677 réponses à ce sujet

[SandTrout]

If a city Council gets together and votes on a single speaker who voices all of their rulings/policies/whatever to the public, and we dissolve that Council, have we taken a life?

No, but we have destroyed an entity.

I'm not saying that I consider politicians as life, but you are destroying 'something' by dissolving a city council or other parliamentary construct.

Modifié par SandTrout, 03 août 2011 - 06:28 .

[TobyHasEyes]

SandTrout wrote...

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.

 Hence my view that, as we do not know, the moral consequences of acting one way or the other are..

 Treating them as sentient/conscious etc.: the best possible - we are treating them with consistent respect that e would afford others, the worst possible - we are wasting moral effort treating computers as though they have feelings

 Treating them as not sentient etc.: the best possible - we are not wasting moral effort on a computer, the worst possible - we are treating a sentient race as though they weren't, which is oppressive and morally repugnant

 I know which is the safer option in my moral regards

[TobyHasEyes]

Saphra Deden wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

 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.

That's exactly what ants do. By itself an ant hasn't the intelligence or ability to be a colony.

If a city Council gets together and votes on a single speaker who voices all of their rulings/policies/whatever to the public, and we dissolve that Council, have we taken a life?

 Except even a colony of ants does not have a combined sentience. The better comparison is a human brain made up of multiple living cells. Seperate out those non-sentient cells, and even if every cell survived the process you would still have cancelled out the sentience and personality that arose from their combination, even if nothing itself dies

[TobyHasEyes]

Saphra Deden wrote...

...but we know for a fact they don't have feelings. The geth tell us is quite plainly. The geth themselves also don't seem to put any value in the clusters of programs that inhabit any given platform. They shift those programs around at will.

With the emotion issue, I was taking issue with your claim that sentient life by definition cannot feel emotion, which is far from clear

 I would accept that the Geth thus far have shown no sign of emotions, however they do ascribe to values such as self-determination and continued survival, so while they do not have an emotive attachment to the bodies they inhabit they do (as a collective) have aims, goals etc. which we could oppress
 
 So even if we conclude that are emotionless even at their points of hightened sentience, then we still have a race of sentient synthetic beings that merit moral consideration

[TobyHasEyes]

Saphra Deden wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Except even a colony of ants does not have a combined sentience. The better comparison is a human brain made up of multiple living cells. Seperate out those non-sentient cells, and even if every cell survived the process you would still have cancelled out the sentience and personality that arose from their combination, even if nothing itself dies

That's the real question though, isn't it? Do the geth have a mind? You see brain cells and I just see computer algorythms.

I see symbols on paper.

 I see computer algorythms, but I would contend that a deterministic brain cell is also limited, and it is not beyond belief that a sufficiently complex computer program could match those processes, and in doing so create the samme product.. a conscious mind

[CoffeeHolic93]

In my humble opinion.
Avoiding death. Self-preservation. That is life.
Saying that synthetic "life" based on logic isn't real "life" is like saying insects aren't real "life" because they're based on instincts.

[TobyHasEyes]

Saphra Deden wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

With the emotion issue, I was taking issue with your claim that sentient life by definition cannot feel emotion, which is far from clear...

You mean synthetic "life"?

This gets into the "nature of the beast" angle. As far as we've seen organic brains of similar structure and compsition are needed to create consciousness and emotion (as well as sensations of pain).

Sometimes there is only one recipe to create a desired dish.

You can't make coal out of water.

 Synthetic races then

 The point I would make is that you claim that even if a construct can be made artifically in a way whichexactly recreates every process that goes on in an organic brain, and if we could understand every single complex interaction in the brain (within and between brain cells) and recreate that within the synthetic construct, to 100% accuracy, you conclude that because the process is one of construction rather than organic evolution it by definition can only imitate

 The recipe and coal analogy are so flawed; you are suggesting that there is some great privelege in the process of organic evolution than can never be recreated, but you don't even attempt to state what that might be
 
 There is no such thing as organic elements; all life and sentience is a result of combining inanimate, determined atoms and molecules. It is not some quality of those starting bits that define whether the life or sentience occurs, it is the specific combination. And if you could know that specific combination, and use it to make an exactly-the-same structure, then because it was constructed (even along the exact same specifications) there must be SOMETHING missing




 

Modifié par TobyHasEyes, 03 août 2011 - 07:57 .

[TobyHasEyes]

Saphra Deden wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

 The point I would make is that you claim that even if a construct can be made artifically in a way which exactly recreates every process that goes on in an organic brain, and if we could understand every single complex interaction in the brain (within and between brain cells) and recreate that within the synthetic construct, to 100% accuracy, you conclude that because the process is one of construction rather than organic evolution it by definition can only imitate

You aren't recreating it, you are simulating it. To recreate it you'd need to make an organic brain.

 

TobyHasEyes wrote...

The recipe and coal analogy are so flawed; you are suggesting that there is some great privelege in the process of organic evolution than can never be recreated, but you don't even attempt to state what that might be

All I'm saying is that there is not always more than one way to create something.

For example you can't have carbon based life without carbon.

It is possible that you can't create consciousness without an organic brain.

 
 

  But see, you are attacking the process rather than the product, and you haven't explained why. It is the equivalent of finding a non-carbon based lifeform, which in every way acts as something living would, and then stating it isn't alive because it is not carbon. And then providing no reason as to why carbon should be essential, just again stating ' it isn't life, it has to be carbon'

 I understand the argument that there is not always more than one way to make something, but you aren't saying what about this example makes it such a thing. A synthetic construct which performs ALL of the complex processes and interactions that an organic mind does, you state that it wouldn't be a mind but when it brings about all the same consequences because it is different you state it cannot have created the same consequence.. but when by all appearances and investigations it IS the same thing, you have to rely on suspicions than you cannot substantiate

 I agree that it may be possible that there are parts of an organic brain that cannot be simulated. I am stating that we do not know either way. And as we do not know either way, just as nobody can say with certainty "The Geth must be sentient, look what they do and say", then nobody can say with certainty "It cannot be sentience, on the virtue that it is synthetic"

[TobyHasEyes]

Saphra Deden wrote...

TobyHasEyes wrote...

  But see, you are attacking the process rather than the product, and you haven't explained why.

I have too explained why, numerous times.

The way those processes are created is important because it may be partially the way they are created that allows for consciousness to form.

Do I need to bring up the paper again?

You can recreate all the processes that go into a geth "brain" on paper by writing down the algorythms and such. You can even run the code that way by manually running the program. The process would be extremely time consuming, possibly on the scale of thousands or even millions (or longer) of years to carry out, but the result would be exactly the same as if you'd programmed it into a computer.

So in that case, how would the geth be conscious? There's no brain, there is just symbols on paper and a human running the program. The geth itself doesn't even really exist except as an abstract concept jotted down on so many pieces of paper. It can't have a mind then. It's just a math equation.

So you see, I've recreated (or simulated) a geth mind only without bothering with a computer. I did it in a really primitive way but the result is identical.

According to you it must be a real geth then, despite the fact it has no physical body of any kind.

 Well they clearly have parts of their 'algorythms' which can take on external stimuli and use to alter the command structure, hence learning, but yes if you wanted to put on a peace of paper all the geth processes and command structure at one point in time, then yes we could

 But Saphra Deden, what reason do you have for thinking we could not (in the same theoretical expanse of time with the same theoretical insight) do the same thing with an organic brain? What part of the organic brain do you think makes it uniquely incomprehensible to scientists? All symbols, algorhytms and the rest are a language we have invented so as to express processes; them being programmed into a computer brings about those processes. But currently our A.I and programming are so basic that it doesn't seem to even resemble those proccesses that are so much more complex (such as a conscious mind) but there is nothing qualitatively different in the conscious mind other than extreme added complexity. That Geth piece of paper would give you absolute insight into every working of the geth mind, but the Human Brain piece of paper would give the same absolute insight

 In that way the scientist would have recreated (or simulated) a human mind on a piece of paper, although actually in neither instance he has; just as with the Geth piece of paper he has simply described with exact detail what hugely complex processes are going on in that hugely complex mind. Hugely complex, but there is nothing that stops it from being theoretically (theoretical due to the time and understanding needed) written down in the same way.

 Once those symbols have been put into a computer, they have become an actie process. An extremely simple active process, but different from the representation of that process on the page

 Consciousness and subjective experiences of consciousness, are still abstract concepts that we cannot yet successfully describe how they might could possibly arise in a human brain

[Inverness Moon]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

 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

In my opinion that view is a load a crap.

People who try to say the geth are not sentient often deny observable behavior and say that they can't be sentient because they're machines. That is an obvious fallacy, since sentience is determined by what you observe. In other words, the means are irrelevant. Other people try to say that emotions or other things are a requirement for sentience, which is merely playing an imaginary, insignificant barrier. That is rather like a poll tax in my opinion.

The whole free will thing is just a term spawned from ignorance of the brain. That ignorance gives people the opportunity to say they might be special in some supernatural way, without logic or proof, and contrast that with the apparently known design of the geth. In other words, people don't like being compared to machines (which in and of itself is silly), so they try to come up with ways to distance themselves from things like the geth.

Edit: And when it comes to moral equivalency, I think many people approach that whole idea the wrong way. Rather than judging the geth on their merits and appreciating them for what they are (different in very interesting ways), many people would rather look at what they're not and how they're different than us. They then use those differences as an excuse to treat geth badly for whatever reason. That whole modus operandi is sad, in my opinion.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 03 août 2011 - 09:26 .

[Inverness Moon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

An organic brain is not a series of algorythms. You could simulate one that way, in theory. However that is not literally what it is. It is complex matter and energy.

A geth is not. A geth is literally those symbols you've written down on the paper.

The behavior of the universe can be defined by specific algorithms. That is why there are laws of physics among other things, and also why various things can be simulated on computers. The brain operates on top of that whole system, and rather inefficiently at that.

Your whole argument underlines your lack of understanding when it ccomes to the brain.

I could make a list of all the elements in the human body and say a human is literally all these symbols I've just written. The problem is that they interact in complex ways that we're ignorant of. There is an appropriate quote form FullMetal Alchemist that I think was posted around here.

You seem to think that (supposedly) knowing how the geth work while being ignorant of ourselves makes the geth inferior in some way. "Confidence born of ignorance."

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 03 août 2011 - 09:33 .

[Inverness Moon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...

There is an appropriate quote form FullMetal Alchemist that I think was posted around here.

I'm not going to take you seriously if you are going to start drawing inspiration from anime, or comics, or any other fictional medium.

The quote was merely a listing of all the elements of the human body by weight and how cheap the elements are to purchase.

Don't get your panties in a twist. 

Edit: I'm also not going to take you seriously if you try to come up with reasons to ignore my argument. Don't inject your opinions about anime into the discussion.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 03 août 2011 - 09:35 .

[Inverness Moon]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Then let's just save time and effort and pretend we carried this debate out to its usual conclusion.

The usuall conclusion involves you explaining how humans and geth aren't the same, which is both not what I claimed and a statement of the obvious. Then, you don't deny geth sentience in your examples, but go on to explain how the organic method of achieving sentience has some sort of inherent value ("nature of the beast") to you that seems as nebulous to me as the idea that white skin is superior. After that, you just ignore the arguments made against you and start over from the beginning.

We have a "usual conclusion" because you never evolve the debate or really stick to it. Jumping on my comment about FullMetal Alchemist shows just how interested you are in what I was actually saying.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 03 août 2011 - 09:43 .