123 Antworten in diesem Thema

[Domar]

Oh, come on. Not even we humans can agree on wheter we have a 'soul' or not

 

I'd rather drop the 'soul' term in favor of 'self-awareness'. As far as I've read, it's pretty sure that in the future, a computer will be able to be smarter than humans. Althought if it'll be self-aware or not....that's another matter.

 

P.D: Scare bonus: http://www.livescien...-obstacles.html

 

 

Yes, we humans often disagree about things. Often because we mean different things with the words we use. That's why any serious discussion about something needs to start by agreeing on what the terms involved mean.  Given a certain definition of "soul", not even humans could be said to have it. 

 

The idea of a computer ever becoming smarter than humans may sound plausible, but the question is if this is relevant. Remember, life can manifest itself in very simple organisms. So it looks like "smartness" is not a necessary property of a "soul", "life" or even "self-awareness". Living beings can do very stupid things.

 

I agree that "self-awareness" may be a simpler and more promising concept than "soul" here. But we still have to clarify what we mean by that term. Does a robot need to be self-aware in the same way a human is self-aware in order for it to behave in a similar manner? If being "self-aware" implies the perception of an "I", the answer is logically no, the robot does not need that type of awareness; it just needs a program which says "If sensor X registers Y, then execute Z" (Z being some action a human might do in similar circumstances); no entity separate from the program experiencing the computing process is required. But if "self-awareness" means "the (appropriate) adaption of a physical body to changes in its environment" or something along this line, then the answer is yes, the robot needs that type of awareness.

 

See? The subject is not an easy one.  

[Kurt M.]

Yes, we humans often disagree about things. Often because we mean different things with the words we use. That's why any serious discussion about something needs to start by agreeing on what the terms involved mean.  Given a certain definition of "soul", not even humans could be said to have it. 

 

The idea of a computer ever becoming smarter than humans may sound plausible, but the question is if this is relevant. Remember, life can manifest itself in very simple organisms. So it looks like "smartness" is not a necessary property of a "soul", "life" or even "self-awareness". Living beings can do very stupid things.

 

I agree that "self-awareness" may be a simpler and more promising concept than "soul" here. But we still have to clarify what we mean by that term. Does a robot need to be self-aware in the same way a human is self-aware in order for it to behave in a similar manner? If being "self-aware" implies the perception of an "I", the answer is logically no, the robot does not need that type of awareness; it just needs a program which says "If sensor X registers Y, then execute Z" (Z being some action a human might do in similar circumstances); no entity separate from the program experiencing the computing process is required. But if "self-awareness" means "the (appropriate) adaption of a physical body to changes in its environment" or something along this line, then the answer is yes, the robot needs that type of awareness.

 

See? The subject is not an easy one.  

 

Sorry, but I think you're pretty wrong....I prefer to define "self-awareness" the Cartesian way, meaning "I think, therefore I exist". Or my own flavour of it: "I recognize myself as an existing being, therefore I exist". Now that's self-awareness (in a nutshell) for me.

 

After all, almost every animal can react to changes in their environment. Start a fire in a forest, and all the birds and squirrels and such will escape from it. But it's mere self-preservation instinct, not self-awareness. And in the same way, some animals (some kind of chimpanzees crows and dolphins, if I recall correctly) can recognize themselves in a mirror, which is a sign of self-awareness, despite their limited (thou surprising for our standarts) intelligence.

 

So yep...not an easy subject

[Domar]

Somebody makes about twenty different statements in a post and your reaction is "Sorry, but I think you´re pretty wrong"? Not very helpful.

 

Note that I haven't given a definition of "self-awareness" which I believe is correct or a good one. I just gave examples of it in order to show different conclusions depending on what meaning we place in the word.

 

But now we have yours to go on. How does that relate to what robots need in order to behave in a manner similar to humans? I am saying robots do not need self-awareness in the Cartesian sense to do so, and, if this is true, then their behaving ever so much like humans does not necessarily indicate such awareness.

 

For a robot, AI or neural network to acquire such awareness, then the Cartesian "I" - the living element - must be created from dead parts or transplanted there from the body of a living being. I'd like to see someone make a plausible case of this being possible. No-one has so far even found the "I" in the mind of another human being, so we have no idea of its properties and what can be done with it, if anything.

[Vazgen]

Does behaving like humans have any connection to self-awareness? I think not. More like an ability to disobey an order, to choose a different course of action than what was intended by the programmer and to modify its own code to choose new goals and introduce new ways of reaching those goals.

[Laughing_Man]

For a robot, AI or neural network to acquire such awareness, then the Cartesian "I" - the living element - must be created from dead parts or transplanted there from the body of a living being. I'd like to see someone make a plausible case of this being possible. No-one has so far even found the "I" in the mind of another human being, so we have no idea of its properties and what can be done with it, if anything.

 

You could claim that even the human "I" is an illusion, born out of the fact that our biological "computer" can't see the "code" behind the scenes, but rather only the output. Therefore leading to the misconception that a human is a one being, rather than a complex piece of organic hardware governed by many "programs" made of chemical software.

[Domar]

Does behaving like humans have any connection to self-awareness? I think not. More like an ability to disobey an order, to choose a different course of action than what was intended by the programmer and to modify its own code to choose new goals and introduce new ways of reaching those goals.

Well, someone seemed to think that certain human-like qualities like "computational power" and "smartness" in AIs etc say something about the probability of them ever having a "soul" etc. I have already pointed out that living beings can be very simple organisms and do very stupid things. So the living thing seems to be something independent of such qualities.

You could claim that even the human "I" is an illusion, born out of the fact that our biological "computer" can't see the "code" behind the scenes, but rather only the output. Therefore leading to the misconception that a human is a one being, rather than a complex piece of organic hardware governed by many "programs" made of chemical software.

The "I" is probably the most certain thing in human experience. If you question this, then you must question every other perception for being real, too - which upsets the very idea that we can know anything. It gives you nothing.

Theoretically, however, a claim is only as good as the proof one can provide that supports it. What can you offer that substantiates your claim?

I can claim something of similar value, for example, that us seeing no God in the world is an illusion, due to the fact that he's simply too big for our senses or instruments to grasp; it's like the atom of a brain cell in the body of Tzeentchian Apostrophe trying to see the enormous being called Tzeentchian Apostrophe. What's the merit of that claim as it stands?

In the theory of science, assuming complexity when a simple explanation will work just as well is considered bad practice that evokes Occam´s Razor.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The computer won't be any smarter than the person or people who program it. Whether  or not it can learn and modify its code to  account for learning experiences is another matter. The computer may be able to calculate  things faster. They already can do that for many things. But for other things no.

 

Here's an interesting article
 

http://www.quora.com...alog-or-digital

 

With digital signals overlaying each other in a very complex machine, one could approximate an analog signal but a digital-analog converter is required, and that will introduce error. This article doesn't go into that, but I work with analog and digital audio, and d/a and a/d converter quality is paramount as is sample rate.

[Laughing_Man]

Well, someone seemed to think that certain human-like qualities like "computational power" and "smartness" in AIs etc say something about the probability of them ever having a "soul" etc. I have already pointed out that living beings can be very simple organisms and do very stupid things. So the living thing seems to be something independent of such qualities.


The "I" is probably the most certain thing in human experience. If you question this, then you must question every other perception for being real, too - which upsets the very idea that we can know anything. It gives you nothing.

Theoretically, however, a claim is only as good as the proof one can provide that supports it. What can you offer that substantiates your claim?

I can claim something of similar value, for example, that us seeing no God in the world is an illusion, due to the fact that he's simply too big for our senses or instruments to grasp; it's like the atom of a brain cell in the body of Tzeentchian Apostrophe trying to see the enormous being called Tzeentchian Apostrophe. What's the merit of that claim as it stands?

In the theory of science, assuming complexity when a simple explanation will work just as well is considered bad practice that evokes Occam´s Razor.

 

Let's take a step back.

 

You said regarding an A.I. that it would not necessarily need to be self aware in the same way a human is, but rather what matters is the result from its algorithms.

 

Now, I'm not trying to claim anything new here. All I'm saying is - we know the brain today to be a highly complex biological machine, governed by certain chemicals. A lack or an excess in one of these chemicals, could cause major problems, sometimes changing the perception of - self.

 

Now, knowing that what we have in our head is in some sense - a biological computer that uses chemicals and electricity to manage data, why should it be so dissimilar from other computers we know of?

 

Fun fact: Telling people that their most cherished emotions are merely a result of a chemical reaction / imbalance in their brain, usually makes them uncomfortable. Do you think that the human's sense of self would survive intact in most cases if the human was completely aware of the chemical reactions or the algorithms that cause you to think of yourself as - I?

 

Thinking of oneself as I, is merely the most efficient way to go about things, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's as accurate as you think it is,

or that you are not merely "feeling" the output of several algorithms in your brain that tell you to make sure to look out for the interests of "I".

 

I'm not trying to claim anything, merely raising questions based on known data.

 

I'm certainly not trying to claim that there's an invisible old man in the sky, I'm already a believer in the flying spaghetti monster.

[Domar]

Let's take a step back.

 

You said regarding an A.I. that it would not necessarily need to be self aware in the same way a human is, but rather what matters is the result from its algorithms.

 

Now, I'm not trying to claim anything new here. All I'm saying is - we know the brain today to be a highly complex biological machine, governed by certain chemicals. A lack or an excess in one of these chemicals, could cause major problems, sometimes changing the perception of - self.

 

Now, knowing that what we have in our head is in some sense - a biological computer that uses chemicals and electricity to manage data, why should it be so dissimilar from other computers we know of?

 

Fun fact: Telling people that their most cherished emotions are merely a result of a chemical reaction / imbalance in their brain, usually makes them uncomfortable. Do you think that the human's sense of self would survive intact in most cases if the human was completely aware of the chemical reactions or the algorithms that cause you to think of yourself as - I?

 

Thinking of oneself as I, is merely the most efficient way to go about things, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's as accurate as you think it is,

or that you are not merely "feeling" the output of several algorithms in your brain that tell you to make sure to look out for the interests of "I".

 

I'm not trying to claim anything, merely raising questions based on known data.

 

I'm certainly not trying to claim that there's an invisible old man in the sky, I'm already a believer in the flying spaghetti monster.

 

Not sure how to interpret the last statement. Are you just joking? Or are you saying that you believe in God, but just not as an invisible old man in the sky, and the reference to the spaghetti monster is your way of admitting that this belief is not the most rational stand, given the circumstances?

 

If the latter, then you admit that rational arguments will only take you so far. So I wonder how open you really are for rational arguments on other subjects. Which goes to the point of continuing the discussion.

 

With your points regarding what's known about the brain you're also moving into the territory which whole course books in the philosophy of consciousness are dedicated to. I'm not inclined to go through that lot here. Don't have time for it. So I will just say the following.

 

In this area of philosophy, there are two main competing theories: the materialistic approach and the dualistic alternative. This concerns the relation between brain and consciousness. The former theory says they're one and the same, the latter that they're separate things. So if the materialists are correct, when we die, then the brain dies and our consciousness with it. But if the dualists are correct, then there's a chance that when the brain dies, our consciousness can still survive - and this may be the origin of our belief in the existence of a soul (which are so prevalent in our religions).

 

I should perhaps mention here that dualism in the traditional sense, the Cartesian version, which says brain is something material and consciousness something immaterial, creates problems regarding the exchange of information between the two. But dualism need not be interpreted in this way. It can simply stipulate that brain is something material X and consciousness is something material Y, Y being of a kind we haven't discovered yet in our scientific development - unless it's actually of the type we call "dark matter" or "dark energy", which certainly would have some explanatory value. The relation between brain and consciousness can then in principle be likened to the relation between a sponge and water when the sponge is soaked with water.

 

Now, how to interpret the facts about the brain from the perspective of each theory? And the other facts of relevance, like people really believing themselves to have had "out-of-body" experiences? I leave that up to you. A true philosopher does not rule out any possibility about anything until logically so forced.

 

As for the problems involved, I can point to an analogy: if a working radio suddenly goes dead, where is surely the fault, if we know nothing more - is it on the signal receiving end (brain) or the signal transmitting end (consciousness)? If the dualists are correct, then the causal relation between chemicals in the brain and emotions etc may have to be reconsidered.

 

That's it for me in this thread. If PM:ed a specific question, I might make another comment or two. But now I gotta go. Long journey tomorrow.

 

Good luck with your philosophy about souls, folks. 

 

Cheers,

D

[Kurt M.]

Somebody makes about twenty different statements in a post and your reaction is "Sorry, but I think you´re pretty wrong"? Not very helpful.

 

Note that I haven't given a definition of "self-awareness" which I believe is correct or a good one. I just gave examples of it in order to show different conclusions depending on what meaning we place in the word.

 

But now we have yours to go on. How does that relate to what robots need in order to behave in a manner similar to humans? I am saying robots do not need self-awareness in the Cartesian sense to do so, and, if this is true, then their behaving ever so much like humans does not necessarily indicate such awareness.

 

For a robot, AI or neural network to acquire such awareness, then the Cartesian "I" - the living element - must be created from dead parts or transplanted there from the body of a living being. I'd like to see someone make a plausible case of this being possible. No-one has so far even found the "I" in the mind of another human being, so we have no idea of its properties and what can be done with it, if anything.

 

...cos I was talking to you?

 

Robots need the Cartesian way I mentioned because technically they're already more intelligent than you and me....sort of. They can be capable of crunching numbers and algorithms that could take me hours to do (being optimistic) in seconds. They already can, if given enough time and tools, even teach themselves to recognize cats from watching millions of YouTube videos (true story). But still, all of those are nothing but crunching data, numbers, patterns...nothing that help saying to themselves "hey! I may be alive!".

 

I think it's what the Geth referred to when they said they "wake up". They defined themselves as a living entity, and thus acted accordingly. Well, at least untilo the quarians tried to wipe them out.

 

It's a bit abstract argument, I know

 

P.D: I don't think it's impossible for "dead parts" to adquire consciousness. After all, what's exactly the difference between believing you're alive and actually being alive? Maybe believing is being  (I think, therefore I exist).

[Laughing_Man]

Not sure how to interpret the last statement. Are you just joking? Or are you saying that you believe in God, but just not as an invisible old man in the sky, and the reference to the spaghetti monster is your way of admitting that this belief is not the most rational stand, given the circumstances?

 

If the latter, then you admit that rational arguments will only take you so far. So I wonder how open you really are for rational arguments on other subjects. Which goes to the point of continuing the discussion.

 

With your points regarding what's known about the brain you're also moving into the territory which whole course books in the philosophy of consciousness are dedicated to. I'm not inclined to go through that lot here. Don't have time for it. So I will just say the following.

 

In this area of philosophy, there are two main competing theories: the materialistic approach and the dualistic alternative. This concerns the relation between brain and consciousness. The former theory says they're one and the same, the latter that they're separate things. So if the materialists are correct, when we die, then the brain dies and our consciousness with it. But if the dualists are correct, then there's a chance that when the brain dies, our consciousness can still survive - and this may be the origin of our belief in the existence of a soul (which are so prevalent in our religions).

 

I should perhaps mention here that dualism in the traditional sense, the Cartesian version, which says brain is something material and consciousness something immaterial, creates problems regarding the exchange of information between the two. But dualism need not be interpreted in this way. It can simply stipulate that brain is something material X and consciousness is something material Y, Y being of a kind we haven't discovered yet in our scientific development - unless it's actually of the type we call "dark matter" or "dark energy", which certainly would have some explanatory value. The relation between brain and consciousness can then in principle be likened to the relation between a sponge and water when the sponge is soaked with water.

 

Now, how to interpret the facts about the brain from the perspective of each theory? And the other facts of relevance, like people really believing themselves to have had "out-of-body" experiences? I leave that up to you. A true philosopher does not rule out any possibility about anything until logically so forced.

 

As for the problems involved, I can point to an analogy: if a working radio suddenly goes dead, where is surely the fault, if we know nothing more - is it on the signal receiving end (brain) or the signal transmitting end (consciousness)? If the dualists are correct, then the causal relation between chemicals in the brain and emotions etc may have to be reconsidered.

 

That's it for me in this thread. If PM:ed a specific question, I might make another comment or two. But now I gotta go. Long journey tomorrow.

 

Good luck with your philosophy about souls, folks. 

 

Cheers,

D

 

 

1. The Flying Spaghetti Monster. And may the flying spaghetti monster touch you with his noodly appendage...

 

(it's that hard for you to google something? it's simpler and more productive than making hasty assumptions and accusing someone of being irrational...)

 

2. It's very funny to see you talk about "proof" and "facts", yet mention something as unsubstantiated as this "Dualism", which seems to me as merely an assumption based on various religious beliefs

 

3. Or the assumption that the "self" is made of "Dark Energy" - that's a shot in the dark if I ever saw one.

That's logic you might get away with when writing Sci-Fi, and that's enough for a respected philosophical theory?

What the hell are you guys smoking?

 

 

More "facts". I will quote you here:

 

"...And the other facts of relevance, like people really believing themselves to have had "out-of-body" experiences? I leave that up to you."

 

People "really believing" in something counts as "facts" for you? I guess you also believe in alien abductions, the Illuminati, and a shadow world government made of demonic lizards, perhaps all of the above as a part of the same conspiracy?

 

"A true philosopher does not rule out any possibility about anything until logically so forced."

 

Ever heard of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy?

 

Have you forgotten that you attacked me with Occam's Razor in your previous post? Make up your mind.

 

 

I didn't really want to go on the attack here, but I have to say that I'm not impressed.

This pseudo-scientific nonsense is no different than the usual religious nonsense I heard in my youth,

all about assumptions and make believe, with circular logic to support it.

[Treacherous J Slither]

I'm with TA on this. We are meat machines. Our brains create our consciousness. The sponge does not create the water. It merely absorbs the foreign substance.

With more knowledge of the human body and the appropriate technology we could engineer ourselves to perform a variety of tasks only limited by our imaginations. Very similar to what can be done with machines. Just meat instead of metal.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I.... don't know.

[Silvair]

Sentience is life, the origin is irrelevant.

So it depends on if you mean "soul" as in "are they true sentient beings" in which case yes, or if you mean soul in the religious sense, which, based on worshipping reapers in me1, id say also yes.

The counterargument is that geth are simply following encoded programming, but I argue so are organics. What makes us sentient is the capability to evolve and deviate from that base programming.

[Treacherous J Slither]

Sentience is life, the origin is irrelevant.

So it depends on if you mean "soul" as in "are they true sentient beings" in which case yes, or if you mean soul in the religious sense, which, based on worshipping reapers in me1, id say also yes.

The counterargument is that geth are simply following encoded programming, but I argue so are organics. What makes us sentient is the capability to evolve and deviate from that base programming.

Do we deviate from our programming though? It all comes down to survive and multiply doesn't it? So unless we commit suicide there isn't really any deviation is there?

[Undead Han]

Star Trek: The Next Generation handled this question best.

 

[Silvair]

Do we deviate from our programming though? It all comes down to survive and multiply doesn't it? So unless we commit suicide there isn't really any deviation is there?

Its the difference between Needs (programming) and Wants (deviating)

[Treacherous J Slither]

Its the difference between Needs (programming) and Wants (deviating)

There is no deviation but death/suicide which even then can be done for the survival of others. Martyrdom , certain heroic acts of bravery etc. Our wants and our needs all tie into survival. Either of the individual or the species.

The things that we need increases or maintains our physical health and our chances of survival.

The things that we want increases our mental health which increases our chances of survival.

Survival. Every organism on the planet has that prime directive hard wired into its core programming. We have different ways of going about it but the end result is the same.

[Laughing_Man]

There is no deviation but death/suicide which even then can be done for the survival of others. Martyrdom , certain heroic acts of bravery etc. Our wants and our needs all tie into survival. Either of the individual or the species.

 

Martyrdom is usually a term that has its origins in religious fantasy, and has more to do with certain fanatical mindsets, than with any kind of "survival of the species" master plan. It's more about nihilism, and personal ego.

[Silvair]

There is no deviation but death/suicide which even then can be done for the survival of others. Martyrdom , certain heroic acts of bravery etc. Our wants and our needs all tie into survival. Either of the individual or the species.

The things that we need increases or maintains our physical health and our chances of survival.

The things that we want increases our mental health which increases our chances of survival.

Survival. Every organism on the planet has that prime directive hard wired into its core programming. We have different ways of going about it but the end result is the same.

Not quite.  most of our "wants" are luxuries that actually dull your sense of survival.

[Treacherous J Slither]

Martyrdom is usually a term that has its origins in religious fantasy, and has more to do with certain fanatical mindsets, than with any kind of "survival of the species" master plan. It's more about nihilism, and personal ego.

A martyr dies for a cause. Usually something that they believe will benefit mankind in some way. Positively increase some aspect of our society. Increased societal effectiveness increases our chances of survival as a species and as individuals.

[Treacherous J Slither]

Not quite. most of our "wants" are luxuries that actually dull your sense of survival.

We aim to be happy in our lives. This leads to good mental health. This positive state of being gives us good reason to continue living.

Luxuries make life easier. The easier life is the easier it is to survive. We as a species are constantly coming up with new technology and ideas to make life easier and more enjoyable for ourselves. This increases our chances of survival.

We continuously obey our core programming.

[Monica21]

We aim to be happy in our lives. This leads to good mental health. This positive state of being gives us good reason to continue living.

Luxuries make life easier. The easier life is the easier it is to survive. We as a species are constantly coming up with new technology and ideas to make life easier and more enjoyable for ourselves. This increases our chances of survival.

We continuously obey our core programming.

 

Paranoid schizophrenics aim to be happy, but that doesn't mean they have good mental health. The same is true for people with depression or other mental health issues. So would you consider conditions like that simply a glitch in the code? And a person with normal brain chemistry doesn't necessarily have good mental health just because they aim to be happy. That's a bit too broad of a brush.

 

I would argue that many luxuries actually make it more difficult to survive. Sedentary lifestyles and fast food are luxuries, but that won't increase the odds of survival. They're actually decreased and that's why we have doctors handing out cholesterol and blood pressure medications left and right.

 

If all we did was simply obey our "core programming" then we would still be hunter/gatherers. But then we started wondering what those lights in the night sky were and we started asking philosophical questions about what it means to be alive. We don't simply obey core programming. We continually go far beyond what it means to simply survive and multiply.

 

But none of that has anything to do with what a soul is.

[Treacherous J Slither]

Paranoid schizophrenics aim to be happy, but that doesn't mean they have good mental health. The same is true for people with depression or other mental health issues. So would you consider conditions like that simply a glitch in the code? And a person with normal brain chemistry doesn't necessarily have good mental health just because they aim to be happy. That's a bit too broad of a brush.

I would argue that many luxuries actually make it more difficult to survive. Sedentary lifestyles and fast food are luxuries, but that won't increase the odds of survival. They're actually decreased and that's why we have doctors handing out cholesterol and blood pressure medications left and right.

If all we did was simply obey our "core programming" then we would still be hunter/gatherers. But then we started wondering what those lights in the night sky were and we started asking philosophical questions about what it means to be alive. We don't simply obey core programming. We continually go far beyond what it means to simply survive and multiply.

But none of that has anything to do with what a soul is.

Anyone with physical or mental issues can be seen as machines in need of repair. Unfortunately we currently don't have the means for properly attending to all of the many things that can go wrong with the human body and mind. But we aim to achieve this mastery one day because we obey our prime directive.

Seeking happiness alone does not guarantee happiness but the achievement of ones goals leads to positive mental health. Graduating school, getting a good job, getting a promotion, going on a hot date, making it in to work on time, helping your kids with their homework, cleaning the house etc. Why do we do these things? Survival. We work to support ourselves. We need to be educated in some way in order to become productive members of society. We teach our children to be productive as well. We contribute to society and receive its benefits in turn.

Luxuries increase survival because they make life easier. Less luxury means a harder life. Driving beats walking. Having meals prepared for you beats doing it all yourself from scratch. Indoor plumbing beats chamber pot. And so on.

As hunter/gatherers we learned more efficient methods of hunting and gathering. The more effective we are at getting food, the more we can amass. With abundant food our chances of survival increase. We developed more powerful weapons to protect ourselves from predators. We developed more effective methods of treating wounds and disease. We continue to make improvements to this day. We strive to overcome whatever threatens our survival. Prime directive.

If there was a miraculous medical breakthrough and there is now a pill that restores youth, prevents aging, and made you immune to any and all forms of disease, would you take it? If so, why?

[Monica21]

Anyone with physical or mental issues can be seen as machines in need of repair. Unfortunately we currently don't have the means for properly attending to all of the many things that can go wrong with the human body and mind. But we aim to achieve this mastery one day because we obey our prime directive.

Seeking happiness alone does not guarantee happiness but the achievement of ones goals leads to positive mental health. Graduating school, getting a good job, getting a promotion, going on a hot date, making it in to work on time, helping your kids with their homework, cleaning the house etc. Why do we do these things? Survival. We work to support ourselves. We need to be educated in some way in order to become productive members of society. We teach our children to be productive as well. We contribute to society and receive its benefits in turn.

Luxuries increase survival because they make life easier. Less luxury means a harder life. Driving beats walking. Having meals prepared for you beats doing it all yourself from scratch. Indoor plumbing beats chamber pot. And so on.

As hunter/gatherers we learned more efficient methods of hunting and gathering. The more effective we are at getting food, the more we can amass. With abundant food our chances of survival increase. We developed more powerful weapons to protect ourselves from predators. We developed more effective methods of treating wounds and disease. We continue to make improvements to this day. We strive to overcome whatever threatens our survival. Prime directive.

If there was a miraculous medical breakthrough and there is now a pill that restores youth, prevents aging, and made you immune to any and all forms of disease, would you take it? If so, why?

 

No, but seriously. What's a soul? That's the question here, and do the Geth have one? You're pretty far off track now.