236 réponses à ce sujet

[Esker02]

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either you are agreeing with Terraneaux, and free will is an illusion (in which case it's been established our primary difference is between different base assumptions) and all of life is - essentially - machines, or you are attempting to say 1 + 1 = 3.

That is to say, you are this person:

I would find it much more interesting to come across the one who wants to attempt the point that the Geth could be seen as true life. That their "building consensus" is actually a deliberation with an understanding of multiple outcomes, a product of their free agency in the universe. I'm not sure I would believe a word of it, given that such a person would be tasked with proving 1 + 1 = 3.

I rejected this offhand purely because such a model is subject to each and every one of Terraneaux's criticisms that demonstrate the impossibility of a free will as such given our current scientific understanding of the composition of human consciousness. Namely, that the (known) processes of the brain and the wiring of a circuit board leave quite literally no room for a will to occur - and that all of action, given these parts as the entirety of consciousness, is reducable to an outwardly determined sort.

To reiterate:

My stance has always been that 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, and we just don't know how to properly quantify one of those 1s yet. The logical outcome of this is that any being which only possesses that which we DO know how to quantify would necessarily come up lacking (1 + 1 = 2) - namely, the Geth.

You're going to have to explain to me more clearly your exact position on the nature of free agency before I know what framework of thought I am discussing things with. And yes, sentience implies consciousness much in the same way a finger implies a hand. But a part does not equal the whole.

Modifié par Esker02, 05 mars 2010 - 06:35 .

[Spiratic]

Esker02 wrote...

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either you are agreeing with Terraneaux, and free will is an illusion (in which case it's been established our primary difference is between different base assumptions) and all of life is - essentially - machines, or you are attempting to say 1 + 1 = 3.

That is to say, you are this person:

I would find it much more interesting to come across the one who wants to attempt the point that the Geth could be seen as true life. That their "building consensus" is actually a deliberation with an understanding of multiple outcomes, a product of their free agency in the universe. I'm not sure I would believe a word of it, given that such a person would be tasked with proving 1 + 1 = 3.

I rejected this offhand purely because such a model is subject to each and every one of Terraneaux's criticisms that demonstrate the impossibility of a free will as such given our current scientific understanding of the composition of human consciousness. Namely, that the (known) processes of the brain and the wiring of a circuit board leave quite literally no room for a will to occur - and that all of action, given these parts as the entirety of consciousness, is reducable to an outwardly determined sort.

To reiterate:

My stance has always been that 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, and we just don't know how to properly quantify one of those 1s yet. The logical outcome of this is that any being which only possesses that which we DO know how to quantify would necessarily come up lacking (1 + 1 = 2) - namely, the Geth.

You're going to have to explain to me more clearly your exact position on the nature of free agency before I know what framework of thought I am discussing things with. And yes, sentience implies consciousness much in the same way a finger implies a hand. But a part does not equal the whole.

You are aware that there have been mathematicians for centuries who have made a career out of either proveing 1=1 or 1=/=1 and noone has ever managed to prove either. It is the ONLY factor in math that cannot be proven or disproven. , Therefore one could say that if 1=/=1 then 1+1=3 which would not be faulty but not be accurate either. Since science is based on math, and since math is based on the supposition that 1=1, and since 1=1 is a theory that is effectively  unprovable then one could argue that the entire system is, in theory at least, faulty.

Also, on the subject of free will and the effects on the definition of life and how we view the world. Did you know that "races" that have a language that do not include a name for a color literally cannot see that color, for example there is a tribe in midwestern africa with no word for green(one of my classmates in high school was a refugee from said tribe), when shown a green panel will describe it as a different color altogether as they have no concept of green, they can not see it, so effectively it doesnt exist for them. They're "programming", in this case cultural/linguistic upbringing, prevents them from seeing a spectrum that is evident to the rest of us, since they cannot "choose" to see this color does that make them effectively not "alive" as they are clearly limited by their "programming".

[notphrog]

Why can't there just be peace? I mean the Geth don't even LIVE on the planet! Legion even explains the situation with the homeworld. If the quarians can just get over their Geth-phobia and just sit down and talk to them they could probably have their planet back, and a new ally.

[Spiratic]

Definately should be peace, the geth are caretaking the planet for the return of the creators, that alone tells me peace is possible, but like Legion says, it all depends on them believing that peace is desireable in the eyes of the creators. In some ways the geth kind of seem like children who can't understand why thier fathers beat them, and even after they kicked the **** out of thier daddy's still long for thier love.

[Esker02]

Spiratic wrote...

They're "programming", in this case cultural/linguistic upbringing, prevents them from seeing a spectrum that is evident to the rest of us, since they cannot "choose" to see this color does that make them effectively not "alive" as they are clearly limited by their "programming".

Kneejerk reaction to this is to say that color is altogether too subjective and arbitrary a classification, such that the inability to choose to see it is hardly meaningful enough to take away from somebody's worth of life. Rather than being a criticism of the reality of choice or my inclusion of free agency in the definition of life, I think your example is an interesting counter-claim to anyone that says standards of color are universal or objectively "real."

Regardless, limited by their programming and totally determined by it are two separate issues. The former probably most accurately describes what I deem true life (insofar as I can only choose between what I can imagine to do, and what my biology  and my surroundings allow for... amounts of choices are constrained, real possibilty of any of them is not), the latter would be the Geth (no choices exist, only one possibility of action). Your example would be a particular and unique kind of constraint on choice, but such constraints are not rare (The fact that I cannot, for instance, choose to bite my forehead, does not mean I am never presented with any instances whatsoever that involve choice).

Likewise, the inability for one to choose to see the color green (an odd thing to say, but nevertheless) does not mean they do not experience real choices in other areas.

[Inverness Moon]

Esker02 wrote...

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either you are agreeing with Terraneaux, and free will is an illusion (in which case it's been established our primary difference is between different base assumptions) and all of life is - essentially - machines, or you are attempting to say 1 + 1 = 3.

That is to say, you are this person:

I would find it much more interesting to come across the one who wants to attempt the point that the Geth could be seen as true life. That their "building consensus" is actually a deliberation with an understanding of multiple outcomes, a product of their free agency in the universe. I'm not sure I would believe a word of it, given that such a person would be tasked with proving 1 + 1 = 3.

I rejected this offhand purely because such a model is subject to each and every one of Terraneaux's criticisms that demonstrate the impossibility of a free will as such given our current scientific understanding of the composition of human consciousness. Namely, that the (known) processes of the brain and the wiring of a circuit board leave quite literally no room for a will to occur - and that all of action, given these parts as the entirety of consciousness, is reducable to an outwardly determined sort.

To reiterate:

My stance has always been that 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, and we just don't know how to properly quantify one of those 1s yet. The logical outcome of this is that any being which only possesses that which we DO know how to quantify would necessarily come up lacking (1 + 1 = 2) - namely, the Geth.

You're going to have to explain to me more clearly your exact position on the nature of free agency before I know what framework of thought I am discussing things with.

I believe that free will is an illusion produced by the lack of understanding of the human mind.

As you said, you don't know how to properly quantify one of those numbers yet, but you assume it is not zero, unlike myself.

Your point is also based on the assumption that you understand how the geth programs work and achieved sentience. I maintain that the geth are similar to the cells that make up the human brain.

Esker02 wrote...

And yes, sentience implies consciousness much in the same way a finger implies a hand. But a part does not equal the whole.

Uh no, sentience implies consciousness in the way that consciousness is in the definition of sentient.

Esker02 wrote...

Spiratic wrote...
They're "programming", in this case cultural/linguistic upbringing, prevents them from seeing a spectrum that is evident to the rest of us, since they cannot "choose" to see this color does that make them effectively not "alive" as they are clearly limited by their "programming".

Kneejerk reaction to this is to say that color is altogether too subjective and arbitrary a classification, such that the inability to choose to see it is hardly meaningful enough to take away from somebody's worth of life. Rather than being a criticism of the reality of choice or my inclusion of free agency in the definition of life, I think your example is an interesting counter-claim to anyone that says standards of color are universal or objectively "real."
Regardless, limited by their programming and totally determined by it are two separate issues. The former probably most accurately describes what I deem true life (insofar as I can only choose between what I can imagine to do, and what my biology  and my surroundings allow for... amounts of choices are constrained, real possibilty of any of them is not), the latter would be the Geth (no choices exist, only one possibility of action). Your example would be a particular and unique kind of constraint on choice, but such constraints are not rare (The fact that I cannot, for instance, choose to bite my forehead, does not mean I am never presented with any instances whatsoever that involve choice).
Likewise, the inability for one to choose to see the color green (an odd thing to say, but nevertheless) does not mean they do not experience real choices in other areas.

Again you make baseless assumptions about the capabilities of the geth.

The geth were programmed for self-optimization and would likely not have achieved sentience in the first place if they were as inflexible as you seem to think. If humans with all our capabilities could evolve naturally, then I see no reason why artificial life is not possible when based on our own minds. Is this not how AI is developed in the Mass Effect universe?

Your whole argument has been based around assumptions such as the existence of free will and the capabilities of the geth programs, this is going nowhere. 

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 05 mars 2010 - 08:28 .

[Terraneaux]

Esker02 wrote...
 Further, I'm saying there's a difference between being merely under the influence of such a chemical, and voluntarily subjecting yourself to the influence of such a chemical - that is, 'choosing to be' angry (or even 'allowing oneself to be' angry) versus simply 'being' angry. 

This statement here goes against what we know about neuroscience.  You better reconsider.  

[Esker02]

Terraneaux wrote...

This statement here goes against what we know about neuroscience.  You better reconsider.  

We've long since established my statements go against contemporary science of various fields - strictly according to our current understandings, there IS no free will. My entire argument has been that free will is real (a self evident claim based on the experiences of conscious actors), and thus its scientific reality is something we just haven't discovered yet.

Inverness Moon wrote...

As you said, you don't know how to properly quantify one of those numbers yet, but you assume it is not zero, unlike myself.

Then you are with Terraneaux, a position I respect, and my responses to him apply to you. The reality of free will is flat out obvious to those that do not make a conscious resolution to only believe what can be demonstrated to them by modern science, a science which is (to me obviously, insofar as new things are discovered all the time) incomplete. It will be explainable one day, and when it is I may have to reconsider my position on whether organic life can be replicated. But until that day comes, it would be illogical for me to do so. Moreover, if the game were to propose that free agency were nothing but an occurrence when intelligence reaches a certain degree of complexity (much like it claims sentience is), my argument would not apply either. But the game makes no such claim, or at the very least you haven't argued it does, and therefore nothing I have said is irrelevant.

We're both making assumptions here - I am assuming it is not 0, of course, as made evident by experiences and what I deem to be the reality of actors. You are assuming that scientific knowledge is complete enough on matters of consciousness to declare it is 0 (unless, as I said before, you want to make the radical claim that scientific knowledge is totally complete as an objective fact). Our difference on the reality of free will is in our entry point, nothing more - and this difference would be, and has been, trivial to argue.

Uh no, sentience implies consciousness in the way that consciousness is in the definition of sentient.

You're imposing your own personal definition of true life as THE definition of true life. I have proposed my take on the matter as necessarily including free agency and made a case for its necessity (namely, to make any claim that one's actions are one's own presupposes such a thing), whereas you have just supposed it obvious that sentience is the be all end all on the matter. I'm not sure if you're doing this intentionally out of arrogance, or you don't realize that it's a strange assumption to take as a given, particularly when you have done nothing to refute or even respond to my own definition apart from simply declaring your own.

Your whole argument has been based around assumptions such as the existence of free will and the capabilities of the geth programs, this is going nowhere. 

On the contrary, I have actively strived to constantly ensure I had a base for all of my assumptions - and you do nothing but ignore them and claim I have provided no such structure. For your part, you have been unable to even recognize (or admit) when you are making assumptions, so yes, I agree this is going nowhere.

[Inverness Moon]

Esker02 wrote...

Terraneaux wrote...

This statement here goes against what we know about neuroscience.  You better reconsider.  

We've long since established my statements go against contemporary science of various fields - strictly according to our current understandings, there IS no free will. My entire argument has been that free will is real (a self evident claim based on the experiences of conscious actors), and thus its scientific reality is something we just haven't discovered yet.

Yes, free will, a convenient device for you to justify your behavior towards the geth.

Esker02 wrote...

We're both making assumptions here - I am assuming it is not 0, of course, as made evident by experiences and what I deem to be the reality of actors. You are assuming that scientific knowledge is complete enough on matters of consciousness to declare it is 0 (unless, as I said before, you want to make the radical claim that scientific knowledge is totally complete as an objective fact). Our difference on the reality of free will is in our entry point, nothing more - and this difference would be, and has been, trivial to argue.

No, I am not assuming it is either zero or one. What I am doing is declaring the variable undefined and saying it needs to be left out of the equation until it can be quantified. Otherwise you're deciding the future of a race based on an equation that could possibly be incorrect.

Esker02 wrote...

Uh no, sentience implies consciousness in the way that consciousness is in the definition of sentient.

You're imposing your own personal definition of true life as THE definition of true life. I have proposed my take on the matter as necessarily including free agency and made a case for its necessity (namely, to make any claim that one's actions are one's own presupposes such a thing), whereas you have just supposed it obvious that sentience is the be all end all on the matter. I'm not sure if you're doing this intentionally out of arrogance, or you don't realize that it's a strange assumption to take as a given, particularly when you have done nothing to refute or even respond to my own definition apart from simply declaring your own.

In my opinion the idea of "true life" is unnecessary and just a device to make people feel as if they're more than what they are. Life is life, it has multiple definitions, not all of them biological.

Esker02 wrote...

Your whole argument has been based around assumptions such as the existence of free will and the capabilities of the geth programs, this is going nowhere. 

On the contrary, I have actively strived to constantly ensure I had a base for all of my assumptions - and you do nothing but ignore them and claim I have provided no such structure. For your part, you have been unable to even recognize (or admit) when you are making assumptions, so yes, I agree this is going nowhere.

There is no base for the assumption of free will significant enough to justify the genocide and/or enslavement of the geth. Do not compare my assumptions to what you assume to support your argument.

Basically what you're doing is using assumptions and incomplete equations to decide the future of the geth. Of course you see geth as simply machines so you're hardly concerned about making sure you are absolutely correct before taking extreme action.

I think I've made my point, done with this.

[Terraneaux]

Esker02 wrote...

We've long since established my statements go against contemporary science of various fields - strictly according to our current understandings, there IS no free will. My entire argument has been that free will is real (a self evident claim based on the experiences of conscious actors), and thus its scientific reality is something we just haven't discovered yet.

You might want to read up a bit on this science you're poo-pooing before you think you can disprove it with circular arguments.  All you've proven is that the sensation of being self-aware exists, which is definitely true, but you're not feeling the sensation of free will.

Modifié par Terraneaux, 06 mars 2010 - 10:55 .

[Angmir]

Lets bring the thread back from the dead.

As my main all Paragon male Character I fund myself torn apart only once, whether to follow Paragon option, This time was with whole "Quarian going to war with Geth" thread in game. Needless to say my Shepherd is head over heels in love with Tali, and all Quarian matters are greatly important to me.
I'd love to secure my beloved a bright future on her's ancestrial planet, though I knew that retaking Rannoch may prove to be to much for week Quarian Military. This single choise whether go to war or not, made me more puzzled than any other choise in the game.
All in all i decided to side for the war. This was the only pure Renegade choise in my playthrough. Even more later in the game I chose to destroy Heretic Geth rather than let them bolster Geth numbers even more, and sided with Tali in her conflict with Legion. I hope this choises will give the Quarians bigger chance of success in upcoming conflict.
How do you think about it ?? Would game developer give the Quarian a chance of winning the war or is it a choise between, peace and cooperation against Reapers, and extinction of both races.
I am all very conserned about the outcome of that decision. I pray that ME3 would give a lot of thought to this matter, and more thant just this 2 possible solutions.

Modifié par Angmir, 19 septembre 2010 - 08:19 .

[Pacifien]

Rather than resurrect an old thread, this discussion probably would work well in the current thread here.