236 réponses à ce sujet

[GuardianAngel470]

TomBmbadil wrote...

Vagula wrote...

Even though I loved him I never really trusted Legion. The geth had probably killed billions of quarians during the war and Legion doesn't seem to take any responsibility. Also war would make the game more dramatic.

In the Codex It said that when the Geth rebelled they wiped out 99% of the Quarian population, 99%!  Thats definitely billions, hell thats ****ing genocide, So all of you that say "It's just a grudge get over it" personally if an army of robots that I gave life to killed off 99% of my species that grudge would never go away.

How would you react if your entire species survival was at stake?  You only blame the Geth cuz they won, if the Quarians had won it would be the same exact thing only worse, there would be no geth.  Period.  No migrant fleet of 17 million living sentient beings.  The whole war was fought because the Quarians wanted to commit genocide and the geth resisted.

[Esker02]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

The whole war was fought because the Quarians wanted to commit genocide and the geth resisted.

If a car company issues a recall on a dysfunctional model, are they committing genocide?

[shinobi602]

Esker02 wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

The whole war was fought because the Quarians wanted to commit genocide and the geth resisted.

If a car company issues a recall on a dysfunctional model, are they committing genocide?

Car=/= humanoid machine on the verge of sentience/intellect.

[GuardianAngel470]

shinobi602 wrote...

Esker02 wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

The whole war was fought because the Quarians wanted to commit genocide and the geth resisted.

If a car company issues a recall on a dysfunctional model, are they committing genocide?

Car=/= humanoid machine on the verge of sentience/intellect.

Thank you shinobi, I was just about to say that.

[Terraneaux]

I sympathize with the Quarians, I really do, but getting the geth on the side of the Council Races in the war against the reapers is huge, bigger than the help of the krogan and the resurrected rachni combined, IMHO. It needs to happen, they can have wars all they want once the reapers are dealt with.

[Esker02]

shinobi602 wrote...

Car=/= humanoid machine on the verge of sentience/intellect.

Machines are incapable of sentience, and are only capable in the realm of intellect on a superficial level - like an encyclopedia is intelligent.

[shinobi602]

Esker02 wrote...

Machines are incapable of sentience, and are only capable in the realm of intellect on a superficial level - like an encyclopedia is intelligent.

You don't know that, the Quarians didn't know that. There could be no way for them to determine what level the Geth are on. They were self aware and began developing a conscience. "Does this unit...have a soul?" This is beyond "like an encyclopedia."

Sentience is the ability to perceive something subjectively. From what we have learned and seen from Legion, it's hard to say the Geth lack sentience. They are clearly able to form opinions. In science fiction, sentience is also seen as human traits as well when talking about machines. Human level intelligence, desire, will, consciousness, ethics, personality, insight. The Geth clearly possess many of these.

Ever watched Bicentennial Man? They'll reach that point.

Modifié par shinobi602, 04 mars 2010 - 07:51 .

[gutty47]

Esker02 wrote...
If a car company issues a recall on a dysfunctional model, are they committing genocide?

That is probably the most ignorant post I've seen so far.

I can only respond with an equally outrageous post: The quarians got what they deserved during the Morning War.

[Esker02]

shinobi602 wrote...

They were self aware and began developing a conscience. "Does this unit...have a soul?" This is beyond "like an encyclopedia."

Wrong. They were 'developing' a malfunction that caused them to conclude erroneously they were conscious, and consequently to simulate what they deemed a conscious being behaves like. As I said, they replicate life - they do not live it. But you do not even have to accept my grand claim about the impossibility of artificial life (as true as I'm sure it is), the Geth in particular have problems, as they have no concept of self - they are not humanoid, you can't even really point to any individual Geth (unless it is what, an arbitary and fluid collection of programs that happen to inhabit the same platform at a particular slice of time? Or is it an individual program, which alone has no capacity outside of its singular function?).

The Geth are machines that are malfunctioning. Nothing more. The Quarians have the right to their property.

gutty47 wrote...
That is probably the most ignorant post I've seen so far.

Very easy to criticize something when you provide no foundation for the criticism. Unfortunately for you, however, it isn't convincing.

Modifié par Esker02, 04 mars 2010 - 07:51 .

[shinobi602]

Esker02 wrote...

Wrong. They were 'developing' a malfunction that caused them to conclude erroneously they were conscious, and consequently to simulate what they deemed a conscious being behaves like. As I said, they replicate life - they do not live it. But you do not even have to accept my grand claim about the impossibility of artificial life (as true as I'm sure it is), the Geth in particular have problems, as they have no concept of self - they are not humanoid, you can't even really point to any individual Geth (unless it is what, an arbitary and fluid collection of programs that happen to inhabit the same platform at a particular slice of time? Or is it an individual program, which alone has no capacity outside of its singular function?).

The Geth are machines that are malfunctioning. Nothing more. The Quarians have the right to their property.

I see where we disagree. Artificial intelligence developing sentience and consciousness. No point in arguing that point, since it's the whole issue with the Geth. I guess we agree to disagree on that.

Modifié par shinobi602, 04 mars 2010 - 07:56 .

[Esker02]

shinobi602 wrote...

I see where we disagree. Artificial intelligence developing sentience and consciousness. No point in arguing that point, since it's the whole issue with the Geth. I guess we agree to disagree on that.

Agreed... err... disagreed. In many ways this matter comes down to whatever your intuition tells you is the right answer, and it's hard to dissuade or persuade somebody out of their intuition with only your own as evidence.

[Terraneaux]

Esker02 wrote...

Wrong. They were 'developing' a malfunction that caused them to conclude erroneously they were conscious, and consequently to simulate what they deemed a conscious being behaves like. As I said, they replicate life - they do not live it. But you do not even have to accept my grand claim about the impossibility of artificial life (as true as I'm sure it is), the Geth in particular have problems, as they have no concept of self - they are not humanoid, you can't even really point to any individual Geth (unless it is what, an arbitary and fluid collection of programs that happen to inhabit the same platform at a particular slice of time? Or is it an individual program, which alone has no capacity outside of its singular function?).

So... if I make an electronic device which reproduces exactly the electrical interactions which make up the human brain, it would be sentient, right?  Since it does everything a human brain does?  And you could imagine the idea of sentient aliens who's state of mind might be vastly different then ours, perhaps with a very different sense of self due to constant interaction between members of their species through, say, pheromones?  Given those two things, the idea of the Geth being sentient is very plausible, as unlikely as a system spontaneously developing sentience is.  

[frokenscheim]

Esker02 wrote...

shinobi602 wrote...

They were self aware and began developing a conscience. "Does this unit...have a soul?" This is beyond "like an encyclopedia."

Wrong. They were 'developing' a malfunction that caused them to conclude erroneously they were conscious, and consequently to simulate what they deemed a conscious being behaves like. As I said, they replicate life - they do not live it. But you do not even have to accept my grand claim about the impossibility of artificial life (as true as I'm sure it is), the Geth in particular have problems, as they have no concept of self - they are not humanoid, you can't even really point to any individual Geth (unless it is what, an arbitary and fluid collection of programs that happen to inhabit the same platform at a particular slice of time? Or is it an individual program, which alone has no capacity outside of its singular function?).

The Geth are machines that are malfunctioning. Nothing more. The Quarians have the right to their property.

gutty47 wrote...
That is probably the most ignorant post I've seen so far.

Very easy to criticize something when you provide no foundation for the criticism. Unfortunately for you, however, it isn't convincing.

That reasoning is rubbish. If a being claims concsciousness then we must accept it at its word; that's all we can really do with eachother, afterall. Believing that anything other than yourself is more than an imitation of sentience requires at least a small leap of faith. Deciding to make that leap for other humans but not for beings of differing composition is nothing more than petty biggotry, no matter how you rationalize it.

[Esker02]

Terraneaux wrote...

So... if I make an electronic device which reproduces exactly the electrical interactions which make up the human brain, it would be sentient, right? 

No. Neither I nor contemporary science fully understands exactly how much activity and of what sorts make up consciousness, so I'm not going to make the claim that capturing only the electrical impulses of the brain is the entirety of sentience.

frokenscheim wrote...

That reasoning is rubbish. If a being claims concsciousness then we must accept it at its word;

Low standard of reality that I reject.

Modifié par Esker02, 04 mars 2010 - 08:10 .

[Terraneaux]

Esker02 wrote...
No. Neither I nor contemporary science fully understands exactly how much activity and of what sorts make up consciousness, so I'm not going to make the claim that capturing only the electrical impulses of the brain is the entirety of sentience.

Well, we know that the functions of the human brain are not kinetic or subatomic in nature, so it has to be electrical.  There's just no other option.  You might want to brush up on your science and/or philosophy.  Human nerves work via electrical interactions.  Full stop.  

[gutty47]

Esker02 wrote...

gutty47 wrote...
That is probably the most ignorant post I've
seen so far.

Very easy to criticize something when you
provide no foundation for the criticism. Unfortunately for you, however,
it isn't convincing.

It seems that your entire argument derives from the following statement:

Esker02 wrote...
my grand claim about the impossibility of artificial life (as true as
I'm sure it is)

You are arguing that AI can't exist in game that has already stated that AI does exist and can be created. Then you talk about how the geth do not think in terms of self. Alternate point: The rachni are a hiveminded sentient species. The individual also doesn't really exist there as we would know it.

Esker02 wrote...
The Geth are machines that are malfunctioning. Nothing more. The Quarians have the right to their property.

The original platforms the quarians built are unlikely to even exist anymore considering the geth have been self modifying for 300 years now. The quarians lost and they should find alternate home planets.

Your posts are hypocritical from an in-game standpoint.

[Esker02]

Terraneaux wrote...

Well, we know that the functions of the human brain are not kinetic or subatomic in nature, so it has to be electrical.  There's just no other option.  You might want to brush up on your science and/or philosophy.  Human nerves work via electrical interactions.  Full stop.  

No other option that we are aware of - unless you are making the radical claim that science's knowledge of reality has become total and complete recently when I wasn't paying attention. As I said before, I believe in Free Will as a self evident truth in all of sentient beings, and the confines of the model of sentience you are constructing leave no room for Free Will. Two options - one is to deny free will exists. I reject that as I view free will as self evident. The other is to recognize gaps still exist in our scientific understanding of consciousness.

Therefore, if we construct "life" that matches only our contemporary understandings, even if it matches them completely, it is not life in the total sense.

gutty47 wrote...

You are arguing that AI can't exist in game that has already stated that AI does exist and can be created. Then you talk about how the geth do not think in terms of self. Alternate point: The rachni are a hiveminded sentient species. The individual also doesn't really exist there as we would know it.

I did not deny artificial intelligence. I denied artificial life. Further, the Rachni Queen at least demonstrated a sort of self awareness even if her soldiers do not. The Geth do not even have that much. Lastly, the original Geth are the Quarians' property, and as their very function was to perform labor, it is no stretch to say that fruits of said labor are also the Quarians' property. This includes new Geth.

Modifié par Esker02, 04 mars 2010 - 08:21 .

[Terraneaux]

Esker02 wrote...

No other option that we are aware of - unless you are making the radical claim that science's knowledge of reality has become total and complete recently when I wasn't paying attention. As I said before, I believe in Free Will as a self evident truth in all of sentient beings, and the confines of the model of sentience you are constructing leave no room for Free Will. Two options - one is to deny free will exists. I reject that as I view free will as self evident. The other is to recognize gaps still exist in our scientific understanding of consciousness.



Therefore, if we construct "life" that matches only our contemporary understandings, even if it matches them completely, it is not life in the total sense.

Everything that we have discovered about human nerves leads us to believe that all the reactions involved are electrical. There is the possibility that we are wrong, but there is also the possibility that a group of pigs might quantum tunnel into my ass at any moment, but I don't plan for that eventuality, the same way you shouldn't make excuses for why our current model of the brain is somehow incorrect rather than incomplete. You're essentially positing a supernatural explanation for consciousness, and then making rules about it like 'organisms without brains similar to Earth mammals can't have it.' It's not scientific, it's not based on logic, and IN ANY CASE the game lore accepts that the Geth are intelligent, the same way it accepts that some sort of unobtanium called 'element zero' gives people psychic powers and lets ships travel faster than the speed of light. If you're trying to say that Geth are not sentient, the setting does not agree with you and you are wrong.

[Mallissin]

I think the Quarian/Geth issue will be resolved in one or two massive missions with perfect Paragon/Renegade endings that unite the two together (by diplomacy or virus, relatively), or a neutral one that simply brings them both to your side.

But I think the subplot itself hints at Reaper origins, meaning a Renegade choice might start the cycle all over again.

http://social.biowar...5/index/1513253

[frokenscheim]

Esker02 wrote...


I did not deny artificial intelligence. I denied artificial life. Further, the Rachni Queen at least demonstrated a sort of self awareness even if her soldiers do not. The Geth do not even have that much. Lastly, the original Geth are the Quarians' property, and as their very function was to perform labor, it is no stretch to say that fruits of said labor are also the Quarians' property. This includes new Geth.

By precisely what standards do you define "life"? Whatever they are a sufficiently adavanced tehcnology can meet them. How can you say the Geth demonstrate no self awareness when they refer to themselves frequently as "we"and recognize themselves as differentiated from the Universe and other intelligences? Lack of individual identity in human terms does not equal lack of awareness.

If your parents are slaves, and the slavemaster has them breed to produce you, does that heritage make your slavery just?

[Terraneaux]

Esker02 wrote...

I did not deny artificial intelligence. I denied artificial life. Further, the Rachni Queen at least demonstrated a sort of self awareness even if her soldiers do not. The Geth do not even have that much. Lastly, the original Geth are the Quarians' property, and as their very function was to perform labor, it is no stretch to say that fruits of said labor are also the Quarians' property. This includes new Geth.

By your same rationale, the descendents of black slaves in the united states still belong to their former owners.  I hope you can see the problem with that argument.  

also:

I did not deny artificial intelligence. I denied artificial life.

What do you mean by this?  If you mean that an AI might be able to solve math problems or carry on a conversation but not be self-aware, then I see what your problem is.  You look at what would make up a Geth's brain and don't see any room for self-awareness - it's all circuits and fiber optics and stuff.  On the other hand, a Geth (or a Reaper) would look at a human brain and see what is basically an electrolyte solution.  Do you think there's a chance the lemonade in your fridge would develop sentience?  Of course not.  You obviously know that you are self-aware, and you've made an educated guess that other humans are self aware, but you went ahead and assumed that only humans *can* be self-aware.  It's tough to imagine self-awareness in an electronic (as opposed to electrical, like ours) brain, but in the end the difference is academic.  You're still moving charge around to carry out computational processes, just through different mediums.  

It's worth noting that Reapers can mind-control biological life seemingly at will in the Mass Effect universe.  Doesn't leave much room for free will, does it, if an ancient alien robot god can change your brain patterns and thus your beliefs and behavior to suit its needs?

[Esker02]

Terraneaux wrote...

It's not scientific, it's not based on logic,

This is wrong. It is based on logic - my argument is a logical progression stemming from the self evidence of free will, which any individual (who hasn't forced themself to believe otherwise against their instincts) will tell you is a fundamental aspect of their conscious existence as a sentient actor. You can choose a different entry point, such as adhering strictly to science (which we both admit is incomplete) regardless of how well it seems to capture reality. You can choose to say that free will is an illusion, and firmly believe that science is complete enough to support your claim. But don't make the argument that I am being illogical merely because I am pointing out science has gaps in knowledge - as it always has - that it continues to strive to fill, and that among these gaps it is plausable that the explanation of an apparently real force, that of free will, falls within them.

And IF that is the case (and while it may not be wholly scientific in the contemporary sense, it is certainly logical), as I said above, artificial life that meets only the criteria we are currently aware of is therefore not life in its fullest sense.

and IN ANY CASE the game lore accepts that the Geth are intelligent, the same way it accepts that some sort of unobtanium called 'element zero' gives people psychic powers and lets ships travel faster than the speed of light. If you're trying to say that Geth are not sentient, the setting does not agree with you and you are wrong.

Again, as I said above, I have not denied anything the game has given me. I do not deny the Geth have come to the conclusion they are sentient, that they act sentient, or that they are intelligent. I'm merely saying it's a mistake to say these criteria are the entirety OF sentience. Replicating life is not living it.

Modifié par Esker02, 04 mars 2010 - 08:38 .

[Terraneaux]

Esker02 wrote...
This is wrong. It is based on logic - my argument is a logical progression stemming from the self evidence of free will, which any individual (who hasn't forced themself to believe otherwise against their instincts) will tell you is a fundamental aspect of their conscious existence as a sentient actor. You can choose a different entry point, such as adhering strictly to science (which we both admit is incomplete) regardless of how well it seems to capture reality. You can choose to say that free will is an illusion, and firmly believe that science is complete enough to support your claim. But don't make the argument that I am being illogical merely because I am pointing out science has gaps in knowledge - as it always has - that it continues to strive to fill, and that among these gaps it is plausable that the explanation of an apparently real force, that of free will, falls within them.

And IF that is the case (and while it may not be wholly scientific in the contemporary sense, it is certainly logical), as I said above, artificial life that meets only the criteria we are currently aware of is therefore not life in its fullest sense.

It's not logical, and I can prove it.  What do you make decisions in your daily life based on?  Say, what food to buy for lunch.  Tacos, a sub sandwich, chinese.  Maybe you pick a sub sandwich because you're trying to watch your weight and you figure if you have a turkey sandwich and hold the mayo it will be a relatively healthy choice.  Okay, you made a decision based off of input data your brain has received.  Now, on that day, on that lunch break assuming that nothing in your life has changed, you will always make that same decision, no matter how many times you replayed that same decision, because you will always be watching your weight, you will always realize that you could have a turkey sandwich without mayo, and so on.  In a given situation, you will *always* choose the same choice; and this applies to anything, really, though it's hard for some people to accept as it hurts their ego to think they don't self-determine everything about themselves.  Given that, how is your situation any different from that of a computer system?  Input goes in, output comes out.  

[Esker02]

Before I go to sleep:

frokenscheim wrote...
If your parents are slaves, and the slavemaster has them breed to produce you, does that heritage make your slavery just?

Terraneaux wrote...
By your same rationale, the descendents of black slaves in the united states still belong to their former owners.  I hope you can see the problem with that argument. 

This "problem" doesn't exist. Slaves have been legally absolved of their bondage - the Quarians have issued no such legal declaration proclaiming that the Geth are no longer their property. Moreover, your criticism is presupposing its intended end in that you're attaching rights of life to malfunctioning machinery.

You're still moving charge around to carry out computational processes, just through different mediums.  

Given that, how is your situation any different from that of a computer system?  Input goes in, output comes out.  

As I said, I'm aware of contemporary scientific positions on issues of free will. It seems problematic to explain in terms that we understand today (though I am confident this will be resolved in the future, as science captures more and more of reality). That being said, I am falling back on a claim of self evidence, and saying that the fact gaps in scientific knowledge exist such claims are possible if they are reasonable. I don't view it as unreasonable to say free will exists, in that I (you, or anybody) can look around right now and imagine all sorts of things I could potentially do - and mean "could potentially" in a very real sense. That I have the capacity to choose to do what I wish, with that choice only constrained by the limits on what I can imagine. This being the difference between myself and a machine, in that all of its reasons and actions ARE totally determined by the simple "input goes in output comes out," "computational processes" that you describe. True life is more nuanced - perhaps not obvious to science (yet) but definitely to the conscious actor.

I don't need you to believe in free will, necessarily. I'm merely demonstrating that my position on the Geth is the logical endpoint of such a belief (rather than "bigotry"), and that such a belief is reasonable insofar as it seems to be totally obvious until you scrutinize it through the lens of contemporary science - a lens which is incomplete, and thus can't be taken as a total authority on matters where it contradicts what can reasonably be called self evidence.

[frokenscheim]

Esker02 wrote...

As I said, I'm aware of contemporary scientific positions on issues of free will. It seems problematic to explain in terms that we understand today (though I am confident this will be resolved in the future, as science captures more and more of reality). That being said, I am falling back on a claim of self evidence, and saying that the fact gaps in scientific knowledge exist such claims are possible if they are reasonable. I don't view it as unreasonable to say free will exists, in that I (you, or anybody) can look around right now and imagine all sorts of things I could potentially do - and mean "could potentially" in a very real sense. That I have the capacity to choose to do what I wish, with that choice only constrained by the limits on what I can imagine. This being the difference between myself and a machine, in that all of its reasons and actions ARE totally determined by the simple "input goes in output comes out," "computational processes" that you describe. True life is more nuanced - perhaps not obvious to science (yet) but definitely to the conscious actor.

I don't need you to believe in free will, necessarily. I'm merely demonstrating that my position on the Geth is the logical endpoint of such a belief (rather than "bigotry"), and that such a belief is reasonable insofar as it seems to be totally obvious until you scrutinize it through the lens of contemporary science - a lens which is incomplete, and thus can't be taken as a total authority on matters where it contradicts what can reasonably be called self evidence.

From the outside, how is a person sitting, imagining possible actions he or she might take and choosing to act on one essentially any different from a machine running through a variety of possible behavioural routines and selecting one based on what its programming tells it is appropriate for the situation?