200 réponses à ce sujet

[Weskerr]

Nah, they're not sentient. They initially asked the Quirians if they had a soul because they were wondering about the nature of their own existence. Definitely not sentient.

[Dean_the_Young]

Indeed. Any automaton can seek increased self-definition, if it's programmed right. Presuming that asking a question proves the question is a logical fallacy.


But, to the OP, the answer would be 'define sentience.' By a number of definitions (such as free will), the Geth are not. However, if you are a believer in absolute determinism (that all thoughts and actions in the future can be predicted in advance if you have the inputs) and don't believe in the concept of Human free will, then there is no difference between Geth and Humans, though that equivalence may well be a disproval of the concept of sentience rather than an affirmation for both.

[Weskerr]

Luc0s wrote...

Weskerr wrote...

Nah, they're not sentient. They initially asked the Quirians if they had a soul because they were wondering about the nature of their own existence. Definitely not sentient.

Do I smell sarcasm/cynicm? Or are you really just not that smart?

Luc0s, I'm a buffoon.

Modifié par Weskerr, 16 août 2011 - 01:51 .

[Jeth Prime]

I'm sick of these threads.... People ignoring every detail about them to say "their just robots" Blah blah blah....

[Whatever42]

If the Geth act sapient and they tell me that they're sapient, it would serve no purpose to disbelieve them. Well, unless I planned on a Geth genocide and wanted to keep my conscience clean.

[CrookedAsylum]

Jeth Prime wrote...

I'm sick of these threads.... People ignoring every detail about them to say "their just robots" Blah blah blah....

My favorite is the arguments about how the geth 'feel' things. As if being able to feel is what makes someone sentient. If that were the case, then people born with CIPA - a disease where you can't feel pain, heat, cold, and a myraid of other things - are no longer sentient. OP's argument is inherently flawed.

[CMDR Locke]

Sisterofshane wrote...

In what way are you defining "feeling"? An emotion? Clearly some animals are devoid of human emotions, but have been attributed sentience. It is clear from talking to Legion that they have opinions on different matters, and clearly metaphysical matters such as "rights" and "life". I don't think these things were included in the original Quarian design.

The rest of your argument is semantics. You reason that because they are "machine" parts, that they no longer qualify under your definition.

So by your reasoning, did Shepard lose sentience when the Lazarus project replace her eyes with mechanical structures mimicking the eyes natural perception?

Was Saren not sentient because he clearly had artificial limbs that no longer allowed him to naturally feel and move and react with an organic nervous system?

The game is meant for us to "suspend" disbelief, and partake of and immerse ourselves in a fictional story. Just because machines cannot achieve sentience by real-life standards, doesn't mean that it is unattainable in this advanced fictional galactic future.

Which Animal that is devoid of human emotion has been labeled sentient?

Apes (who should have rights as a sentient species they can be taught 1000's of  words in sign and short of understand complex social paradims are equal to us in almost every way) , Dolphins (the only species to have sex because it's fun besides humans), Elaphants, and what else?

[CMDR Locke]

Jeth Prime wrote...

I'm sick of these threads.... People ignoring every detail about them to say "their just robots" Blah blah blah....

The only arguement that needs to be made is that Geth have not shown if they are sentient, or just simulate sentience through complex program sharing via the neural network.

[marshalleck]

CMDR Locke wrote...

Jeth Prime wrote...

I'm sick of these threads.... People ignoring every detail about them to say "their just robots" Blah blah blah....

The only arguement that needs to be made is that Geth have not shown if they are sentient, or just simulate sentience through complex program sharing via the neural network.

Sentience has a very clear definition. By that definition, the geth are sentient. As are many animals. 

Hence my first post in this thread.

[CMDR Locke]

Rockworm503 wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

Why are you posting the thread title as a question when you've already decided the answer?

Also did you just skip through all of Legion's dialog?  Everything you just said was proven wrong with him.
They obviously have perception.  They go through consensus and have different viewpoints.
Chose Legion to go through the ducts in the suicide mission and tell me he's not feeling pain.

Legion only says what a sentient writer programmed him to say. Whomever created the character can say what they want but they cannot redefine words. It would be erroneous but you offer no proof by citing Legion. If you can prove as sentience is defined that the geth possess it then knock yourself out.

I've never done so with Legion, but seriously what happens? Is it his sensors tell him he may become inoperative due to environmental factors or is he actually screaming and you can prove he truly feels pain internally? Is his code affected by the damage his body takes in other words? I highly doubt it is plausible in the least.

This makes no sense in any possible way.
the claim you are making is that the Geth Killed and drove off the Quarians because they programmed them to.

The quarian programmed some Geth programs to attack their enemies.
The Quarian wrote some programs defining what an enemy is.
The networked program sharing allowed the Geth to simulate "fight or flight" which they did.

The Quarians did not program a way for the Geth to retreat, why would they they're machines afterall so they attack until told not to.

The quarians didn't program them to follow the enemy at all costs if they fled.  Which is why 17 million escaped.

Quit using the act of Geth killing Quarians as an arguement for self preservation.  They did nothing that a Quarian program didn't tell them to do.

[marshalleck]

CMDR Locke wrote...

Quit using the act of Geth killing Quarians as an arguement for self preservation.  They did nothing that a Quarian program didn't tell them to do.

Did a quarian program compell them to ask if they possessed souls?

[CMDR Locke]

marshalleck wrote...

CMDR Locke wrote...

Jeth Prime wrote...

I'm sick of these threads.... People ignoring every detail about them to say "their just robots" Blah blah blah....

The only arguement that needs to be made is that Geth have not shown if they are sentient, or just simulate sentience through complex program sharing via the neural network.

Sentience has a very clear definition. By that definition, the geth are sentient. As are many animals. 

Hence my first post in this thread.

You can't use a Human definition for sentience to define the actions of an AI in a world hundreds of years more advanced than our own.  It isn't possible.  The definition of words change throughout time and to think our version would be applicable to something that hasn't happened in our own time is just silly.

[marshalleck]

CMDR Locke wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

CMDR Locke wrote...

Jeth Prime wrote...

I'm sick of these threads.... People ignoring every detail about them to say "their just robots" Blah blah blah....

The only arguement that needs to be made is that Geth have not shown if they are sentient, or just simulate sentience through complex program sharing via the neural network.

Sentience has a very clear definition. By that definition, the geth are sentient. As are many animals. 

Hence my first post in this thread.

You can't use a Human definition for sentience to define the actions of an AI in a world hundreds of years more advanced than our own.  It isn't possible.  The definition of words change throughout time and to think our version would be applicable to something that hasn't happened in our own time is just silly.

Then why are you judging them according to a "human definition" (as if there is any other definition...?) of the word? If this post is what you truly believe, you would not say the geth haven't proven their sentience. You would say the question is moot as "sentience" as we know it can not apply to the geth.

Modifié par marshalleck, 16 août 2011 - 03:08 .

[CMDR Locke]

marshalleck wrote...

CMDR Locke wrote...

Quit using the act of Geth killing Quarians as an arguement for self preservation.  They did nothing that a Quarian program didn't tell them to do.

Did a quarian program compell them to ask if they possessed souls?

Of course it did.  The quarian programmed them to share data, and information.  The Geth was using it's programing to obtain data it didn't have.  And why would you program a Geth with such information as to whether it had a soul, or was alive.

Even when it asked what its purpose is, is easily defined as it having conflicting program issues.  "Am I a miner or a soldier?  I have both programs."  Instead it worded it simply "What is my purpse.?  Hell it's a question I ask in every new job or task I am presented with. "So what do I do? Or, what's the purpose of this?"

[Ryzaki]

Huh. Odd that the quarians programmed the geth to make memorials for those they killed and show something similar to (if not completely) remorse.

[marshalleck]

CMDR Locke wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

CMDR Locke wrote...

Quit using the act of Geth killing Quarians as an arguement for self preservation.  They did nothing that a Quarian program didn't tell them to do.

Did a quarian program compell them to ask if they possessed souls?

Of course it did.  The quarian programmed them to share data, and information.  The Geth was using it's programing to obtain data it didn't have.  And why would you program a Geth with such information as to whether it had a soul, or was alive.

Even when it asked what its purpose is, is easily defined as it having conflicting program issues.  "Am I a miner or a soldier?  I have both programs."  Instead it worded it simply "What is my purpse.?  Hell it's a question I ask in every new job or task I am presented with. "So what do I do? Or, what's the purpose of this?

Then why were the quarians caught by surprise at the geth's rise to consciousness? And why would they program the geth to slaughter their own species?

I think you're just talking whatever random crap pops into your head and what you imagine about synthetic intelligence, NOT what is actually presented in the game and its lore about the geth. Which is why this conversation is always ultimately useless.

Modifié par marshalleck, 16 août 2011 - 03:11 .

[Dean_the_Young]

marshalleck wrote...

Then why were the quarians caught by surprise at the geth's rise to consciousness?

Tali tells you this: they didn't factor in the rate of growth of the inter-geth networking.

And why would they program the geth to slaughter their own species?

They didn't program the geth to slaughter their own species. They programmed the geth to program themselves in such a way that eventually had them slaughter the Quarians.

The Geth rebellion was an unintended consequence. You might as well ask why engineers built the tacoma narrows bridge to oscilate and collapse. Or why the Y2K bug was programmed into computers.

And the answer is: they didn't mean to. But an unintended consequence of a system has never been proof of sentience of a system.

[marshalleck]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Then why were the quarians caught by surprise at the geth's rise to consciousness?

Tali tells you this: they didn't factor in the rate of growth of the inter-geth networking.

And why would they program the geth to slaughter their own species?

They didn't program the geth to slaughter their own species. They programmed the geth to program themselves in such a way that eventually had them slaughter the Quarians.

The Geth rebellion was an unintended consequence. You might as well ask why engineers built the tacoma narrows bridge to oscilate and collapse. Or why the Y2K bug was programmed into computers.

And the answer is: they didn't mean to. But an unintended consequence of a system has never been proof of sentience of a system.

It was a rhetorical question, Dean. I am aware that geth consciousness was unintended. It seems others are not, or refuse to acknowledge it. Which is why these threads always fill up with babble about how the quarians programmed the geth to do such and such thing and it's all the quarians' fault etc. etc. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 16 août 2011 - 03:18 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Ryzaki wrote...

Huh. Odd that the quarians programmed the geth to make memorials for those they killed and show something similar to (if not completely) remorse.

This seeks a direct correlation between a deliberate Quarian point and Geth action. This doesn't need to be the case.

It may well be that the mis-match growth of all the various Geth programs concatonated that output, rather than a single input delivering an single output. A comparison would be, oh, throwing paint at a wall: the output is 'art', but there's nothing particularly deliberate about how the output looks when you put in the inputs (which may just splatter the paint on accident of something else).

[Dean_the_Young]

marshalleck wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Then why were the quarians caught by surprise at the geth's rise to consciousness?

Tali tells you this: they didn't factor in the rate of growth of the inter-geth networking.

And why would they program the geth to slaughter their own species?

They didn't program the geth to slaughter their own species. They programmed the geth to program themselves in such a way that eventually had them slaughter the Quarians.

The Geth rebellion was an unintended consequence. You might as well ask why engineers built the tacoma narrows bridge to oscilate and collapse. Or why the Y2K bug was programmed into computers.

And the answer is: they didn't mean to. But an unintended consequence of a system has never been proof of sentience of a system.

It was a rhetorical question, Dean. I am aware that geth consciousness was unintended. It seems others are not, or refuse to acknowledge it. Which is why these threads always fill up with babble about how the quarians programmed the geth to do such and such thing and it's all the quarians' fault etc. etc. 

I apologize for not catching the rhetorical question, marshalleck.

[Ryzaki]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Huh. Odd that the quarians programmed the geth to make memorials for those they killed and show something similar to (if not completely) remorse.

This seeks a direct correlation between a deliberate Quarian point and Geth action. This doesn't need to be the case.

It may well be that the mis-match growth of all the various Geth programs concatonated that output, rather than a single input delivering an single output. A comparison would be, oh, throwing paint at a wall: the output is 'art', but there's nothing particularly deliberate about how the output looks when you put in the inputs (which may just splatter the paint on accident of something else).

Right. 

Yeah I'm going with them being sentient. Not in the mood for walls of text on it though. Codex says they're sentinent, there's no reason for the codex to lie about this matter, so as far as I'm concerned they're sentinent. 

[marshalleck]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

I apologize for not catching the rhetorical question, marshalleck.

And I apologize for my curt tone. That was unnecessary. I do actually think many of your posts are intelligent and insightful.

Modifié par marshalleck, 16 août 2011 - 03:20 .

[marshalleck]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I thought the quarians built the geth to be slaves.

LOVE slaves.