1304 réponses à ce sujet

[Subject M]

bobobo878 wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

Apple's iOS operating system is capable of self-preservation. If you try to jailbreak your iPhone, Apple might send out its hunter killer malware to permanently disable your device, as is permitted under Apple's terms of service. Would it be genocide to detonate an EMP device above an Apple store?

If iphones were sentient, then yes. You're missing the point entirely. You cannot create an analogy with today's technology, because artificial intelligence does not exist in today's technology.

Is it? Artificial intelligences like Siri aren't really all that different from the Geth, just more simple.  No matter how many more lines of code a geth may posesss, they are still just as much slaves to their programming, devoid of anything resembling free will.

It can not be known until we know how we and they work. It is not possible to know the status of qualia in others.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

futurepixels wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

Synthetics are simulated life, not true organic life. They should not be considered alive in the same way that organics are alive.

The biological definition of "life" is too narrow for the ME universe. That was like, one of the entire points of the Geth-Quarian story arc.

What matters more - being composed of cells, or being conscious?The answer to that question should be pretty clear, I think.

A simulation of consciousness is still not true organic consciousness.

Just because something isn't organic, doesn't mean it's not alive.

[ObserverStatus]

Kabooooom wrote...

Is it? Artificial intelligences like Siri aren't really all that different from the Geth, just more simple. No matter how many more lines of code a geth may posesss, they are still just as much slaves to their programming, devoid of anything resembling free will.

Siri isn't artificial intelligence. Like, at all. I'm not sure what you are not understanding about that.
But despite that, the brain is basically a biological computer (for lack of a better analogy). What difference is there in consciousness arising from neurotransmitters and electrical impulses, as opposed to code in a computer?
None.

You are correct that the brain is much like a computer, but not a person.  Even braindead people have souls.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

futurepixels wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

They are sentient, which makes just as alive as organics.As someone put on here earlier, our bodies are just organic machines to keep our mind alive, so how are we different?

Sentience isn't the defining factor for what it means to be alive.

Being made of organic parts isn't either.

[OblivionDawn]

bobobo878 wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...
If it has sentience, it is a living, thinking thing, that's capable of self-preservation.
Destroy is genocide.

Apple's iOS operating system is capable of self-preservation.  If you try to jailbreak your iPhone, Apple might send out its hunter killer malware to permanently disable your device, as is permitted under Apple's terms of service.  Would it be genocide to detonate an EMP device above an Apple store?

A Geth and an iPhone are not even remotely comprable in terms of sentience, and that's all that needs to be said about that.

But that's exactly my point.  The idea of granting rights to a machine is fundamentally flawed, because noone really agrees on how many lines of code, or how otherwise intricate a machine's programming must be before it is considered a person.

An AI can self-modify its programming and form opinions and personality changes based on its experiences and observations. By being able to do so, it is not a slave to its own programming. This is evidenced numerous times by EDI and Legion in ME2 and ME3.

Not comprable to any technology we have today.

Modifié par OblivionDawn, 08 octobre 2012 - 06:23 .

[Kabooooom]

bobobo878 wrote...

You are correct that the brain is much like a computer, but not a person.  Even braindead people have souls.

Once again, prove it. If you can't, then it is meaningless for this discussion.

But that's exactly my
point.  The idea of granting rights to a machine is fundamentally
flawed, because noone really agrees on how many lines of code, or how
otherwise intricate a machine's programming must be before it is
considered a person.

And actually, we sort of can. The definition of sentience relies on the perception of sensation of the organism that is sentient. If consciousness is an emergent or epiphenomenon of brain function, then it is reasonable to deduce that a similar phenomenon would happen with a sufficiently complex artificially intelligent system.

The point of viewing the brain as a machine and consciousness as inextricably tied to it is an important one - the function of the machine cannot be separated from the ultimate outcome of that function: consciousness.

Modifié par Kabooooom, 08 octobre 2012 - 06:26 .

[futurepixels]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

futurepixels wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

Synthetics are simulated life, not true organic life. They should not be considered alive in the same way that organics are alive.

The biological definition of "life" is too narrow for the ME universe. That was like, one of the entire points of the Geth-Quarian story arc.

What matters more - being composed of cells, or being conscious?The answer to that question should be pretty clear, I think.

A simulation of consciousness is still not true organic consciousness.

Just because something isn't organic, doesn't mean it's not alive.

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

futurepixels wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

They are sentient, which makes just as alive as organics.As someone put on here earlier, our bodies are just organic machines to keep our mind alive, so how are we different?

Sentience isn't the defining factor for what it means to be alive.

Being made of organic parts isn't either.

Since there isn't a solid definition of "alive" among the scientific community, this is where the debate ends. I believe that synthetic life can never be held on the same level of organic life by the very nature of it being synthetic. I do not believe that destroying a bunch of sentient machines is genocide.

[Subject M]

futurepixels wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

Synthetics are simulated life, not true organic life. They should not be considered alive in the same way that organics are alive.

The biological definition of "life" is too narrow for the ME universe. That was like, one of the entire points of the Geth-Quarian story arc.

What matters more - being composed of cells, or being conscious?The answer to that question should be pretty clear, I think.

A simulation of consciousness is still not true organic consciousness.

unknown, as we do not understand how consciousness work, how it can work and how it can vary.
I could say they red is not green, but it is still a colour, and I can not say its no colour at all (unless I state that only green is colour, everything else are just "false colours")

Modifié par Subject M, 08 octobre 2012 - 06:27 .

[ObserverStatus]

OblivionDawn wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...
If it has sentience, it is a living, thinking thing, that's capable of self-preservation.
Destroy is genocide.

Apple's iOS operating system is capable of self-preservation.  If you try to jailbreak your iPhone, Apple might send out its hunter killer malware to permanently disable your device, as is permitted under Apple's terms of service.  Would it be genocide to detonate an EMP device above an Apple store?

A Geth and an iPhone are not even remotely comprable in terms of sentience, and that's all that needs to be said about that.

But that's exactly my point.  The idea of granting rights to a machine is fundamentally flawed, because noone really agrees on how many lines of code, or how otherwise intricate a machine's programming must be before it is considered a person.

An AI can self-modify its programming and form opinions based on its experiences and observations. By being able to do so, it is not a slave to its own programming. This is evidenced numerous times by EDI and Legion in ME2 and ME3.
Not comprable to any technology we have today.

Watson can do all of these things with the exception of holding an opinion, because a machine cannot truly have an opinion.  It may be programmed to pretend that it has an opinion, but it simply does not.

[Dr_Extrem]

bobobo878 wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...
If it has sentience, it is a living, thinking thing, that's capable of self-preservation.
Destroy is genocide.

Apple's iOS operating system is capable of self-preservation.  If you try to jailbreak your iPhone, Apple might send out its hunter killer malware to permanently disable your device, as is permitted under Apple's terms of service.  Would it be genocide to detonate an EMP device above an Apple store?

A Geth and an iPhone are not even remotely comprable in terms of sentience, and that's all that needs to be said about that.

But that's exactly my point.  The idea of granting rights to a machine is fundamentally flawed, because noone really agrees on how many lines of code, or how otherwise intricate a machine's programming must be before it is considered a person.

your phone is programmed for self preservation. it however does not know what self preservation is or why it is preserving itself.

[futurepixels]

bobobo878 wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

Is it? Artificial intelligences like Siri aren't really all that different from the Geth, just more simple. No matter how many more lines of code a geth may posesss, they are still just as much slaves to their programming, devoid of anything resembling free will.

Siri isn't artificial intelligence. Like, at all. I'm not sure what you are not understanding about that.
But despite that, the brain is basically a biological computer (for lack of a better analogy). What difference is there in consciousness arising from neurotransmitters and electrical impulses, as opposed to code in a computer?
None.

You are correct that the brain is much like a computer, but not a person.  Even braindead people have souls.

This is a losing argument.  You can't even prove the existence of souls in organics, the idea of synthetics having a soul is laughable.

[wantedman dan]

futurepixels wrote...

This is a losing argument.  You can't even prove the existence of souls in organics, the idea of synthetics having a soul is laughable.

Question: How do you define life, or living?

[Hanako Ikezawa]

futurepixels wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

futurepixels wrote...

Kabooooom wrote...

Synthetics are simulated life, not true organic life. They should not be considered alive in the same way that organics are alive.

The biological definition of "life" is too narrow for the ME universe. That was like, one of the entire points of the Geth-Quarian story arc.

What matters more - being composed of cells, or being conscious?The answer to that question should be pretty clear, I think.

A simulation of consciousness is still not true organic consciousness.

Just because something isn't organic, doesn't mean it's not alive.

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

futurepixels wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

They are sentient, which makes just as alive as organics.As someone put on here earlier, our bodies are just organic machines to keep our mind alive, so how are we different?

Sentience isn't the defining factor for what it means to be alive.

Being made of organic parts isn't either.

Since there isn't a solid definition of "alive" among the scientific community, this is where the debate ends. I believe that synthetic life can never be held on the same level of organic life by the very nature of it being synthetic. I do not believe that destroying a bunch of sentient machines is genocide.

I disagree with you, but will respect your opinion.

[OblivionDawn]

bobobo878 wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

OblivionDawn wrote...
If it has sentience, it is a living, thinking thing, that's capable of self-preservation.
Destroy is genocide.

Apple's iOS operating system is capable of self-preservation.  If you try to jailbreak your iPhone, Apple might send out its hunter killer malware to permanently disable your device, as is permitted under Apple's terms of service.  Would it be genocide to detonate an EMP device above an Apple store?

A Geth and an iPhone are not even remotely comprable in terms of sentience, and that's all that needs to be said about that.

But that's exactly my point.  The idea of granting rights to a machine is fundamentally flawed, because noone really agrees on how many lines of code, or how otherwise intricate a machine's programming must be before it is considered a person.

An AI can self-modify its programming and form opinions based on its experiences and observations. By being able to do so, it is not a slave to its own programming. This is evidenced numerous times by EDI and Legion in ME2 and ME3.
Not comprable to any technology we have today.

Watson can do all of these things with the exception of holding an opinion, because a machine cannot truly have an opinion.  It may be programmed to pretend that it has an opinion, but it simply does not.

As far as your real world experience goes.

But in the Mass Effect universe, AIs are clearly capable of forming opinions and acting upon them.

Modifié par OblivionDawn, 08 octobre 2012 - 06:28 .

[Kabooooom]

unknowm, as we do not understand how consciousness work, how it can work and how it can vary.

Actually, we've made quite a lot of progress in this area in the past decade. Comparative neuro is my field of expertise. Although you are correct and we still have a long way to go and a ton to learn, what we have learned already paints a pretty unmistakable picture about the nature of consciousness in that it cannot be divorced from brain function (or function of a similar synthetic system, one could assume).We're even starting to understand how other species perceive sensory stimuli subjectively and how this differs from humans, which is a huge step forward in our understanding of the neural correlates of consciousness.

Modifié par Kabooooom, 08 octobre 2012 - 06:30 .

[Foolsfolly]

Kabooooom wrote...

Is it? Artificial intelligences like Siri aren't really all that different from the Geth, just more simple. No matter how many more lines of code a geth may posesss, they are still just as much slaves to their programming, devoid of anything resembling free will.

Siri isn't artificial intelligence. Like, at all. I'm not sure what you are not understanding about that.
But despite that, the brain is basically a biological computer (for lack of a better analogy). What difference is there in consciousness arising from neurotransmitters and electrical impulses, as opposed to code in a computer?
None.

... This thread just slapped me hard in the face. Someone thought Siri was an AI. This...

....

Wow. Also this thread shows me how woefully unprepared the human race is to meet any lifeform that is different from us.

[Han Shot First]

The existence of God and an afterlife cannot be proven. With that in mind, I agree that the discussion of whether or not Geth have souls is irrelevent regardless of what side of the 'genocide' debate you fall on.

Whether or not the Geth are alive and sapient is a legitimate topic for debate, but that is different than the question of whether they have souls.

[ObserverStatus]

Dr_Extrem wrote...
your phone is programmed for self preservation. it however does not know what self preservation is or why it is preserving itself.

And what makes you think that the Geth know what self preservation is or why they are preserving themselves?  For all we know, all that philisophical crap that Legion threw at Shepard in ME2 could be ideas that the Geth borrowed from organic thinkers.  They could just be pretending to know themselves, because that is what they are programmed to do.

[Dr_Extrem]

wantedman dan wrote...

futurepixels wrote...

This is a losing argument.  You can't even prove the existence of souls in organics, the idea of synthetics having a soul is laughable.

Question: How do you define life, or living?

self awareness of you as a personality and your position in time and space.

"i am alive, because i can make thoughts of myself and able to self reflect on them."

"ich denke, also bin ich"

[Subject M]

Kabooooom wrote...

unknowm, as we do not understand how consciousness work, how it can work and how it can vary.

Actually, we've made quite a lot of progress in this area in the past decade. Comparative neuro is my field of expertise. Although you are correct and we still have a long way to go and a ton to learn, what we have learned already paints a pretty unmistakable picture about the nature of consciousness.

I know.

But since you seem to be the expert, please do share some data and insights on the matter.

[wantedman dan]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

wantedman dan wrote...

futurepixels wrote...

This is a losing argument.  You can't even prove the existence of souls in organics, the idea of synthetics having a soul is laughable.

Question: How do you define life, or living?

self awareness of you as a personality and your position in time and space.

"i am alive, because i can make thoughts of myself and able to self reflect on them."

"ich denke, also bin ich"

Do you have a pet?

[Kabooooom]

self awareness of you as a personality and your position in time and space.

As someone pointed out, this definition does not extend to non-human animals who are sentient and alive. Therefore it is not entirely useful. But it is useful for our discussion, and in that case good, then we agree - and the Geth and EDI are alive, as their sentience is made apparent in the story.

Although, I should point out that this definition of "life" is only useful for our discussion on synthetic life. The biological definition includes organisms that are clearly not sentient, and yet still alive. That is what makes life so hard to define, and potentially an arbitrary definition that doesn't reflect reality, but only approximates it.

Modifié par Kabooooom, 08 octobre 2012 - 06:33 .

[Subject M]

Han Shot First wrote...

The existence of God and an afterlife cannot be proven. With that in mind, I agree that the discussion of whether or not Geth have souls is irrelevent regardless of what side of the 'genocide' debate you fall on.

Whether or not the Geth are alive and sapient is a legitimate topic for debate, but that is different than the question of whether they have souls.

Well look at history and you see why these questions go hand in hand. As long as having rights equates to having a "soul" then there will no doubt be lots of potential suffering and wilful ignorance around.

Modifié par Subject M, 08 octobre 2012 - 06:34 .

[Dr_Extrem]

bobobo878 wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...
your phone is programmed for self preservation. it however does not know what self preservation is or why it is preserving itself.

And what makes you think that the Geth know what self preservation is or why they are preserving themselves?  For all we know, all that philisophical crap that Legion threw at Shepard in ME2 could be ideas that the Geth borrowed from organic thinkers.  They could just be pretending to know themselves, because that is what they are programmed to do.

the fact, that a geth (legion) can give up his urge to preserve its existance if he wants to.

your phone will always try to preserve its existance, until the progammer telss it otherwhise. legion made that decision by itself and without the intervention of a progammer.

[Wordweaver2010]

How about this as an alternative point of view? Don't focus on "life," focus on "sentience." Does it matter how the sentience (and, possibly, soul) is housed?

Well, on second thought, too many people would say it does... sadly, people have always been doing that, valuing or dismissing sentience based on its "housing."

Shepard says to Legion, "The geth are better than that." And Legion, sadly, replies, "No, we're not." So Shepard speaks out against the "housing" view, but what Legion really says is that if you allow the geth to be sentient on an equal footing with other sentience, then they can be as right or wrong or petty as anybody else. They aren't better. They aren't worse. They're alike.

And that answers the question of "genocide" for me.