1071 réponses à ce sujet

[remydat]

Wraith 02 wrote...

Again, exactly the point I am making, we cannot try and figure out if the geth are alive when we don't even understand what it is that makes us alive

None of us knows if we are truely conscious or whether we are making decisions based on free will or organic factors already programmed into our brain. So trying to figure out if the same is happening to the Geth is impossible

This is simply false.  We woudn't have a definition of organic life if we adopted this logic.  At some point in our history there was not a universal definition of organic life.  Then people sat there and discussed and then eventually a scientific definition of organic life emerged.  So it is patently absurd to argue that discussing the nature of synthetic life is pointless.

[Anthadlas]

remydat wrote...

Wraith 02 wrote...

Again, exactly the point I am making, we cannot try and figure out if the geth are alive when we don't even understand what it is that makes us alive

None of us knows if we are truely conscious or whether we are making decisions based on free will or organic factors already programmed into our brain. So trying to figure out if the same is happening to the Geth is impossible

This is simply false.  We woudn't have a definition of organic life if we adopted this logic.  At some point in our history there was not a universal definition of organic life.  Then people sat there and discussed and then eventually a scientific definition of organic life emerged.  So it is patently absurd to argue that discussing the nature of synthetic life is pointless.

Just because we have a definition of life does not mean that it is true.

It blatently isn't if we cannot apply it to the geth that you believe to be alive

[Phatose]

Wraith, would I be correct in saying your point is that any definition of life we come up with will necessarily be constrained by our own experiences and imaginations, and thus we shouldn't put to much stock in it because it's always going to be our "best guess"?

[CronoDragoon]

The "laws of nature" as expressed in that exchange are not analogous to code written by quarians. Computer code IS a prescription of how the program should act, and it DOES compel or determine actions.

In other words, it doesn't really address the determinism vs. free will debate at all. Immaterial "laws of nature" are obviously reactionary and descriptive, but the debate about determinism is describing the mechanical interaction of (in organic beings) chemicals and (in computers) lines of code.

[Anthadlas]

Phatose wrote...

Wraith, would I be correct in saying your point is that any definition of life we come up with will necessarily be constrained by our own experiences and imaginations, and thus we shouldn't put to much stock in it because it's always going to be our "best guess"?

Precisely, thank you

[Phatose]

CronoDragoon wrote...

The "laws of nature" as expressed in that exchange are not analogous to code written by quarians. Computer code IS a prescription of how the program should act, and it DOES compel or determine actions.

In other words, it doesn't really address the determinism vs. free will debate at all. Immaterial "laws of nature" are obviously reactionary and descriptive, but the debate about determinism is describing the mechanical interaction of (in organic beings) chemicals and (in computers) lines of code.

And the states of your cells serve precsisely the same purpose in you, and any other organic being.  DNA and cellular state is determined by the cellular states of your parents.  Your behavior is just as dictated by your origin as it is theirs.

The Quarians were simply more careful in the setup, while parents generally just kind of get it on and see what happens.  Their indifference to specifics doesn't change that they programmed you though - it's just careless programming.

[remydat]

Wraith 02 wrote...

Just because we have a definition of life does not mean that it is true.

It blatently isn't if we cannot apply it to the geth that you believe to be alive

No it just means the definition was determined based on the form of life that existed at the time it was deteremined.  There is no requirement to have one universal definition of life. 

[CronoDragoon]

Phatose wrote...

And the states of your cells serve precsisely the same purpose in you, and any other organic being.  DNA and cellular state is determined by the cellular states of your parents.  Your behavior is just as dictated by your origin as it is theirs.

Oh, absolutely. I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong idea but any concerns about free will I have apply to both organics and synthetics. Of course, organic brains have a much higher chance of variance than computers do in terms of anomalous results, but this dissimilarity does not necessarily bring about the conclusion that more variance = more "free will."

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 18 juin 2013 - 07:54 .

[remydat]

Wraith 02 wrote...

Phatose wrote...

Wraith, would I be correct in saying your point is that any definition of life we come up with will necessarily be constrained by our own experiences and imaginations, and thus we shouldn't put to much stock in it because it's always going to be our "best guess"?

Precisely, thank you

And our experiencs playing the game tell us that there is potentially another form of life ie synthetic life and so we should revise our definition.

At one point Newton's laws of gravity were deemed to be correct then Einstein came along and we revised our thinking.  That is how we progress.  We define and understand things based on our current knowledge and then revise them when new information appears.  There is nothing pointless about it.

[Anthadlas]

remydat wrote...

Wraith 02 wrote...

Just because we have a definition of life does not mean that it is true.

It blatently isn't if we cannot apply it to the geth that you believe to be alive

No it just means the definition was determined based on the form of life that existed at the time it was deteremined.  There is no requirement to have one universal definition of life. 

You simply do not get it, It's a pity that after saying my original point was obvious and didn't need explantion it flew straight over your head.

We cannot define synthetic life, we do not know what it means to be synthetic, our lives and their lives are totally different experiences that cannot be compared. and therefore you cannot use ANY organic definition to determine whether or not synthetics are alive.

The only way a valid definition of synthetic life can be created is if it is decided by synthetics. Only they can determine if they are truely alive and only they can define it, and in doing so would prove that they have self awareness to be able to define themselves and prove they are alive.

Modifié par Wraith 02, 18 juin 2013 - 09:01 .

[Jorji Costava]

Wraith 02 wrote...

Phatose wrote...

Wraith, would I be correct in saying your point is that any definition of life we come up with will necessarily be constrained by our own experiences and imaginations, and thus we shouldn't put to much stock in it because  it's always going to be our "best guess"?

Precisely, thank you

This looks like a recipe for a total skepticism. What belief of ours about any matter whatsoever isn't constrained by our experiences, imagination, etc.? If those beliefs being so constrained is a reason to discount them, then we'd most likely have to discount all of our beliefs.

As far as the freedom/determinism stuff goes, the thesis of determinism isn't that the laws of nature alone determine our actions; that's ridiculous. It's that the laws of nature in conjunction with the actual past determine our actions, such that if you knew all the laws, and knew everything about the total state of the universe at a given time, you would be able to deduce every future state of the universe. From that point of view, it's a bit easier to draw an analogy between programming and human behavior; the stand-in for 'code' isn't the laws, but the past states of your body, brain physiology, etc. which were themselves caused by past states, etc.

EDIT: Fixed formatting and spelling.

Modifié par osbornep, 18 juin 2013 - 08:09 .

[Phatose]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Phatose wrote...

And the states of your cells serve precsisely the same purpose in you, and any other organic being.  DNA and cellular state is determined by the cellular states of your parents.  Your behavior is just as dictated by your origin as it is theirs.

Oh, absolutely. I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong idea but any concerns about free will I have apply to both organics and synthetics. Of course, organic brains have a much higher chance of variance than computers do in terms of anomalous results, but this dissimilarity does not necessarily bring about the conclusion that more variance = more "free will."

I'm not entirely convinced organic brains actually have a higher chance of variance.  Seems it's more a question of knowing the state of the inside of a computer, and not knowing the state of the inside of a brain - but this is simply a matter of what level of investigation we've done on the computer or brain involved. 

With the Geth in particular, there's the never explicitly answered question of whether or not they have Quantum Blueboxes precisely for that purpose.  That said, I'm fairly convinced "Quantum Bluebox" is a hand-wave by the writing team so they didn't have to actually address any of these questions.

[remydat]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Oh, absolutely. I'm sorry if I gave you the wrong idea but any concerns about free will I have apply to both organics and synthetics. Of course, organic brains have a much higher chance of variance than computers do in terms of anomalous results, but this dissimilarity does not necessarily bring about the conclusion that more variance = more "free will."

Isn't part of the issue also that as creators of the machines, we simply have a better understanding of how it is suppose to operate?  Since we didn't create ourselves and don't have access to the owners manual, we may simply lack the complete understanding of how our programming works so that we appear more unpredictable than the machines we created.  Of course thinking more in terms of a machine that has become an AI.

[remydat]

Wraith 02 wrote...

You simply do not get it, It's a pity that after saying my original point was obvious and didn't need explantion it fewl straight over your head.

We cannot define synthetic life, we do not know what it means to be synthetic, our lives and their lives are totally different experiences that cannot be compared. and therefore you cannot use ANY organic definition to determine whether or not synthetics are alive.

The only way a valid definition of synthetic life can be created is if it is decided by synthetics. Only they can determine if they are truely alive and only they can define it, and in doing so would prove that they have self awareness to be able to define themselves and prove they are alive.

No I said your point about the Geth not being organic life was obvious.  You never fleshed out your point beyond that until afterwards.

And again this is simply not true.  We define life for animals other than us all the time.  All you are doing is arbitrarily grouping them together under the term organic.  I could argue that while biologically we have more in common with a squirrel that we do a synthetic, mentally we have more in common with a synthetic mind capable of complex thought than we do a squirell's mind that is primarily concerned with f**king and finding a nut.

Further I could argue a creator should be in a better positiion to understand his creation than a creation is in position to understand how it was created when it has no knowledge of its creator.  This is precisely the point Javik makes.  Organics do not understand their purpose or the reason for their creation.  ****, we don't even know if our creator was God or just random sh*t happening in a very large universe.  We have to fumble around and figure out how an unseen and unknown creator ended up creating organic life.  We have no such problems with a synthetic life we helped bring into existence.

Modifié par remydat, 18 juin 2013 - 08:11 .

[CronoDragoon]

remydat wrote...

Isn't part of the issue also that as creators of the machines, we simply have a better understanding of how it is suppose to operate?  Since we didn't create ourselves and don't have access to the owners manual, we may simply lack the complete understanding of how our programming works so that we appear more unpredictable than the machines we created.  Of course thinking more in terms of a machine that has become an AI.

Part of it is certainly that we don't understand how the brain works - not really anyway. But that we can understand computers and not brains still demonstrates some fundamental difference between the two that cannot be accounted for by simply saying - for example - that brains are just much more complex computers. We only compare the brains to computers at this moment because it's the most advanced form of mechanical workings we know. Back in the day brains were compared to steam engines. What about 500 years from now? Who knows? (this is really just another way of making your point about Newton/Einstein in the other discussion going on)

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 18 juin 2013 - 08:10 .

[remydat]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Part of it is certainly that we don't understand how the brain works - not really anyway. But that we can understand computers and not brains still demonstrates some fundamental difference between the two that cannot be accounted for by simply saying - for example - that brains are just much more complex computers. We only compare the brains to computers at this moment because it's the most advanced form of mechanical workings we know. Back in the day brains were compared to steam engines. What about 500 years from now? Who knows? (this is really just another way of making your point about Newton/Einstein in the other discussion going on)

Yes but this still goes to the point that we understand computers because we created them.  If we had created a brain in the same way we created a computer we would be in a better position to understand it.

I would argue the closer we get to developing a true AI that goes being a computer by being able to seemingly exceed the programming we established for it, the closer we will get to understanding our own brains.  That is the quantum leap we are missing.  We are still in the stage wehere a computer is largely constrained by the obvious programming we put in it. 

[CronoDragoon]

remydat wrote...

Yes but this still goes to the point that we understand computers because we created them.  If we had created a brain in the same way we created a computer we would be in a better position to understand it.

I would argue the closer we get to developing a true AI that goes being a computer by being able to seemingly exceed the programming we established for it, the closer we will get to understanding our own brains.  That is the quantum leap we are missing.  We are still in the stage wehere a computer is largely constrained by the obvious programming we put in it. 

This brings it back to the determinism question: is it possible for something to exceed it's programming, or is the leap itself only possible because of what goes into the programming? Is it possible for brains or AI to exceed their programming?

[remydat]

CronoDragoon wrote...

This brings it back to the determinism question: is it possible for something to exceed it's programming, or is the leap itself only possible because of what goes into the programming? Is it possible for brains or AI to exceed their programming?

That question can't be answered until we either fully understand our brains and find conclusive evidence that we do sh*t that isn't programmed or develop a true AI and after studying the leap it took realise it does things that simply can not be explained by our programming.

The other big question is also how experience affects things.  Javik notes how experience is a biological marker which probably sounds absurd now but we know that seeing someone we love in fact releases chemicals in the brain that puts us in a good mood.  So will we eventually discover that our experiences do help to shape and form us in a way that actually rewrites our programs as opposed to us think they allow us to act outside that program.

[Anthadlas]

remydat wrote...

Wraith 02 wrote...

You simply do not get it, It's a pity that after saying my original point was obvious and didn't need explantion it fewl straight over your head.

We cannot define synthetic life, we do not know what it means to be synthetic, our lives and their lives are totally different experiences that cannot be compared. and therefore you cannot use ANY organic definition to determine whether or not synthetics are alive.

The only way a valid definition of synthetic life can be created is if it is decided by synthetics. Only they can determine if they are truely alive and only they can define it, and in doing so would prove that they have self awareness to be able to define themselves and prove they are alive.

No I said your point about the Geth not being organic life was obvious.  You never fleshed out your point beyond that until afterwards.

And again this is simply not true.  We define life for animals other than us all the time.  All you are doing is arbitrarily grouping them together under the term organic.  I could argue that while biologically we have more in common with a squirrel that we do a synthetic, mentally we have more in common with a synthetic mind capable of complex thought than we do a squirell's mind that is primarily concerned with f**king and finding a nut.

Further I could argue a creator should be in a better positiion to understand his creation than a creation is in position to understand how it was created when it has no knowledge of its creator.  This is precisely the point Javik makes.  Organics do not understand their purpose or the reason for their creation.  ****, we don't even know if our creator was God or just random sh*t happening in a very large universe.  We have to fumble around and figure out how an unseen and unknown creator ended up creating organic life.  We have no such problems with a synthetic life we helped bring into existence.

Actually I would say our minds are closer to a squirrel trying to **** and find nuts than a synthetic, we are only civilised apes and no where near close to a machine.

And i'm not saying that synthetic life should be tasked with justifying it's existence or try to find purpose in it, however a synthetic has experiences and knowledge of what it means to be synthetic and can therefore better describe it.

If you wanted somebody to define what it means to be an American would you ask the European who has never been there or experienced it to make a guess at what it means to be American? or would you ask the American who has lived there his entire life and was raised in it's culture?

When we try to define synthetic life we are going to always have a biased opinion based on our experiences and knowledge that we have only ever percieved as an organic. The only organisms that could accurately say what it is that makes a synthetic construct alive is those who are experiencing it firsthand

Modifié par Wraith 02, 18 juin 2013 - 09:12 .

[essarr71]

Wraith 02 wrote...

remydat wrote...

Wraith 02 wrote...

You simply do not get it, It's a pity that after saying my original point was obvious and didn't need explantion it fewl straight over your head.

We cannot define synthetic life, we do not know what it means to be synthetic, our lives and their lives are totally different experiences that cannot be compared. and therefore you cannot use ANY organic definition to determine whether or not synthetics are alive.

The only way a valid definition of synthetic life can be created is if it is decided by synthetics. Only they can determine if they are truely alive and only they can define it, and in doing so would prove that they have self awareness to be able to define themselves and prove they are alive.

No I said your point about the Geth not being organic life was obvious.  You never fleshed out your point beyond that until afterwards.

And again this is simply not true.  We define life for animals other than us all the time.  All you are doing is arbitrarily grouping them together under the term organic.  I could argue that while biologically we have more in common with a squirrel that we do a synthetic, mentally we have more in common with a synthetic mind capable of complex thought than we do a squirell's mind that is primarily concerned with f**king and finding a nut.

Further I could argue a creator should be in a better positiion to understand his creation than a creation is in position to understand how it was created when it has no knowledge of its creator.  This is precisely the point Javik makes.  Organics do not understand their purpose or the reason for their creation.  ****, we don't even know if our creator was God or just random sh*t happening in a very large universe.  We have to fumble around and figure out how an unseen and unknown creator ended up creating organic life.  We have no such problems with a synthetic life we helped bring into existence.

Actually I would say our minds are closer to a squirrel trying to **** and find nuts than a synthetic, we are only civilised apes and no where near close to a machine.

And i'm not saying that synthetic life should be tasked with justifying it's existence or try to find purpose in it, however a synthetic has experiences and knowledge of what it means to be synthetic and can therefore better describe it.

If you wanted somebody to define what it means to be an American would you ask the European who has never been there or experienced it to make a guess at what it means to be American? or would you ask the American who has lived there his entire life and was raised in it's culture?

When we try to define synthetic life we are going to always have a biased opinion based on our experiences and knowledge that we have only ever percieved as an organic. The only organisms that could accurately say what it is that makes a synthetic construct alive is those who are experiencing it firsthand

How much different is an American vs a European?  How much different is an organic being to a synthetic being?  The hardware and capabilities might be vastly different, but the end game for each, I'd imagine, would be fairly similar.

I've never lived in Paris, but I bet life there is pretty much the same.  I bet the desires and needs of a French person is pretty much right in line with my own.  They might have different worries, or have different systems - be it cultural or bureaucratic - but at the end of the day, I'm sure, it all boils down to the same thing.

[remydat]

Wraith 02

And I would disagree completely.  I read books, I play video games, I sit here and argue on a message board.  All higher level thought processes that a squirrel could give a **** about.  A synthetic mind is capable of these higher thought processes.  Again, I am thinking of things in terms of Mordin's statement of a species being capable of calculus.

I think you are talking about who is in the best position to explain what it perceives.  Sure that is the created.  I am talking about who is in the best position to explain scientifically the created.  God if he exists and is unbiased can better explain scientifically his creation because he has the blueprint.  Man if we assume God is not all-knowing can better explain what it perceives and more metaphysical questions of its existence.

As long as I know how I created a synthetic, I can get a sense through talking with it and studying it whether it is truly operating within the parameters I set for it or whether it has become more.

If the Quarians wanted to they could have sat down with a Geth studied it and reached an unbiased opinion on whether it was more than what the Quarians created.  They simply refused because they could not look past their bias.  Human or organic curiousity is a powerful tool provided we excercise it and are willing to go where it takes us rather than where we want it to take us.

Modifié par remydat, 18 juin 2013 - 09:40 .

[Steelcan]

I'be started blaming the Council for the Morning war. They outlawed AI research. The quarians were simply enforcing the ban on AI. If they didn't its likely the Council would have intervened. And the Turians are not known for surgical warfare.

[Sir DeLoria]

That's simply false, many Quarians supported their Geth creations and regarded them as living beings, they were just overshadowed by the majority, who opposed the Geth.

[Ravensword]

They're free to leave whenever they damn well feel like it.

[remydat]

Necanor wrote...

That's simply false, many Quarians supported their Geth creations and regarded them as living beings, they were just overshadowed by the majority, who opposed the Geth.

No I am not sure this is ever stated in the game.  The Quarians who we see fight for the Geth seem to do so because they say they need the Geth presumably as tools because otherwise their economy would collapse.  Even Creator Megara doesn't actually articulate why he is protecting them as far as I am aware.