value we attach to them is a tertiary quality (not inherent to the object, nor to our perception of the object) and concerns what we like about the process by which it was made, rather than by whether the actual product is different

[TobyHasEyes]

REgentleman wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

An original painting and a fraudulent copy of said painting are of equal value.

uh

Do you mean they have the same aesthetic value, or that they would go for the same price? I think I know some artists who might make a whole other topic out of rebuting that, either way.

That is, IIRC the brain perceives a physical object it sees in front of it in a different way from seeing a digital copy in an image viewer.

 If the end product is exactly the same, then we are not talking about a physical copy vs a digital copy. We are talking about one product made by an artists hand, and another product replicated with absolute total accuracy, no matter at what level you observe it at

[TobyHasEyes]

 "The fact that brain processes cause consciousness does not imply that only brains can be conscious. The brain is a biological machine, and we might build an artificial machine that was conscious; just as the heart is a machine, and we have built artificial hearts. Because we do not know exactly how the brain does it we are not yet in a position to know how to do it artificially."

 John Searle

[SandTrout]

You may want to consider using that quote as a signature, Toby.

Overall, though I still say that we lack the data to make any concrete determination of Geth Sapience.

1) We do not have a good understanding of our own brains or how they produce consciousness, or even a clear definition of consciousness.

2) We do not have a good understanding of how the Geth process of achieving (or emulating) consciousness works. This result was an unintended one, and we have about as much understanding of why it happens as we do with our own brains.