359 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
Then I will just say that I consider the first one to arise the true form, the one that came later and is analogous, as the not true form.

That's a very limiting way of looking at things, and if applied to everything else gets you nowhere (I don't speak the first language, I don't drive the first vehicle, we're not the first life form so are we really life etc.)

Good thing I am not applying it to everything. 

You are expanding my argument beyond its original scope.

Actually he's keeping it within the context. 

Why do you hold a double standard towards synthetic life?

Because synthetics are too different to organics to be compared on the same lines.

[Reorte]

Steelcan wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
Then I will just say that I consider the first one to arise the true form, the one that came later and is analogous, as the not true form.

That's a very limiting way of looking at things, and if applied to everything else gets you nowhere (I don't speak the first language, I don't drive the first vehicle, we're not the first life form so are we really life etc.)

Good thing I am not applying it to everything. 

You are expanding my argument beyond its original scope.

So why select this case to apply it to and not others? That just seems arbitrary.

[136th]

Ok I will say it again:

"Why does every Sci-Fi geek assume that synthetics are automatically and inherently superior to organics?
You people are Mistaken predictability for rationality, and narrow efficiency for perfection. "

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Steelcan wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

That's fine.

Why do you feel that way?

Because I feel the first to arise is the default version or "true" version, but that DOES NOT make it better.

How is it 'truer'? Is the first explanation, or default version, of a scientific concept the 'truer' version? 

Is the first produced version of a piston engine the 'truer' version? Are the later refinements and changes nothing more than facsimile? 

Why is organic life 'truer'? What exactly is there to open-endedly distinguish organics and synthetics?

[Steelcan]

Reorte wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
Then I will just say that I consider the first one to arise the true form, the one that came later and is analogous, as the not true form.

That's a very limiting way of looking at things, and if applied to everything else gets you nowhere (I don't speak the first language, I don't drive the first vehicle, we're not the first life form so are we really life etc.)

Good thing I am not applying it to everything. 

You are expanding my argument beyond its original scope.

So why select this case to apply it to and not others? That just seems arbitrary.

All of those things you listed are the result of natural progression of culture and evolution.  Synthetics are not bound by either, once again I AM NOT SAYING THAT THERE METHOD IS INFERIOR ONLY DIFFERENT.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Steelcan wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
Then I will just say that I consider the first one to arise the true form, the one that came later and is analogous, as the not true form.

That's a very limiting way of looking at things, and if applied to everything else gets you nowhere (I don't speak the first language, I don't drive the first vehicle, we're not the first life form so are we really life etc.)

Good thing I am not applying it to everything. 

You are expanding my argument beyond its original scope.

Actually he's keeping it within the context. 

Why do you hold a double standard towards synthetic life?

Because synthetics are too different to organics to be compared on the same lines.

Does that justify judgemental language that refers to them as facsimile's of life?

[Reorte]

Steelcan wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Actually he's keeping it within the context. 

Why do you hold a double standard towards synthetic life?

Because synthetics are too different to organics to be compared on the same lines.

You'll certanly never find common ground even where it exists if you refuse to accept the possibility of it. They aren't that different really (I also dislike this "synthetic vs. organic" thing since it's entirely possible to be both, like Blade Runner's replicants).

Modifié par Reorte, 03 août 2013 - 11:50 .

[jstme]

Reorte wrote...
They may very well end up with different emotional responses to different things than we do. But how will they deal with new situations, potential threats or friends and so on? Indeed, when it comes to threats the basic fight or flight mechanism is required for survival, and that's an emotional mechanism.

Also, for the emotions being only reason to actually do anything - this is false. My PC does lots of stuff every msec, but it has 0 emotions. 

It only does it what you tell it to. It will not try to improve its existence, it won't try to stop you from turning it off. It has more in common with a waterwheel connected to some cogs than it does to a fully-functioning mind.

Learning new things,socialising , adapting and reacting to threats does not have to require emotions even in biology. Look at bacteria,for an example. And synthetic life with fully functioning mind on many levels would be even farther from us then a bacteria.

[Steelcan]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
Then I will just say that I consider the first one to arise the true form, the one that came later and is analogous, as the not true form.

That's a very limiting way of looking at things, and if applied to everything else gets you nowhere (I don't speak the first language, I don't drive the first vehicle, we're not the first life form so are we really life etc.)

Good thing I am not applying it to everything. 

You are expanding my argument beyond its original scope.

Actually he's keeping it within the context. 

Why do you hold a double standard towards synthetic life?

Because synthetics are too different to organics to be compared on the same lines.

Does that justify judgemental language that refers to them as facsimile's of life?

I called them an anlogue of life, different, I did not call them a perversion or twisted version o flife.  Just different.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

EntropicAngel wrote...

 It looks like you're discussing whether synthetic life is actually life.

Do you need help

The way to approach that, I feel, is not to say, "the first life is the only real life," but rather is to ask, "what IS life?"

Just like with cars, language, etc., there's a concrete definition of them that allows different forms to be identified as such--a Lamborghini is, fundamentally, the same thing as a Chevrolet (my fingers don't want to type that! ), because functionally they are designed for the same basic purpose. Language is a form of communication, English, Latin, Greek, etc. all apply.

I'm not so sure we can define what exactly life is so simply. Thus, we cannot yet say if synthetic "life" is truly alive.

Well said. 

[Reorte]

[quote]Steelcan wrote...

[quote]Reorte wrote...

You are expanding my argument beyond its original scope.
[/quote]
So why select this case to apply it to and not others? That just seems arbitrary.

[/quote]All of those things you listed are the result of natural progression of culture and evolution.  Synthetics are not bound by either, once again I AM NOT SAYING THAT THERE METHOD IS INFERIOR ONLY DIFFERENT.
[/quote]
So what if they are? The origins are irrelevent, it's what we've got that matters. Possibly different I grant you but I don't understand this insistence that the difference isn't just a different means of achieving the same end.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Steelcan wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
Then I will just say that I consider the first one to arise the true form, the one that came later and is analogous, as the not true form.

That's a very limiting way of looking at things, and if applied to everything else gets you nowhere (I don't speak the first language, I don't drive the first vehicle, we're not the first life form so are we really life etc.)

Good thing I am not applying it to everything. 

You are expanding my argument beyond its original scope.

Actually he's keeping it within the context. 

Why do you hold a double standard towards synthetic life?

Because synthetics are too different to organics to be compared on the same lines.

Does that justify judgemental language that refers to them as facsimile's of life?

I called them an anlogue of life, different, I did not call them a perversion or twisted version o flife.  Just different.

You just stated what I said you stated.

[Steelcan]

Reorte wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Actually he's keeping it within the context. 

Why do you hold a double standard towards synthetic life?

Because synthetics are too different to organics to be compared on the same lines.

You'll certanly never find common ground even where it exists if you refuse to accept the possibility of it. They aren't that different really (I also dislike this "synthetic vs. organic" thing since it's entirely possible to be both, like Blade Runner's replicants).

They aren't that different?

EDI disagrees, Legion disagrees, the Reapers disagree

[Steelcan]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...


You just stated what I said you stated.

The implication behind your statement is clear.  No, I do not think they are inferior to organics.

[Reorte]

jstme wrote...

Learning new things,socialising , adapting and reacting to threats does not have to require emotions even in biology. Look at bacteria,for an example. And synthetic life with fully functioning mind on many levels would be even farther from us then a bacteria.

Bacteria don't do any of that.

There are some basic in-built bodily drives that aren't emotional (although can interact with them) - eat food when hungry, move away from pain and so on. As soon as you get away from that direct response to immediate stimuli then emotion kicks in - it might just take the built in response to get you away from the lion that's attacking you right now but it needs more than that to avoid the lion that you've seen but hasn't seen you.

Your point about the mind is making unwarrented assumptions. Even if it's quite different to us it'll have more in common with us mind-wise than a bacterium simply by virtue of having a mind.

[Steelcan]

Reorte wrote...


So what if they are? The origins are irrelevent, it's what we've got that matters. Possibly different I grant you but I don't understand this insistence that the difference isn't just a different means of achieving the same end.

Can you truly claim to understand entirely another organic being?  I doubt it, I just take that doubt and apply it to synthetics as well.  The differences are just more pronounced because they are so alien to us.

[Reorte]

Steelcan wrote...

Reorte wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Actually he's keeping it within the context. 

Why do you hold a double standard towards synthetic life?

Because synthetics are too different to organics to be compared on the same lines.

You'll certanly never find common ground even where it exists if you refuse to accept the possibility of it. They aren't that different really (I also dislike this "synthetic vs. organic" thing since it's entirely possible to be both, like Blade Runner's replicants).

They aren't that different?

EDI disagrees, Legion disagrees, the Reapers disagree

They're different but nowhere near as much as you seem to be implying. The Reapers don't seem to have  a clue anyway and a lot of both EDI's and Legion's story is finding similarities.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Steelcan wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...


You just stated what I said you stated.

The implication behind your statement is clear.  No, I do not think they are inferior to organics.

Then why are they 'less true'? Read what EntropicAngel wrote: the post said what I'd say.

Is our experience any more real than a synthetics? Isn't that implying that Synthetics can't experience life to the same level we can?

Life is more than being. It's an experience. Experiences may vary greatly, but no matter how small or large or whatever it's all subjectively true. It sounds incredibly arrogant to say that any experience is more 'true' than any other.

[Reorte]

Steelcan wrote...

Reorte wrote...


So what if they are? The origins are irrelevent, it's what we've got that matters. Possibly different I grant you but I don't understand this insistence that the difference isn't just a different means of achieving the same end.

Can you truly claim to understand entirely another organic being?  I doubt it, I just take that doubt and apply it to synthetics as well.  The differences are just more pronounced because they are so alien to us.

So what?

Anyway, interesting discussion but I'm up early in the morning so I'm bowing out.

Modifié par Reorte, 03 août 2013 - 11:59 .

[jstme]

136th wrote...
I never said anything about creative
It's about being able to handle a greater amount of unknown and information.
Why does every Sci-Fi geek assume that synthetics are automatically and inherently superior to organics?
Bah... You people are Mistaken predictability for rationality, and narrow efficiency for perfection. 

Eventually, whoever has better adaptability will also have better processing power and be capable to handle greater amount of information , make more accurate predictions about unknown and react in better,more efficient, ways. This is the reason why synthetic life forms will inevitably be more effective (i did not say anything about superior) then organic life forms, at any given task and at multitasking. Better adaptability.

[Steelcan]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...


You just stated what I said you stated.

The implication behind your statement is clear.  No, I do not think they are inferior to organics.

Then why are they 'less true'? Read what EntropicAngel wrote: the post said what I'd say.

Is our experience any more real than a synthetics? Isn't that implying that Synthetics can't experience life to the same level we can?

Life is more than being. It's an experience. Experiences may vary greatly, but no matter how small or large or whatever it's all subjectively true. It sounds incredibly arrogant to say that any experience is more 'true' than any other.

Perhaps true was the wrong choice of word I will admit.

But an organic's experience of life and a synthetics are going to be vastly different because of the inherent differences between organics and synthetics.

[Steelcan]

Reorte wrote...


They're different but nowhere near as much as you seem to be implying. The Reapers don't seem to have  a clue anyway and a lot of both EDI's and Legion's story is finding similarities.

Legion's story in ME2 is being ok with such differences.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Steelcan wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...


You just stated what I said you stated.

The implication behind your statement is clear.  No, I do not think they are inferior to organics.

Then why are they 'less true'? Read what EntropicAngel wrote: the post said what I'd say.

Is our experience any more real than a synthetics? Isn't that implying that Synthetics can't experience life to the same level we can?

Life is more than being. It's an experience. Experiences may vary greatly, but no matter how small or large or whatever it's all subjectively true. It sounds incredibly arrogant to say that any experience is more 'true' than any other.

Perhaps true was the wrong choice of word I will admit.

But an organic's experience of life and a synthetics are going to be vastly different because of the inherent differences between organics and synthetics.

No argument. 

[ruggly]

I'm not drunk enough to get through this philosophical stuff.