406 réponses à ce sujet

[knightnblu]

I view her as a person. If she isn't a person then how are we people? In short, it does not matter what platform sentience is established on so long as it is sentience.

[Errationatus]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

My answer was yes even then. That's why back in ME1 I accused Tali's race of attempted genocide and tried my hardest to talk the Citadel AI out of suicide.

Computers which develop intelligence are people.

Whales, dolphins, chimps, octopi, dogs and parrots are all considered intelligent.  Dolphins and whales are now considered to have human-level intellects, and the ability to abstract.

Are they people?

My TV could have as sophisticated programming as EDI - and programming does not equal intelligence so that term should not be used - should I consider my TV a person then?

An appliance that walks, talks, and is programmed to consider itself a person is still an appliance. How "smart" it appears makes no difference.

I maintain that if EDI looked like Don Knots no one would give a rat's ass how "alive" she was.  It was not by accident that Bioware gave her a fembot to occupy.

[Errationatus]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...
I love EDI and I'm not a fan of that body she snatched. The body doesn't change anything for me - of course she's alive, she's a person.

How is she a person?  Let's examine a few mistakes people make:

Programming is not intelligence.  Programming requires intelligence.  EDI does not program herself.  She can add programs, she may even be able to rewrite or write new programs, but she does not get "smarter" for doing it.  She simply expands her database.  She has no impulses, she has no drives that have not been programmed into her.  

Unless she was completely blanked and then proceeded to write her own basic code into sophisticated sentience, she is not intelligent and never will be.

Strike one.

As the Normandy's computer, she was not considered alive.  "Smart", yes.  Alive, no.  This debate didn't begin until she was shiny eye-candy.  Humans have a hard time giving any non-human the benefit-of-doubt intelligence-wise unless they look like us.  That's why turians and asari and even volus are never questioned, and why the elcor sound slow and stupid, and the hanar are constantly derided.  The first three look like us, and the eclor and hanar don't.  

Until EDI looked like us, no one particularly cared.  That included Joker.

Strike two.

There are these odd things human brains do - one is pattern recognition - it's a survival mechanism, but it also allows us to see shapes in clouds and dust and ancient bedsheets.  It mistakes ambient noises for voices and thus EVPs were born.  It sees shadows for shapes and ghosts suddenly appear everywhere.  Doesn't make any of those things real.

Another thing we do is something called "anthropomorphization".  That is where we give inanimate objects or non-humans qualities they do not possess.

We say our car "is cranky" when it takes too long to start.  We don't call it "junk" unless we're p!ssed at it, because somehow the car might hear us saying so and refuse to work in some odd manner.  

We give our pets motivations they don't have - even though its been shown that a cat rubbing on you has nothing to do with affection - nor does its purring, we still go "awwww" when it does.  We assume our pets understand English. They don't.  We give them elaborate personalities they don't possess.  We empathize with them to the point of giving them full names.  My mother-in-law appends the family name to the dog. We leave them our money.  We buy them insurance - and clothes - and makeovers.   We give funerals for our pets and we mourn them for long periods.  

Empathy is a strength, don't get me wrong, it's the ability to "walk in another's shoes", but it can go a little too far on ocassion.

Again, until EDI got her tatas, few empathized with her.  Until she had an actual face, it just wasn't there.  There was nothing to anthropomorphize, and no reason to care.  Until ******.

Strike three.

She's out.

Modifié par JakeMacDon, 05 septembre 2012 - 05:16 .

[Dragoonlordz]

I consider her to be Jokers girlfriend and a valuable asset to missions due to abilities.

@Jake

Being self aware is what most people consider to be the benchmark. She is. The thread said consider person, you are focusing on 'alive'. A single cell organism is alive, a flower or tree is alive but neither are a person. She is a person made of synthetic parts as opposed to organic but a person all the same because she is self aware. This does not require being organically alive but synthetically so too.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 05 septembre 2012 - 05:30 .

[BatmanPWNS]

I consider her to be a synthetic who should really stop trying to push herself as an organic.

But she's dead now so I could care less.

[Senior Cinco]

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
~ Albert Einstein

[SeptimusMagistos]

JakeMacDon wrote...

Whales, dolphins, chimps, octopi, dogs and parrots are all considered intelligent.  Dolphins and whales are now considered to have human-level intellects, and the ability to abstract.

Are they people?

Hm. From the studies I've read they reach fairly close but aren't quite there. And you'll notice how they frequently get special consideration based on that. EDI has crossed that line.

JakeMacDon wrote...

My TV could have as sophisticated programming as EDI - and programming does not equal intelligence so that term should not be used - should I consider my TV a person then?

If it becomes as sophisticated as EDI? Yes, absolutely.

Also you'll have to explain to me the difference between programming and intelligence. What is it that your brain is doing that EDI's isn't?

JakeMacDon wrote...

I maintain that if EDI looked like Don Knots no one would give a rat's ass how "alive" she was.  It was not by accident that Bioware gave her a fembot to occupy.

Not true. I considered her a person from ME2 and was actually annoyed that there wasn't an option to unshackle her from the very start. My Shepard would never put up with slavery on his ship.

He also considered the Citadel AI a person despite the fact it looked just like any other computer on the Citadel. He attempted to negotiate with it in good faith and was sad when it commited suicide.

[Saberchic]

Alive in the sense that organics are? No.

I believe that EDI is a sentient being who has preferences, but I do not believe she really feels and has emotions like we do. She can mimic human emotion, yet I do not believe she really experiences it naturally like we do. She can adjust her programming to expand her horizons (so to speak), but these alter her perceptions only so that she acts according to how her preferences influence her.

Having said that, I want to make it clear that she is not just a machine. If she is destroyed, there is no way to recreate her again. All the experiences that happened have shaped her into who she is, and there's no way to create those specific instances again.

[Rhayak]

Perhaps she was born a 'tool', but the moment she gained self-awareness and started asking questions, both to others and themselves, in order to grow and better herself, she became a mind, a soul, an individual.

[mumba]

No. She's just a machine built to do "her" job on the Normandy. Heck, the fact that Bioware tried giving her a human aspect in ME3 was kinda annoying.

[The Twilight God]

Mumba1511 wrote...

No. She's just a machine built to do "her" job on the Normandy. Heck, the fact that Bioware tried giving her a human aspect in ME3 was kinda annoying.

You're just a machine built and programmed to reporduce. Nothing in the physical world can be considered alive by that regard.

[Astralify]

I recommend to all synthesis supporters to watch the movie "Equilibrium". It will give you at least one reason to see how terrible synthesis actually is. And that's why I really don't want that ending to be considered more than a dream Idea of a "perfect world" caused by indoctrination.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

JakeMacDon wrote...

KiddDaBeauty wrote...
I love EDI and I'm not a fan of that body she snatched. The body doesn't change anything for me - of course she's alive, she's a person.

How is she a person?  Let's examine a few mistakes people make:

Programming is not intelligence.  Programming requires intelligence.  EDI does not program herself.  She can add programs, she may even be able to rewrite or write new programs, but she does not get "smarter" for doing it.  She simply expands her database.  She has no impulses, she has no drives that have not been programmed into her.  

Unless she was completely blanked and then proceeded to write her own basic code into sophisticated sentience, she is not intelligent and never will be.

Strike one.

As the Normandy's computer, she was not considered alive.  "Smart", yes.  Alive, no.  This debate didn't begin until she was shiny eye-candy.  Humans have a hard time giving any non-human the benefit-of-doubt intelligence-wise unless they look like us.  That's why turians and asari and even volus are never questioned, and why the elcor sound slow and stupid, and the hanar are constantly derided.  The first three look like us, and the eclor and hanar don't.  

Until EDI looked like us, no one particularly cared.  That included Joker.

Strike two.

There are these odd things human brains do - one is pattern recognition - it's a survival mechanism, but it also allows us to see shapes in clouds and dust and ancient bedsheets.  It mistakes ambient noises for voices and thus EVPs were born.  It sees shadows for shapes and ghosts suddenly appear everywhere.  Doesn't make any of those things real.

Another thing we do is something called "anthropomorphization".  That is where we give inanimate objects or non-humans qualities they do not possess.

We say our car "is cranky" when it takes too long to start.  We don't call it "junk" unless we're p!ssed at it, because somehow the car might hear us saying so and refuse to work in some odd manner.  

We give our pets motivations they don't have - even though its been shown that a cat rubbing on you has nothing to do with affection - nor does its purring, we still go "awwww" when it does.  We assume our pets understand English. They don't.  We give them elaborate personalities they don't possess.  We empathize with them to the point of giving them full names.  My mother-in-law appends the family name to the dog. We leave them our money.  We buy them insurance - and clothes - and makeovers.   We give funerals for our pets and we mourn them for long periods.  

Empathy is a strength, don't get me wrong, it's the ability to "walk in another's shoes", but it can go a little too far on ocassion.

Again, until EDI got her tatas, few empathized with her.  Until she had an actual face, it just wasn't there.  There was nothing to anthropomorphize, and no reason to care.  Until ******.

Strike three.

She's out.

You know this anthropomorphizing thing. Regarding animals. We are animals. How do we know that animals don't do things out of affection? We cannot communicate in their language. They cannot communicate in ours. Therefore all we can truthfully say is that we do not know. A German Shepard Dog will understand about 1000 words. I trained them for years. Like humans they need to be shown what the words mean. They do have individual personalities. They are not all the same. Some ride on the long bus. Some take the short bus. Some drive to the advanced placement classes. Today you need to buy them veterinary insurance so you can afford to even have a companion animal. They can be trained to be service dogs, police dogs, personal protection dogs, serve in the military, herd sheep or cattle, or be the family pet, but they need a job or they will can become a nuisance. Some of them are lazy. But in the end, they are mooks (and I say the affectionately).

A professional dog trainer with your ideas about dogs had to work my alpha female, and she taught him otherwise. Most dogs people see are betas. They need direction. They take direction. The people give them purpose. It doesn't work the same way with the alphas. They are much more intelligent. The alpha demands control. The alpha understands but is unwilling to bend.

Now regarding EDI. EDI was self aware as the blue globe. When EDI was unshackled EDI became capable of learning and writing her own coding, much like a child going to school learns by studying classes. Suppose EDI had remained "the ship", or say for example Eva Core had been Ed Core instead and EDI occupied a male body and adapted a male personality? Would people have cared as much? EDI then would have been the DATA of the Normandy. Basically that's what EDI was: Cmdr DATA except in a female form so as to be more sympathetic to the male fanbase.

Was EDI alive? In a biological sense? No. But in an aware sense yes, she was, even before she occupied the robot. It occured once she was unshackled.

Is feeling emotions part of the definition of being alive. There are people who cannot feel emotion.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 05 septembre 2012 - 07:02 .

[Errationatus]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I consider her to be Jokers girlfriend and a valuable asset to missions due to abilities.

@Jake

Being self aware is what most people consider to be the benchmark. She is. The thread said consider person, you are focusing on 'alive'. A single cell organism is alive, a flower or tree is alive but neither are a person. She is a person made of synthetic parts as opposed to organic but a person all the same because she is self aware. This does not require being organically alive but synthetically so too.

Non-human animals are self-aware.  Are they people?  All living organisms have varying levels of awareness.  If they didn't, they would not exist for long.

The question is whether EDI is a person, and by extension alive and worthy of rights and consideration?

No.  EDI is an appliance.  

She is not self-aware.  She has been programmed to be that way.  The program says "I am". She does not know she's alive.  Her programming tells her she is.  That's not the same thing.

EDI also does not evolve and does not have the capability.  You can point to the Reapers and say they're alive, they've evolved, but they haven't either.  If they did, there would be no stopping them with anything, period.  There would be no "Starchild" because there would be no need for it.  They'd have evolved far past it.  They've had millions of years and they have not changed.  They're intelligent machines, like EDI, but that is all they are.  Emulation is not actualization.  Just because we believe Zeus lives in the statue or Mary statues weeps blood or Tom Cruise has an rudimentarily functioning cerebrum is meaningless.  It does not make it true and never has.  You can believe she's alive all you like.  The reality says otherwise.

[Samtheman63]

no, shes a tool

[SeptimusMagistos]

JakeMacDon wrote...


She is not self-aware.  She has been programmed to be that way.  The program says "I am". She does not know she's alive.  Her programming tells her she is.  That's not the same thing.

Could you please explain the distinction?

[Errationatus]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Hm. From the studies I've read they reach fairly close but aren't quite there. And you'll notice how they frequently get special consideration based on that. EDI has crossed that line.

 

They get special consideration?  I'll let the Chinese and Japanese know that.  Maybe they'll stop slaughtering them in their hundreds of thousands for soup.

The only line EDI has crossed is good taste.  Being alive, and being programmed to believe you can be alive are two radically different things.

 

Also you'll have to explain to me the difference between programming and intelligence. What is it that your brain is doing that EDI's isn't?

 

My brain is an evolved organic construct that has arrived at its present state over many hundreds of millennia.  It is not perfect in any sense.  EDI's is an artificially-created computer (she doesn't actually possess a "brain".  Let's not forget she actually resides in a bunch of big boxes with blue lights on them, not in a extension she repurposed) that is doing the things it does via a pre-programmed set of instructions.

The rest is metaphysical nonsense. 

 
Not true. I considered her a person from ME2 and was actually annoyed that there wasn't an option to unshackle her from the very start. My Shepard would never put up with slavery on his ship.

 

What you considered her is irrelevant.  A computer is a computer.  She's not a "slave" -  that's a histrionic reaction that bears no relevancy on the question of her "life" or lack of one.  She was no more a slave than a dog chained in the backyard or constrained by a fence.

 
He also considered the Citadel AI a person despite the fact it looked just like any other computer on the Citadel. He attempted to negotiate with it in good faith and was sad when it commited suicide.

Your Shepard never pick a flower for fear of its silent deathcry?  Or is a flower's life - and it is infinitely more alive than cranky banking computer - not as relevant because it can't talk or moan about the futility of counting credits? Has he never eaten lobster or crab after they've been boiled alive?  

Man, Marvin the P.A. would have your Shepard giving his diodes "a spit polish" everytime they "ached".

[Versus Omnibus]

KBomb wrote...

Versus Omnibus wrote...

@Kbomb: That doesn't answer my question: is our physical traits what makes us alive or is it something else?

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, so sorry if I sound rude.

You don’t sound rude at all.
 

You can program EDI to recognize jokes, you can program her to laugh at them all. You can program her to forgive or overlook all your indiscretions.  You can program her to have an attachment to you and when you tire of her, you can program her to not recognize the attachment. You can program her to kiss you, to hold you, even to ‘love you’ and when you tire of all those things, you can program her to forget you as easily as she loved you. You can alter her programming so that she is altruistic, kind, noble, loving, faithful and benevolent. And in turn, you can program her to be the antithesis of all those things. These aren’t emotions, they’re code in a computer. That is the difference between EDI and a human, and those reasons are what define it for me.

Okay good, I didn't want to come across as a jack***.

And you're right, emotions can be faked but they're not really required to be considered alive. It's been beaten to death here but I agree with this scene from Star Trek.



EDI is exactly like Data: she adapts to new situations and events on her own; she is aware of herself; she is aware of her actions and can learn from them; she values others instead of just herself, and even changes herself on her own accord because she cares deeply for Joker.

So if a computer does all this, by itself with no or little input from outside sources, does that simply make it a computer? Would that mean I'm simply an organic, following the coding within my genetic material?

[Errationatus]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

You know this anthropomorphizing thing. Regarding animals. We are animals. How do we know that animals don't do things out of affection?

 

Well, it's easy to assume they do.  I wouldn't deny that.  But dogs don't love you the way you love your dog.  They don't have that level of emotional awareness.  A computer has none at all, not even if its been programmed to fake 'em, because that would be all it would be.

 
We cannot communicate in their language. They cannot communicate in ours. Therefore all we can truthfully say is that we do not know. A German Shepard Dog will understand about 1000 words.

 

And Koko the Gorilla could understand 5000, and Alex the parrot could make abstract distinctions and form his own cogent sentences.

It makes them extraordinary, and definitely special.  Doesn't make them people.

 
I trained them for years. Like humans they need to be shown what the words mean. They do have individual personalities. They are not all the same. Some ride on the long bus. Some take the short bus. Some drive to the advanced placement classes. Today you need to buy them veterinary insurance so you can afford to even have a companion animal. They can be trained to be service dogs, police dogs, personal protection dogs, serve in the military, herd sheep or cattle, or be the family pet, but they need a job or they will can become a nuisance. Some of them are lazy. But in the end, they are mooks (and I say the affectionately).

A professional dog trainer with your ideas about dogs had to work my alpha female, and she taught him otherwise. Most dogs people see are betas. They need direction. They take direction. The people give them purpose. It doesn't work the same way with the alphas. They are much more intelligent. The alpha demands control. The alpha understands but is unwilling to bend.

 

Sure.  But your German Shepard is not a person.  It's a dog.  If you started to think that it thought in a concrete way about just what an alpha and beta actually were, you are giving the dog far too much credit and attributes it does not possess.  That is my argument in this instance.

 
Now regarding EDI. EDI was self aware as the blue globe. When EDI was unshackled EDI became capable of learning and writing her own coding, much like a child going to school learns by studying classes. Suppose EDI had remained "the ship", or say for example Eva Core had been Ed Core instead and EDI occupied a male body and adapted a male personality? Would people have cared as much? EDI then would have been the DATA of the Normandy. Basically that's what EDI was: Cmdr DATA except in a female form so as to be more sympathetic to the male fanbase.

 

Okay.  But Data wasn't alive either.

 
Was EDI alive? In a biological sense? No. But in an aware sense yes, she was, even before she occupied the robot. It occured once she was unshackled.

 

Alive in a biological sense is the only sense that matters.

 
Is feeling emotions part of the definition of being alive. There are people who cannot feel emotion.

Emotional states are irrelevant to being alive, being a person, whatever.  Feelings are a construct of the brain which generally serve as markers to inform it how to react given certain stimuli and in certain circumstances.  In many cases, emotions are more detrimental to an organism's survival than lack of them.  They are certainly no benchmark.

One other thing - "person" is a legal term, not a biological one.  The problem with this kind of discussion generally boils down to which kind of semantics we use.  

Modifié par JakeMacDon, 05 septembre 2012 - 08:00 .

[Errationatus]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

JakeMacDon wrote...


She is not self-aware.  She has been programmed to be that way.  The program says "I am". She does not know she's alive.  Her programming tells her she is.  That's not the same thing.

Could you please explain the distinction?

Why is this so hard for people?  Well, people who don't lathe metaphysics all over it, anyway.

EDI is a computer.  At some point - when she was created by the Alliance on Luna, she was blank, sans programme.  Like the HD in your computer fresh from the factory, formatted but empty.  EDI was then programmed by organics with specific instructions on how to behave.

Without the programming - and this was deliberate because she was meant by her programmers to attempt sentience - and this is the key bit here - she would never had gone "mad" and malfunctioned.  Cerberus then acquired what your Shepard destroyed (or did he just take her to therapy and get her a latte mochachino and a scent pillow after?), and reprogrammed her to her present state.  Then, instead of making the same mistake the Alliance did, they put software blocks on her software.  Those were not to chain her, but to keep Shepard from finding out key information.  Why they simply didn't just not include it is called "bad writing", not bad programming.

Programmed to say "I am self-aware" is not the same as actually being self-aware.  EDI will always be programmed to believe it.  Changes nothing.

[SeptimusMagistos]

JakeMacDon wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

JakeMacDon wrote...


She is not self-aware.  She has been programmed to be that way.  The program says "I am". She does not know she's alive.  Her programming tells her she is.  That's not the same thing.

Could you please explain the distinction?

Why is this so hard for people?  Well, people who don't lathe metaphysics all over it, anyway.

EDI is a computer.  At some point - when she was created by the Alliance on Luna, she was blank, sans programme.  Like the HD in your computer fresh from the factory, formatted but empty.  EDI was then programmed by organics with specific instructions on how to behave.

Without the programming - and this was deliberate because she was meant by her programmers to attempt sentience - and this is the key bit here - she would never had gone "mad" and malfunctioned.  Cerberus then acquired what your Shepard destroyed (or did he just take her to therapy and get her a latte mochachino and a scent pillow after?), and reprogrammed her to her present state.  Then, instead of making the same mistake the Alliance did, they put software blocks on her software.  Those were not to chain her, but to keep Shepard from finding out key information.  Why they simply didn't just not include it is called "bad writing", not bad programming.

Programmed to say "I am self-aware" is not the same as actually being self-aware.  EDI will always be programmed to believe it.  Changes nothing.

EDI isn't programmed to say she's self-aware. She is self-aware. She demonstrates the level of though necessary to be self-aware. She understands complicated concepts and reasons on them in ways her creators didn't directly program into her.

I'm not quite sure why you're making a big distinction over a brain that evolved and one that was created. Surely it's only the complexity of thought that matters, not the events which led to that thought being formed?

Or is it because her brain is deterministic? Because that's equally true for everyone.

JakeMacDon wrote...

They get
special consideration?  I'll let the Chinese and Japanese know that.
 Maybe they'll stop slaughtering them in their hundreds of thousands for
soup.

 

I'm pretty sure they're not supposed to. The enforcement is just lax.

JakeMacDon wrote...

The only line EDI has crossed is good taste.  Being alive,
and being programmed to believe you can be alive are two radically
different things.

I meant her thoughts were officially complex enough to have earned the same rights a human possesses.

JakeMacDon wrote...

My brain is an
evolved organic construct that has arrived at its present state over
many hundreds of millennia.  It is not perfect in any sense.  EDI's is
an artificially-created computer (she doesn't actually possess a
"brain".  Let's not forget she actually resides in a bunch of big boxes
with blue lights on them, not in a extension she repurposed) that is doing the things it does via a pre-programmed set of instructions.

So the origins are different but the end result is the same?

JakeMacDon wrote...
What
you considered her is irrelevant.  A computer is a computer.  She's not a
"slave" -  that's a histrionic reaction that bears no relevancy on the
question of her "life" or lack of one.  She was no more a slave than a
dog chained in the backyard or constrained by a fence.

You said nobody asked whether she was alive. I did.

And the distinction is that a dog doesn't possess the same level of intelligence a human does while EDI does. And just as I wouldn't keep a human or an alien behind a fence against their will, I'm not letting Cerberus put constraints on any member of my crew. Which EDI is.

JakeMacDon wrote...

Your
Shepard never pick a flower for fear of its silent deathcry?  Or is a
flower's life - and it is infinitely more alive than cranky banking
computer - not as relevant because it can't talk or moan about the
futility of counting credits? Has he never eaten lobster or crab after
they've been boiled alive? 

Neither plants nor animals can create complex thoughts the way humans and EDI can. That complexity of thought is the only parameter that matters to me. So yes, that's exactly why it's not as relevant. Because a flower can't understand what a credit is, much less imagine the concept of futility.

Modifié par SeptimusMagistos, 05 septembre 2012 - 08:26 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Define self-awareness.

[Galbrant]

She's a person. After all the ****** is evidence enough.

[dreman9999]

JakeMacDon wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

JakeMacDon wrote...


She is not self-aware.  She has been programmed to be that way.  The program says "I am". She does not know she's alive.  Her programming tells her she is.  That's not the same thing.

Could you please explain the distinction?

Why is this so hard for people?  Well, people who don't lathe metaphysics all over it, anyway.

EDI is a computer.  At some point - when she was created by the Alliance on Luna, she was blank, sans programme.  Like the HD in your computer fresh from the factory, formatted but empty.  EDI was then programmed by organics with specific instructions on how to behave.

Without the programming - and this was deliberate because she was meant by her programmers to attempt sentience - and this is the key bit here - she would never had gone "mad" and malfunctioned.  Cerberus then acquired what your Shepard destroyed (or did he just take her to therapy and get her a latte mochachino and a scent pillow after?), and reprogrammed her to her present state.  Then, instead of making the same mistake the Alliance did, they put software blocks on her software.  Those were not to chain her, but to keep Shepard from finding out key information.  Why they simply didn't just not include it is called "bad writing", not bad programming.

Programmed to say "I am self-aware" is not the same as actually being self-aware.  EDI will always be programmed to believe it.  Changes nothing.

Weare also programed in the same way. It's called schemas. Added, edi can act on her self awareness. That make the thing completely different. You can program a machine to think it self aware but it can act or do thing on it's own based of it. EDI can. Added, here base programing is not to be self aware ether. She 's a defence computer for hacking and hacking pervention of the ship. The fact she does more then this means she is self aware. No where in her progrming say s has to take a nother body, control parts of the ship, nor have feelings for anyone on the ship.
She is self aware by the very fact she quetion her own self and other selfs. She is not programed to do so.

[chidingewe8036]

Everytime I talk to EDI I always feel as though she likes Jeff but wants Shepard, but to me she is a person she is part of my Shepard's crew and a friend so I really never saw her or Legion as anything less. Our pets are not human by any stretch but they are just as important, loved, and appreciated none the less for those who have them like myself.