187 réponses à ce sujet

[Rotward]

StreetMagic wrote...

Rotward wrote...

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. 

Of course it would be arrogant to claim a fact. Synthetics don't even ****ing exist.

Missing the point. His use of the word feel isn't contrary to his claim, since it's contextualizing the claim as an opinion. Synthetics don't exist, but they will, our society has been obsessing over it for decades. Plus, discrimination against a sapient is pretty much the same, no matter what the sapient is. 

Modifié par Rotward, 06 décembre 2013 - 06:12 .

[DeinonSlayer]

General TSAR wrote...

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.

You're just ignorant! 

[Jorji Costava]

General TSAR wrote...

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.

I still don't understand this argument at all. Let's assume that human beings becoming apex predators on this planet represents some kind of great achievement of humanity, something which had everything to do with our ancient ancestors' ingenuity and stick-to-itiveness and nothing to do with luck whatsoever (a charitable assumption, to say the least). Why does the fact that you're very related distantly related to people who accomplished great things imply that you're more morally valuable than an equally sapient creature who isn't so related? What is the moral significance of ancestry?

[Cobalt2113]

I've found a good example for this discussion. Tell me, which of the following would you describe as being "alive" or "sapient"?

Major Kusanagi (Ghost in the Shell)
EDI (Mass Effect)

It's funny because, despite both these characters being entirely cybernetic, more people will see the former being alive and the latter as not. This is because Major Kusanagi was once human and might still have that magical soul that we have. Otherwise there's no real difference between them.

[Br3admax]

Full cyborgs aren't entirely robot. She still has a human brain, which is pretty much what a person is, the rest of the body parts are just organs to keep the brain alive.

Modifié par Br3ad, 06 décembre 2013 - 04:10 .

[Rotward]

Br3ad wrote...

Full cyborgs aren't entirely robot. She still has a human brain, which is pretty much what a person is, the rest of the body parts are just organs to keep the brain alive.

EDI is an AI, not a cyborg. 

[Br3admax]

Rotward wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Full cyborgs aren't entirely robot. She still has a human brain, which is pretty much what a person is, the rest of the body parts are just organs to keep the brain alive.

EDI is an AI, not a cyborg. 

The Major is a cyborg. 

[General TSAR]

osbornep wrote...

I still don't understand this argument at all. 

Not surprising, you don't have the mindset.

[Jorji Costava]

General TSAR wrote...

osbornep wrote...

I still don't understand this argument at all. 

Not surprising, you don't have the mindset.

Apparently not. Can't tell you how broken up I am over it.

[DeinonSlayer]

General TSAR wrote...

osbornep wrote...

I still don't understand this argument at all. 

Not surprising, you don't have the mindset.

As intriguing as the idea of generating an "imprint" of a human was in Caprica, I was a bit disappointed that the idea of the Cylon god was inherited from the memories of human religious zealots. I thought it'd have been more interesting to find out where they spontaneously got the concept.

Never saw season four of Battlestar, so I might have missed something.

[Cobalt2113]

Br3ad wrote...

Full cyborgs aren't entirely robot. She still has a human brain, which is pretty much what a person is, the rest of the body parts are just organs to keep the brain alive.

That actually varies depending on the source.

In the movie she wonders if, due to her fully cybernetic body, if she retains any humanity at all or if she's a synthetic programmed to believe its human. The puppet master becomes an entity that exists on the net and at one point she downloads her consciousness into a "doll" so i guess the difference isnt as clear cut as you'd like it to be.

[Rotward]

Br3ad wrote...

Rotward wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Full cyborgs aren't entirely robot. She still has a human brain, which is pretty much what a person is, the rest of the body parts are just organs to keep the brain alive.

EDI is an AI, not a cyborg. 

The Major is a cyborg. 

Woops, missed that post. 

[RandomGuy96]

Just to answer the core question: it is a tenable position. Much more so, at least, then the majority of 'alternate' stances, particularly that "humans are better than aliens" bull.

The majority of the galaxy agrees that AIs aren't life. Shepard himself can say they aren't (in fact, at one point, s/he has to). S/he can continually insist that throughout the trilogy, to the agreement of his or her party members. And at the conclusion of the Rannoch arc, if s/he chooses to let the war go ahead with no more Reaper involvement- i.e. get rid of the Reaper and prevent Legion from granting the geth the benefits of Reaper control without the 'control' part- and the geth get wiped out, nothing bad happens. In fact, your party members and superiors will all shower you with praise and approval, with the sole exceptions of Tali and EDI, who will express some regret and wonder if there could have been a better way.

Then the ending came along (yeah, I know, I know...) and made the 'best' one (hardest to get, most popular, and most likely canon at least, without getting into the actual morality involved) the only one that involves wiping out all AIs- namely EDI and the geth, assuming you haven't already disposed of the latter at this point.

Modifié par RandomGuy96, 06 décembre 2013 - 05:32 .

[Clayless]

StreetMagic wrote...

Rotward wrote...

Missing the point. His use of the word feel isn't contrary to his claim, since it's contextualizing the claim as an opinion. Synthetics don't exist, but they will, our society has been obsessing over it for decades. Plus, discrimination against a spient is pretty much the same, no matter what the sapient is. 

An opinion that tries to call people's realistic viewpoints as "magical" and like "Hogwarts", in favor of something that is actually in the realm of imagination. And whether they "will" exist is still a matter of hope, or intuition at best. It's nothing to build an argument off of. Or try to insult people's mental capacity with (as if they don't understand "basic biology").

Your point? You don't like my opinion, therefore I'm wrong?

Ok..

[Clayless]

StreetMagic wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

Your point? You don't like my opinion, therefore I'm wrong?

Ok..

That's not what I said at all. You don't respect people to the point that you're pretty much calling them retards who believe in magic and don't understand basic biology. How are you ever going to get any kind of dialogue by attacking people's mental capacity? It isn't about opinion. You're just being a dick.

If that's what you want though, then this line of discussion will ever repeat itself. People will just be dicks to each other. Back and forth. Nothing will come from it more than that.

Maybe, if you think I'm disrespecting your intelligence with my opinion on what I've observed, you should come up with an intelligent counter argument. Making a post like that, which doesn't even address the point I made, isn't going to change anything.

Instead of caring about whether or not you think someones being a dick to you, maybe you should care about whether or not they're making a point.

[Fixers0]

AlanC9 wrote...
What "truth" are you taliknig about?

That machines aren't alive, perhaps?

[Clayless]

StreetMagic wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

Maybe, if you think I'm disrespecting your intelligence with my opinion on what I've observed, you should come up with an intelligent counter argument. Making a post like that, which doesn't even address the point I made, isn't going to change anything.

Instead of caring about whether or not you think someones being a dick to you, maybe you should care about whether or not they're making a point.

What point have you made? Don't turn this on me. People didn't agree with you, and you basically said they didn't understand, believed in magic, and didn't understand basic biology - which is 4th grade level stuff. You're basically saying people are too stupid to understand you. You actually think you're the one making a "point"? By saying they're stupid? Do you want people to see things how you see it or not? Then try harder. You must realize this approach isn't going to get you anywhere.

Then you and I think very differently. If I felt like someone insulted my intelligence with their opinion, their observation, I would do everything I could to show them how wrong they are. How faulty their logic is. I would poke holes in their argument and watch it crumble.

What I wouldn't do is stamp my feet and tell them what they said hurt my feelings, whilst doing nothing to counter their argument. That would probably be the worst possible way to go about things, as it would change absolutely nothing and would only show them that my position is so weak that the only way for me to defend it is to try and distract from it.

If you're not going to actually try then don't waste my time with nonsense.

[Br3admax]

Cobalt2113 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Full cyborgs aren't entirely robot. She still has a human brain, which is pretty much what a person is, the rest of the body parts are just organs to keep the brain alive.

That actually varies depending on the source.

In the movie she wonders if, due to her fully cybernetic body, if she retains any humanity at all or if she's a synthetic programmed to believe its human. The puppet master becomes an entity that exists on the net and at one point she downloads her consciousness into a "doll" so i guess the difference isnt as clear cut as you'd like it to be.

That doesn't really change the fact that she's a cyborg, mainly do to the fact that movies of just about any anime are the very definition of inconsitent with the rest of the series. 

[Clayless]

StreetMagic wrote...

I'm not stomping my feet. It has nothing to do with me, other than me intervening and saying you don't have an argument. I want you to present one. If you actually have things to say other than insults, I would listen. I'm sure plenty of people would.

All you've done is talk about your suspicions that people are too stupid. That they see life as "magic", and therefore can't conceive of AI as life.. that maybe they think under a more non-scientiic paradigm where life consists of magical properties (or maybe "souls"?), so you think it's impossible to engage them. There is no "point" you're making here other than insults. Don't you want more than that? Don't you want people to come to your point of view and see things differently? Then the first thing to do is present your view in a way that doesn't begin with saying people are too stupid to understand.

So you're saying I'm not making a point, then immediately say the point I was making (except for the "impossible to engage them" part, something you included randomly) and said "insults" in place of "I found that insulting" (a more accurate statement), then say that you don't want to engage it because you find it insulting?

Then don't. It's that simple.

Telling me that my opinion on what I've observed hurt your feelings isn't going to change anything, all you're telling me is you can't defend your position. I'm not going to sugarcoat an already heavily sugarcoated opinion just in case it hurts someones feelings, and I don't expect you to either. What I do expect you to do is defend your position.

You wont be able to of course, no one goes through this much effort to not defend their position unless they can't defend it in the first place, but I don't expect you to.