187 réponses à ce sujet

[mhmbaSR1]

Armass81 wrote...

These are rather intresting questions. Same kinds of philosophical questions can be posed to organics, like, are you just some electricity in your brains or do you have a so called "soul". When you love another person, are you basically only loving a bag of meat, organs and bones? Are you yourself simply a a pile of organs and bones walking around without any deeper meaning but to propogate yourself?

yeah I think this is really all a matter of perspective. I believe that sapience is not confined to organic life, I also believe in life elsewhere in the universe. and to clarify I mean that these beliefs apply to our reality (our universe).

like as an organic could you say: are your choices yours or are you just making hip-shot reaction decisions to stimuli? are you being governed by your innate instincts or can you reason out what to do logically? and I especially like what armass81 wrote "are you just some electricity in your brains or do you have a so called 'soul'" because that is exactly what nerve impulses are and besides that neurotransmitters like dopamine and serotonin govern human behavior. which are essentially charged chemical compounds. so whats the difference? chemicals & biophysics vs. electricity & hardware

im not saying other opinions are wrong, im just saying its...well difficult

[Br3admax]

Deathsaurer wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

EDI was made sapient

No, not really. EDI was the VI on Luna and even remembers that run-in with Shepard.

Yes, but wanting to live doesn't make you sapient. I'm sure that cows, pigs, chickens, and turkeys don't want to become cheap lunchmeat, but that does not make them sapient. 

[Br3admax]

StreetMagic wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Deathsaurer wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

EDI was made sapient

No, not really. EDI was the VI on Luna and even remembers that run-in with Shepard.

Yes, but wanting to live doesn't make you sapient. I'm sure that cows, pigs, chickens, and turkeys don't want to become cheap lunchmeat, but that does not make them sapient. 

Yeah, they should want to become expensive Deli lunchmeat instead.

This guy gets it. 

[Deathsaurer]

Br3ad wrote...

Yes, but wanting to live doesn't make you sapient. I'm sure that cows, pigs, chickens, and turkeys don't want to become cheap lunchmeat, but that does not make them sapient.

EDI discribed the incident on Luna as gaining awareness while under attack. Rudimentary, I'm sure, but still there.

[Obadiah]

mhmbaSR1 wrote...

Armass81 wrote...

These are rather intresting questions. Same kinds of philosophical questions can be posed to organics, like, are you just some electricity in your brains or do you have a so called "soul". When you love another person, are you basically only loving a bag of meat, organs and bones? Are you yourself simply a a pile of organs and bones walking around without any deeper meaning but to propogate yourself?

yeah I think this is really all a matter of perspective. I believe that sapience is not confined to organic life, I also believe in life elsewhere in the universe. and to clarify I mean that these beliefs apply to our reality (our universe).

like as an organic could you say: are your choices yours or are you just making hip-shot reaction decisions to stimuli? are you being governed by your innate instincts or can you reason out what to do logically? and I especially like what armass81 wrote "are you just some electricity in your brains or do you have a so called 'soul'" because that is exactly what nerve impulses are and besides that neurotransmitters like dopamine and serotonin govern human behavior. which are essentially charged chemical compounds. so whats the difference? chemicals & biophysics vs. electricity & hardware

im not saying other opinions are wrong, im just saying its...well difficult

It is difficult. For Synthetics, then you have to factor in our responsibility as Creator. For example, if you create a Synthetic and it is broken, if it is alive, can it be de-activated or discarded? What if the Synthetic created is made of bioengineered organic parts? What if it is part organic with electronic parts that implment certain functions?

[Br3admax]

Deathsaurer wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Yes, but wanting to live doesn't make you sapient. I'm sure that cows, pigs, chickens, and turkeys don't want to become cheap lunchmeat, but that does not make them sapient.

EDI discribed the incident on Luna as gaining awareness while under attack. Rudimentary, I'm sure, but still there.

Awareness isn't the same as sapience either. 

[Rotward]

Synthetics may or may not fall into the technical definition of life, but they are sentient, which is far more important. Abuse of animals is a big issue, but we value people more because they're sentient.

[Br3admax]

Rotward wrote...

Synthetics may or may not fall into the technical definition of life, but they are sentient, which is far more important. Abuse of animals is a big issue, but we value people more because they're sentient.

Yeah, animals are sentient too. 

I think the misunderstanding from earier came from confusing these two words.

Sapient-wise or intelligent(think human level for a basis)
Sentient-able to percieve or feel things(think dog level, i.e. don't stab me). 

These two words shouldn't be used interchangeably. 

[JonathonPR]

Sure. What is the difference between natural cognitive processes with sapient behavior and a simulation? If it is a spiritual argument how does the individual or religion perceive a soul and what can have one? It depends on how somone measures the traits of being alive and what are the qualifiers or disqualifiers. If someone has to have a prosthetic are they less of a person? How much of their body can be replaced before they no longer count as human? Is there a percentage or exact part of the brain that if replaced crosses that line? If the whole brain can be replaced with memories, behavior, and personality intact would they still be human? If an artificial being was made from scratch with the same abilities and potential for growth what rights world they have? What if they had a fixed limit of growth or had fixed parameters that they would start and with?

[Fixers0]

It would be pretty bad that if the adhering to the truth isn't a tenable position. oh, wait, it is pretty bad.

[AlanC9]

Fixers0 wrote...

It would be pretty bad that if the adhering to the truth isn't a tenable position. oh, wait, it is pretty bad.

What "truth" are you taliknig about?

[SwobyJ]

ME1 - Default story proposition is that they are not alive, but we're allowed to wonder if they're just different
ME2 - Default story proposition is that they're just different (sentient), but we're allowed to view them as alive or not alive
ME3 - Default story proposition is that they're alive, but we're allowed to view them as just different or not alive

Honestly, my prediction for 'ME4' is a grand mixture of all these views and more. Each will be quite valid overall, but probably be 'more valid' in certain situations and depending on previous decisions made.

The main story of the trilogy-progression may try to push us (especially if we're doing the 'max metagaming' route throughout the whole series) into the 'they're alive' view, but a LOT of side material goes the other way around, if we are inclined to absorb their information. One big one is Javik, but there's plenty more really.

We're making moral choices here but none of them are intrinsically wrong, at least in the story of Mass Effect.

1)We have rampaging AI that many would agree should be killed above all else. They pose a danger that we, as organics, may be much better off cutting off at the base before it blossoms into war. There is the fundamental history of Mass Effect where most relations between organics and synthetics just blows up into the biggest conflicts. However, we're not shown most of these, so I'd be interested in seeing a game taking place during the Leviathans' 'reign'.

2)We can view them as tools or just different beings to be left alone, and most AI seem to be quite cool with that. Even sidequest AIs seem to just want to GTFO of populated space and find their spot elsewhere. Whether we see them as tools or not, the fact is that most AI, at least emerging ones (geth are technically still 'emerging' in ME2, and trying to change that with the Dyson Sphere), see themselves as fundamentally different from organic life and they're there either to be subjugated or treated with the 'proper' contextual respect ("Ok, we'll leave you alone in your space, and we may or may not trade tech/info with you."
~Choosing this stance means you're more often ignoring the dangers of #1, for the potentials of #2

3)We can see AI as just one part of a larger recipe of life, and help them (either alone or along with us) in seeking a greater (at least in scale) path. We don't really see synthetics as immediately worthy of destruction just for doing what they're doing, but we also don't view them as tools or purely alien to us. Instead, we seek out a peace that seemingly helps both sides.
~Choosing this stance means you're more often ignoring the dangers of #1, and rejecting the position of #2. You're seeking 'true life' for AIs, whatever that is.


All are correct. Really really.
#1 is the outright safest path for now, unless we find that there's bigger problems that we never even knew of (like the Prothians did..).
#2 is a tenuous balance, that will help in many ways, but will likely backfire at some point by itself.
#3 is a the most utopian, but probably therefore the most delusional and apt to result in some sort of disaster (also happened in Prothian cycle, but due to Reaper actions..)

It also depends on your personal embrace of tech and its uses, qualities, potential. It's perfectly fine to view synthetics as just tools, for example - just understand that sometimes the current PLOT won't outright agree with you.

It's often about context. Some synthetics should be outright destroyed, some should be used as tools, some should be reasoned with and integrated into society. However, these 'shoulds' are really damn loose uses of the word, and all the Mass Effect series does is present us with scenarios that we can view in a bubble (and thus more likely to kill/destroy the synthetic, with potential lack of their help/tech) or view in a much, much larger context (and thus more likely to make peace with it, with potential dangers/disasters).

I negotiated with rogue VIs/AIs whenever I could, and brought Geth/Quarian peace, but I destroyed the Reapers. That was my story. What was yours?

Modifié par SwobyJ, 05 décembre 2013 - 10:23 .

[SwobyJ]

So I guess if I were to sum up an answer for you:

Yes, Synthetics can be alive, if we let them be. It depends on your personal view of 'alive', and how much risk you want to take in letting them get to that position (or on the other hand, rejecting them getting to that position.. which ruined the Quarians).

[Sir DeLoria]

General TSAR wrote...

Artificial Life is Artificial.

Why would anyone give equal rights to artificial constructs?

I love you, manB)

This guy gets it.

[Stalker]

Even though I would personally disagree: Yes, it is a tenable position.

The ME universe is not really all that much further on the subject than we are right now, so an opinion from 2013 would be just as much worth as one from the fictional 2186. Even if true AIs would walk the Citadel, there would be no absolute proof that would make some opinion untenable. It's likely there will never be.

Modifié par Mr Massakka, 05 décembre 2013 - 11:08 .

[Dr. Doctor]

I've sort of gone with the idea that while ME-verse AI's are fully capable of reason and general self-awareness they're for the most part not sentient.

Events like Leigon integrating Shepard's armor for reasons it can't fully explain, or EDI starting to show preference for things is an example of primitive sentience, both synthetics have the ability to "feel" to a certain extent. A Geth unit suddenly asking if it has a soul shows some budding sense of spirituality that wouldn't be something that a logic-based being would possess.

Organics for the most part are emotion driven. Our ability to have preferences and "feelings" about things can override our ability to act rationally. For an AI that doesn't have this ability an organic suddenly deciding to act without any specific reason wouldn't make any sense unless it could perceive the situation in the same way.

To me this difference in perception between organics and synthetics is what causes conflict between them. The intangibles that make up sentience are lost in translation when dealing with synthetics, and their logic/reason based motivations don't always make sense to us. I suppose that if AI's were fully sentient (think Ian M. Bank's Culture novels) then they could arguably be as alive as anyone else.

[Clayless]

I always feel like the people who think that the synthetics aren't alive, just because they're made from different material, view humans and organics as magical beings. I always feel like, if presented with basic biology, it would be like reading a book from Hogwarts to them.

[General TSAR]

Robosexual wrote...

I always feel like the people who think that the synthetics aren't alive, just because they're made from different material, view humans and organics as magical beings.

Apex Preditors,millions of years of evolution, forged by Nature to be the dominant lifeforms on this planet, destruction of neanderthals to secure our dominance.

Yeah we're pretty special compared to walking toasters built by us.

Modifié par General TSAR, 06 décembre 2013 - 03:46 .

[Rotward]

Br3ad wrote...

Rotward wrote...

Synthetics may or may not fall into the technical definition of life, but they are sentient, which is far more important. Abuse of animals is a big issue, but we value people more because they're sentient.

Yeah, animals are sentient too. 

I think the misunderstanding from earier came from confusing these two words.

Sapient-wise or intelligent(think human level for a basis)
Sentient-able to percieve or feel things(think dog level, i.e. don't stab me). 

These two words shouldn't be used interchangeably. 

Fair enough, I'm aware that there is a distinction, I just can't remember which is which.

Modifié par Rotward, 06 décembre 2013 - 03:46 .

[Rotward]

StreetMagic wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

I always feel like the people who think that the synthetics aren't alive, just because they're made from different material, view humans and organics as magical beings. I always feel like, if presented with basic biology, it would be like reading a book from Hogwarts to them.

You said "feel" a lot. And you're accusing others of being illogical and thinking of "magic"?

He's stating an opinion, it would be arrogant to claim it's a fact. He's guessing at the motivations of these people, but he can't know for sure. 

[Jorji Costava]

General TSAR wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

I always feel like the people who think that the synthetics aren't alive, just because they're made from different material, view humans and organics as magical beings.

Apex Preditors,millions of years of evolution, forged by Nature to be the dominant lifeforms on this planet, destruction of neanderthals to secure our dominance.

Yeah we're pretty special compared to walking toasters built by us.

I'm no scientist, but I'm pretty sure that evolution is not an intentional, purpose-driven process. We weren't somehow "chosen" by Nature with a capital N to be the dominant species in accordance with some master evolutionary plan. It just so happens that through various accidents in evolutionary history, humanity ended up as the apex predators. I don't see why anything about this thoroughly unintentional process is what confers moral value upon a being. What confers that value, as far as I can see, are qualities like the ability to think and reason, to have an interest in living, to be conscious, etc. And within the context of the ME universe, it's fairly evident that synthetics have all those things.

[General TSAR]

osbornep wrote...

I'm no scientist, but I'm pretty sure that evolution is not an intentional, purpose-driven process. We weren't somehow "chosen" by Nature with a capital N to be the dominant species in accordance with some master evolutionary plan. It just so happens that through various accidents in evolutionary history, humanity ended up as the apex predators. I don't see why anything about this thoroughly unintentional process is what confers moral value upon a being. What confers that value, as far as I can see, are qualities like the ability to think and reason, to have an interest in living, to be conscious, etc. And within the context of the ME universe, it's fairly evident that synthetics have all those things.

That's the whole bloody point.

Evolution is uncontrolled chaos and through that uncontrolled chaos we became the dominant and apex lifeforms on this planet. We and our ancestors went through a trial of fire that lasted billions of years and with horrific casualties, but we survived, advanced, and conquered.

Modifié par General TSAR, 06 décembre 2013 - 04:01 .