236 réponses à ce sujet

[Terraneaux]

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.

Simply because of the fact that psychoactive drugs can influence a person's judgment, you are wrong.  

[Inverness Moon]

Esker02 wrote...

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.

Your arguments are irrelevant. The geth are both intelligent and sentient. Read the codex.

This is BioWare's universe, not the real one. The geth are what BioWare says that are, not what you think they are.

We define life based on the life we have observed, life that is organic. Were we to encounter sentient entities that are non-organic, the definition of life would have to be adapted. However there would quite obviously be a difference between organic life and synthetic life in the requirements to fit the definition.

At the moment I see nothing wrong with the assumption that anything that is sentient could be considered to be alive, whether it be organic, synthetic, or some non-material entity.

The geth are like the cells in our bodies, they cannot achieve sentience individually. Only when they come together and share data do they become something more.

Esker02 wrote...

 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.

Your imagination is constrained by the data you have received in the past. Do you believe a blind man can imagine a sense he never had?

Imagination is simply the manipulation of data that has been received in the past.

I believe you are--like many others--deluding yourself in the interest of self-comfort. It brings some people comfort to believe that they are more than the sum of their parts.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 04 mars 2010 - 12:09 .

[Terraneaux]

Inverness Moon wrote...

...deluding yourself in the interest of self-comfort. It brings some people comfort to believe that they are more than the sum of their parts.

Just so you know, I agree, but I was just looking over the 'why do you talk like your avatar' thread and this just about hits the nail on the head.

[Esker02]

frokenscheim wrote...

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?

The difference would be that the true living individual has a real degree of control over their ultimate decision and action where the machine running various behavioural routines based on programming does not. I don't need any determined reason in my DNA or my past experiences, for instance, to choose to jump out my window right now. Such an action would be wholly the product of my free will - and this is how we think of action in general when we are operating day to day. If I pick chocolate ice cream over vanilla, I admit that this choice was a result of my preference for chocolate ice cream, but this doesn't mean that I still don't believe I made a choice in a real sense.

The kind of person, that is, machine, that individuals like Terraneaux are describing have no such freedom. They didn't "choose" chocolate ice cream, but rather it was (in a sense) chosen for them by their preferences (or coding, wiring); the actor had no 'say' in the matter. This is the difference. A machine must have all of its possibilities at least in part coded into it (but more than that, it also has the ultimate decision between these possibilities coded into it), and in that way is not free at all. In my experience as a conscious being, and in experience of most people that think about it honestly IMO, that does not capture the reality of what it means to be alive. I suppose there can be intelligent disagreement on the matter, but as you can see, I am not being granted even that.

Terraneaux wrote...

Simply because of the fact that psychoactive drugs can influence a person's judgment, you are wrong.  

I never said the nature by which free will turns reason into action is not wholly or partially the product of the chemical and electrical reactions within one's brain, I merely claimed that free will itself is separate and above these. What it imposes, sure, could be viewed as the impulses you referred to earlier, and thus a psychoactive drug is merely constraining the will's ability to force its decisions into action by altering the field wherein it turns such decisions into action. Your example is not that problematic, let alone damning.

Inverness Moon wrote...

Your arguments are irrelevant. The geth are both intelligent and sentient. Read the codex.

This line of thought has already been dealt with:

Esker02 wrote...

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.

If you prefer, I can just claim "sentience" (in the ME, BioWare sense) isn't the only criteria for determining life. Problem even further solved.

I believe you are--like many others--deluding yourself in the interest of self-comfort. It brings some people comfort to believe that they are more than the sum of their parts.

That's interesting, because I believe you are--like many others-- deluding yourself in the interest of self-comfort. It brings some people comfort to believe that human knowledge of how the world operates is more complete than it is, and in that way it is easier to deny readily self evident facts (like the free will of conscious actors) that seem to be left unexplained by our current level of understanding. For after all, without such concepts like free will, you don't have to be bothered by trivial things like 'responsibility' anymore. Your own viewpoint is the gateway to a nihilistic, meaningless existence - which is actually, for many people, the ultimate comfort.

[Terraneaux]

Esker02 wrote...

I never said the nature by which free will turns reason into action is not wholly or partially the product of the chemical and electrical reactions within one's brain, I merely claimed that free will itself is separate and above these. What it imposes, sure, could be viewed as the impulses you referred to earlier, and thus a psychoactive drug is merely constraining the will's ability to force its decisions into action by altering the field wherein it turns such decisions into action. Your example is not that problematic, let alone damning.

But when someone takes a drug that makes them, say really angry, they are actually that pissed off.  They don't say 'I want to be friendly, but I took this drug so I can't be.'  They actually FEEL pissed off, just as if they had 'chosen' to be angry.  By allowing free will to be 'constrained' by brain chemistry, you essentially prove that free will has no bearing on an individual whatsoever, as it can be overridden by chemical impulses at any time.  My example *is* extraordinarily problematic to the concept of free will, as the ability to change what someone thinks by doing things to their brain is exactly the kind of thing that makes us take a step back and think 'Hmmm, our idea of free will may be incorrect.'  I don't understand how you can allow for free will when the functions of consciousness and decision-making can be changed by affecting the brain.

[Ulysseslotro]

Terraneaux wrote...

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.  

Wait what are you saying?  That we should all be Cannibals because it would be a logical waste food if we didn't eat eachother?  Maybe you can try to explain it in terms that I can understand.  But, from my perspective we do not always make choices based on logic. 

[Esker02]

Terraneaux wrote...

But when someone takes a drug that makes them, say really angry, they are actually that pissed off.  They don't say 'I want to be friendly, but I took this drug so I can't be.'  They actually FEEL pissed off, just as if they had 'chosen' to be angry.

I would argue that while it may be the same emotion, it is certainly not the same experience. Actually, it has occurred to me that your example is exactly what we've been discussing this whole time. An individual whose feelings are dictated to them by a drug, for instance, is the same as the machine whose feelings are dictated to them by their programming. They are not truly alive in the sense that they are not free. In fact, I'll even concede to you that they "feel" just the same as if they had chosen it (though only tentatively, because it does strike me as somehow problematic), but insofar as they did not, it is not truly life in action, as they retain no responsibility or meaningful claim to that anger (beyond chance, luck?).

More to the point of your criticism, though... It's like I tried to say before, where I don't deny that free will puts choice into action through the very processes which the drug seeks to control, and that the activity of the brain is the conduit that in the most strict of senses, actually imposes your will into action. In this way, sure, a psychoactive drug replicates and simulates the ultimate outcome of free will (much like a machine could), but it is not a total substitute for it.

Modifié par Esker02, 04 mars 2010 - 07:19 .

[Archereon]

Terraneaux: In a system influenced by so many factors as the human brain, its almost impossible to get the same exact input, therefore getting the same exact output is effectively impossible, barring time travel, which is impossible according to modern science, and which would have to be closed (the effects of the traveller's time travel are already being observed in the future the traveller comes from) for this scenario to happen again in the exact same manner as it did before. Computers on the other hand, are orders of magnitude more predictable.

[Terraneaux]

Archereon wrote...
 Computers on the other hand, are orders of magnitude more predictable.

True, but you could make a computer with the same level of unpredictability, in which case you don't get to use that cop-out.

[Terraneaux]

Ulysseslotro wrote...

Wait what are you saying?  That we should all be Cannibals because it would be a logical waste food if we didn't eat eachother?  Maybe you can try to explain it in terms that I can understand.  But, from my perspective we do not always make choices based on logic. 

I'm not saying we always make choices based on logic, I'm saying we make choices based off of input and our method of processing them, which may or may not be logical.  In the example with the sandwich the person in question could have instead had a tri-tip sandwich with melted cheddar cheese and onion rings on top, because it tastes amazing, but this would not necessarily be the logical choice as most people think not endangering your health by loading your veins with cholesterol is worth a few bad-tasting meals.

[Terraneaux]

Esker02 wrote...

I would argue that while it may be the same emotion, it is certainly not the same experience. Actually, it has occurred to me that your example is exactly what we've been discussing this whole time. An individual whose feelings are dictated to them by a drug, for instance, is the same as the machine whose feelings are dictated to them by their programming. They are not truly alive in the sense that they are not free. In fact, I'll even concede to you that they "feel" just the same as if they had chosen it (though only tentatively, because it does strike me as somehow problematic), but insofar as they did not, it is not truly life in action, as they retain no responsibility or meaningful claim to that anger (beyond chance, luck?).

More to the point of your criticism, though... It's like I tried to say before, where I don't deny that free will puts choice into action through the very processes which the drug seeks to control, and that the activity of the brain is the conduit that in the most strict of senses, actually imposes your will into action. In this way, sure, a psychoactive drug replicates and simulates the ultimate outcome of free will (much like a machine could), but it is not a total substitute for it.

How can someone think they have free will and in fact not have it, if in fact free will does exist?  If it looks like someone has free will from the outside, and they think they are making decisions based off of what they feel on the inside, then how is that different from this 'true free will' you keep talking about?  You can't measure any sort of difference, and before you say 'when they are not influenced by outside forces like drugs,' remember that the human brain itself releases mood-altering chemicals which affect behavior, thus short-circuiting this hypothetical 'free-will mechanism' you keep insisting exists; in fact, these chemicals are necessary for proper brain function, and when they are produced improperly or in the incorrect amounts, it causes mental health problems.  There isn't really any time when you can say someone is not 'under the influence' of one chemical or another, which basically leaves no room for this 'free will' concept you keep going on about.

[GongStar]

Peace, a war would break Talis heart.

Modifié par GongStar, 04 mars 2010 - 08:58 .

[Terraneaux]

GongStar wrote...

Peace, a war would break Talis heart.

Yeah, but she's (understandably, if not correctly) possessed of strong anti-geth sentiment.  

[Inverness Moon]

Terraneaux wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...

...deluding yourself in the interest of self-comfort. It brings some people comfort to believe that they are more than the sum of their parts.

Just so you know, I agree, but I was just looking over the 'why do you talk like your avatar' thread and this just about hits the nail on the head.

I also thought of that thread when I realized what I had typed. 

Does this mean you read the post in Legion's voice?

Esker02 wrote...

frokenscheim wrote...

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?

The difference would be that the true living individual has a real degree of control over their ultimate decision and action where the machine running various behavioural routines based on programming does not. I don't need any determined reason in my DNA or my past experiences, for instance, to choose to jump out my window right now. Such an action would be wholly the product of my free will - and this is how we think of action in general when we are operating day to day. If I pick chocolate ice cream over vanilla, I admit that this choice was a result of my preference for chocolate ice cream, but this doesn't mean that I still don't believe I made a choice in a real sense.

The kind of person, that is, machine, that individuals like Terraneaux are describing have no such freedom. They didn't "choose" chocolate ice cream, but rather it was (in a sense) chosen for them by their preferences (or coding, wiring); the actor had no 'say' in the matter. This is the difference. A machine must have all of its possibilities at least in part coded into it (but more than that, it also has the ultimate decision between these possibilities coded into it), and in that way is not free at all. In my experience as a conscious being, and in experience of most people that think about it honestly IMO, that does not capture the reality of what it means to be alive. I suppose there can be intelligent disagreement on the matter, but as you can see, I am not being granted even that.

Terraneaux wrote...

Simply because of the fact that psychoactive drugs can influence a person's judgment, you are wrong.  

I never said the nature by which free will turns reason into action is not wholly or partially the product of the chemical and electrical reactions within one's brain, I merely claimed that free will itself is separate and above these. What it imposes, sure, could be viewed as the impulses you referred to earlier, and thus a psychoactive drug is merely constraining the will's ability to force its decisions into action by altering the field wherein it turns such decisions into action. Your example is not that problematic, let alone damning.

Inverness Moon wrote...

Your arguments are irrelevant. The geth are both intelligent and sentient. Read the codex.

This line of thought has already been dealt with:

Esker02 wrote...

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.

If you prefer, I can just claim "sentience" (in the ME, BioWare sense) isn't the only criteria for determining life. Problem even further solved.

You seem to deny that the geth are sentient, as you quite clearly said machines are incapable of it. Yet you don't deny that they believe they are sentient, act like sentients, or are intelligent. You quite clearly avoided the question.

Life has many definitions. Biology has its own definition of life that would not apply to the geth as they're not organic. For a geth program to be operational is enough to qualify it to be "alive" in the same way that a battery or other form of hardware can have a life time and be alive when it is operational and dead when it is not.

You are placing unnecessary importance on how the idea of life applies to the geth. You seem to be saying that because the geth don't think like us, they aren't alive. That reeks of some form of racism.

What is important here is sentience. The geth are sentient, and that is all that is necessary for me to disapprove of quarian attempts to destroy or enslave them.

It is not possible to argue that the geth are not sentient, so you have shifted the argument to whether or not they're alive or have free will, etc. I do not see how these arguments are relevant.

Esker02 wrote...

I believe you are--like many others--deluding yourself in the interest of self-comfort. It brings some people comfort to believe that they are more than the sum of their parts.

That's interesting, because I believe you are--like many others-- deluding yourself in the interest of self-comfort. It brings some people comfort to believe that human knowledge of how the world operates is more complete than it is, and in that way it is easier to deny readily self evident facts (like the free will of conscious actors) that seem to be left unexplained by our current level of understanding.

Just because we can't explain it yet doesn't mean that God did it. You title an aspect of the brilliant complexity that is the human brain "free will" because you don't understand how it happens. People say that it is God given or the sign that you're something more than the sum of your parts in the interest of comfort or just because they don't like waiting for answers.

I have no interest in such things.

Esker02 wrote...

For after all, without such concepts like free will, you don't have to be bothered by trivial things like 'responsibility' anymore. Your own viewpoint is the gateway to a nihilistic, meaningless existence - which is actually, for many people, the ultimate comfort.

You are making a vast and inaccurate assumption.

People seek comfort in both the idea of free will and the nihilism that you mentioned. That does not mean it is a choice between one or the other.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 04 mars 2010 - 10:56 .

[Esker02]

Terraneaux wrote...

There isn't really any time when you can say someone is not 'under the influence' of one chemical or another, which basically leaves no room for this 'free will' concept you keep going on about.

Again, I feel you're not really hearing me, or understanding me, I guess. I've already conceded that the chemicals and electric interactions within the brain are the means by which the will operates, that is, exerts its control over the body - so yes, there is no time we're not "under the influence" of one chemical or another, precisely because we are constantly under the influence of the will which operates using those means. 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.

An example then, it would be the difference you, the actor, experience between a voluntary action and a pure impulsive reflex. It would seem that were it all so simple as "input in, output out," things like deliberation and reflection wouldn't need to exist, it would all be as quick and simple as when the doctor strikes your knee and you kick. However, that is not how the conscious being operates. We deliberate precisely because we understand the potential for multiple outcomes - a consequence not merely of competing desires (for surely, there is always one naturally stronger than another) but of our free will. Your model, I am arguing, in spite of the fact it most certainly fits the confines of contemporary scientific understanding better than my own, doesn't capture a distinction between the two (or at least to the fullest extent they deserve), given the very real distinction that any person will tell you exists.

More than that, I'm claiming this distinction is the reality of, say, the emotion anger in conscious beings, moreover it is a crucial aspect of what it means to be life, and it's that which machines lack.

In short, most people believe the Geth are just as valuable as true life because they are reducing what it means to be alive to the level of the machine - a notion I unequivocally reject as failing to explain what we know to be real. 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.

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.

I believe this post sums up my logical progression fully, stemming from the initial assumption that free will exists as made self evident by the thought process of conscious actors (just as you make the assumption that science is complete enough to prove free will is an illusion, and your logical conclusions stem from that). Ultimately, it's these first assumptions we disagree on - I don't need you to agree with me, necessarily, only to understand me. My position on the Geth is founded not on bigotry or hatred or vengeance, but out of a serious, credible, and logical argument - just like your own.

It all comes down to which assumption people want to choose () to make on the outset as describing reality more completely. Consequently, I don't think we will 'reach a consensus' on this matter, and I believe I will end my part in this discussion here.

EDIT: Though I would like to reply to the post above...

Inverness Moon wrote...

What is important here is sentience.

You can't do that - you can't accuse me of assigning things importance which you disagree with and then do the same. My own position is that what is important here is free agency. That's just as rationally connected with the ultimate decision on the Geth's "personhood" as sentience is.

Just because we can't explain it yet doesn't mean that God did it.

Okeer: "But I approve." I haven't said anything involving divinity (I've even avoided using the term "soul') - and in fact I'm confident one day science WILL be able to explain the reality of free agency. It just can't yet, and it doesn't in the ME universe. If they wanted to make a sci-fi claim like the Geth definitely gain free agency upon linking up in their network, and gaining sufficient complexity, my argument would no longer apply. I'm saying free agency comes from something as of yet undefined, and therefore, not present in the Geth.

People seek comfort in both the idea of free will and the nihilism that you mentioned. That does not mean it is a choice between one or the other.

Perhaps. But then do not accuse me of arguing purely because it brings me comfort if comfort (albeit of different sorts) is to be had either way.

Modifié par Esker02, 04 mars 2010 - 11:21 .

[WillieStyle]

Here's what I don't get about the Quarians: why stay on the Migrant Fleet?



One potential reason is the need to stay on the run from Geth. But the Council Races with help from Humanity just defeated the Geth. Wouldn't it be smart of the Quarians to ally with Humanity. 17 Million isn't very many people at all. Hell there are more people in the New York Metropolitan area. I'm sure Humanity could find a place to house and protect 17 million Quarians. In exchange, we get as allies some of the best engineers in the Galaxy. A civilization that was building sentient AI back when we were still burning witches.



Oh but their immune systems are fragile. Well just house them in sterile, hermetically-sealed buidings. It has to be cheaper to house 17 million people in sterile living quarters on a garden world than it is to house them in sterile living quarters on 50,000 spacecraft.



And if the Quarians are absolutely determined to retake the homeworld, having a safe zone to keep their noncombatants would be invaluable. And if you're going to start a war against the Geth, why wouldn't you want to form an alliance with Humanity (the one species that has demonstrated the most propensity of wiping out troublesome Geth)?

[Inverness Moon]

Esker02 wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...

What is important here is sentience.

You can't do that - you can't accuse me of assigning things importance which you disagree with and then do the same. My own position is that what is important here is free agency. That's just as rationally connected with the ultimate decision on the Geth's "personhood" as sentience is.

How is the geth's "personhood" relevant? Do you imply that because the geth might not fit our definition of a person, that they don't have the right to determine their own future? The geth believe that all intelligent species should self-determinate. I agree with that.

Esker02 wrote...

Just because we can't explain it yet doesn't mean that God did it.

Okeer: "But I approve." I haven't said anything involving divinity (I've even avoided using the term "soul') - and in fact I'm confident one day science WILL be able to explain the reality of free agency. It just can't yet, and it doesn't in the ME universe. If they wanted to make a sci-fi claim like the Geth definitely gain free agency upon linking up in their network, and gaining sufficient complexity, my argument would no longer apply. I'm saying free agency comes from something as of yet undefined, and therefore, not present in the Geth.

Free agent - a person who is self-determining and is not responsible for his or her actions to any authority.

I believe the geth fit that definition.

Esker02 wrote...

People seek comfort in both the idea of free will and the nihilism that you mentioned. That does not mean it is a choice between one or the other.

Perhaps. But then do not accuse me of arguing purely because it brings me comfort if comfort (albeit of different sorts) is to be had either way.

What I accuse you of is arguing that the geth lack free will when you do not understand how free will exists in humans, or if it even exists. You assume the geth do not have this because of their origins. You seem to be willing to destroy or enslave them based on that assumption.

It seems to be a pretty simple decision to me, that even you weren't sure the geth deserved their freedom and the right to determine their own future, you would still err on the sight of what seems to be right, rather then enslaving them or committing genocide.

However, I am not unsure about my support for the geth. If I had to choose between the survival of the geth or the survival of the quarians, I would choose the geth.

[shinobi602]

Esker02 wrote...
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.

The codex says they are sentient and intelligent. It doesn't say "The Geth think they are", no. It says they ARE. Bioware has created the Geth like this when writing their story, no ifs ands or buts.

You can not say you're right when clearly Bioware are the creators of the game and thus what they say is the truth, not yours, not mine, not anyone else's.

[Inverness Moon]

shinobi602 wrote...

Esker02 wrote...
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.

The codex says they are sentient and intelligent. It doesn't say "The Geth think they are", no. It says they ARE. Bioware has created the Geth like this when writing their story, no ifs ands or buts.

You can not say you're right when clearly Bioware are the creators of the game and thus what they say is the truth, not yours, not mine, not anyone else's.

Indeed, I mentioned this too. It seems I have a habit of allowing others to distract me away from points I make against them so they can just ignore it. 

[Yakko77]

I'm advocating peace between the two.  Their struggle reminds me too much of the Middle East.  Religions and tribes fighting each other over millenia old grudges which no one no longer remembers the origin of and they fight just because their forefathers did.

Plus, I'll need any and all Quarian and Geth warships for a battle with the Reapers... and even that might no be enough.

Also, Legion mentions they don't even really live on the Quarian homeworld but rather they live on space stations and are acting as caretakers for the Quarian homeworld in the same way caretakers maintain cemetaries at batlegrounds or WWII  deathcamp memorials.  Make no mistake, if done right, there will be a way in ME3 for the Geth to hand over the Quarian homeworld peacefully.  Tali will have her homestead.

[Esker02]

*sigh* I try to bow out but misunderstanding always ropes me back in...

Inverness Moon wrote...

Indeed, I mentioned this too. It seems I have a habit of allowing others to distract me away from points I make against them so they can just ignore it. 

No need for the snide insinuations, I did not ignore it. In fact, I'll reply to it again:

shinobi602 wrote...

The codex says they are sentient and intelligent. It doesn't say "The Geth think they are", no. It says they ARE. Bioware has created the Geth like this when writing their story, no ifs ands or buts.

If you read the remainder of my posts (I take it you did not), I already replied to Inverness Moon on this detail. I conceded their "sentience" in the Mass Effect, BioWare sense, but I have argued that this alone does not entitle them to the rights of life, and that free agency is the more proper criteria. To put it as clearly as possible, free agency is not a necessary aspect of sentience, and thus it matters not if they are "sentient," they still fail to achieve the status of "alive."

Inverness Moon wrote...

Do you imply that because the geth might not fit our definition of a person, that they don't have the right to determine their own future? 

Of course I imply this. I would think that in order for something to meaningfully be able to determine a future, it would necesssarily have to have free will over its choices. That implication is right in the term self-determination. As the geth lack free agency, they are not building "their own future." They are merely building the future which is an inevitability, a consequence of a simple chain of causality from the instance the Quarians created them in the manner they did. They are machines without will. They have no future of their own. They can make no such claim of possession over their actions, regardless how sentient, because they are not true free actors.

Free agent - a person who is self-determining and is not responsible for his or her actions to any authority.

I believe the geth fit that definition.

Their authority is their programming, and without free will they have no means to overcome it - they are at the mercy of the whims of whatever programming they happen to have. Therefore, they are not free agents.

What I accuse you of is arguing that the geth lack free will when you do not understand how free will exists in humans, or if it even exists. You assume the geth do not have this because of their origins. You seem to be willing to destroy or enslave them based on that assumption.

You're absolutely correct, but not merely because their origins happen to be synthetic - not quite, anyway. At the very least, not for its own sake. My perception of them as non-life comes from the puzzle I laid out earlier. Lets say I consider life to occur when we have three things - Intelligence, Sentience, and Free Agency - I consider all three of these things to be meaningful and reasonable criteria. We can safely say the Geth are intelligent. The codex has also told us that the Geth have achieved sentience through (what I imagine to be) a sufficient complexity of intelligence. That still doesn't fit the description of true life.

If it fits yours, by all means. Perhaps all it takes for you to say life has occurred is intelligence. Or maybe only sentience. Or maybe only those two things together. I have argued, though, that a fundamental aspect of what we consider to be conscious life is free will. Both from our subjective perspective, and from the necessity of such a thing in an actor if the actor is going to be said to truly be self-determinate and responsible. Interestingly, I think the N7 armor which Legion wears could be made into an argument that there is, in some sense, a possession of free will there, but that's an argument that I would need directed at me before I would engage it.

It seems to be a pretty simple decision to me, that even you weren't sure the geth deserved their freedom and the right to determine their own future, you would still err on the sight of what seems to be right, rather then enslaving them or committing genocide.

What seems right to me is property rights of a people who have been wronged by the universe, and a certain degree of prudence in declaring things as conscious beings.

[Inverness Moon]

Esker02 wrote...

*sigh* I try to bow out but misunderstanding always ropes me back in...

Inverness Moon wrote...

Indeed, I mentioned this too. It seems I have a habit of allowing others to distract me away from points I make against them so they can just ignore it. 

No need for the snide insinuations, I did not ignore it. In fact, I'll reply to it again:

shinobi602 wrote...

The codex says they are sentient and intelligent. It doesn't say "The Geth think they are", no. It says they ARE. Bioware has created the Geth like this when writing their story, no ifs ands or buts.

If you read the remainder of my posts (I take it you did not), I already replied to Inverness Moon on this detail. I conceded their "sentience" in the Mass Effect, BioWare sense, but I have argued that this alone does not entitle them to the rights of life, and that free agency is the more proper criteria. To put it as clearly as possible, free agency is not a necessary aspect of sentience, and thus it matters not if they are "sentient," they still fail to achieve the status of "alive."

Who are you to decide what is the proper criteria for the rights of life in this or the Mass Effect universe? Hundreds of years ago, some people though you had to have white skin to have the rights of life. Admiral Xen most likely thinks you need to be organic to have the rights of life. Both myself and the geth believe you need to be sentient to have the rights of life.

BioWare is the literal god of the Mass Effect universe, and I believe they've made their stance on the geth quite clear.

The idea that the geth lack free will is your assumption. An assumption based on your lack of understanding of free will in humans, and your perceived understanding of machines. Not very credible, for science could reveal sometime in the future that your free will is completely explainable.

Esker02 wrote...

Inverness Moon wrote...

Do you imply that because the geth might not fit our definition of a person, that they don't have the right to determine their own future? 

Of course I imply this. I would think that in order for something to meaningfully be able to determine a future, it would necesssarily have to have free will over its choices. That implication is right in the term self-determination. As the geth lack free agency, they are not building "their own future." They are merely building the future which is an inevitability, a consequence of a simple chain of causality from the instance the Quarians created them in the manner they did. They are machines without will. They have no future of their own. They can make no such claim of possession over their actions, regardless how sentient, because they are not true free actors.

These are just more assumptions based around your unverifiable idea of free will.

You're also saying that you will determine the future of another species based on your own unverifiable ideas. Isn't that what happens in religious wars?

Esker02 wrote...

Free agent - a person who is self-determining and is not responsible for his or her actions to any authority.

I believe the geth fit that definition.

Their authority is their programming, and without free will they have no means to overcome it - they are at the mercy of the whims of whatever programming they happen to have. Therefore, they are not free agents.

Humans have programming of a different sorts, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. Some we can overcome, some we can not.

Additionally, I see no reason why the geth could not reprogram themselves. In that way that have more control over themselves than we do.

Esker02 wrote...

If it fits yours, by all means. Perhaps all it takes for you to say life has occurred is intelligence. Or maybe only sentience. Or maybe only those two things together. I have argued, though, that a fundamental aspect of what we consider to be conscious life is free will. Both from our subjective perspective, and from the necessity of such a thing in an actor if the actor is going to be said to truly be self-determinate and responsible. Interestingly, I think the N7 armor which Legion wears could be made into an argument that there is, in some sense, a possession of free will there, but that's an argument that I would need directed at me before I would engage it.

You can not argue that free will is a fundamental aspect of life when you do not understand how free will occurs. Because then you simply assume you posses free will and assume others do not, like you are now. It is not verifiable.

As I said before, your valued and so-called free will is the result the cooperation of the cells in your body. Like geth they can not achieve sentience alone, they only become something more when they share data and work together. Like geth, they're created to perform specific functions and have clear programming and/or patterns of behavior.

We are able to manipulate the cells in our bodies and other organisms as a result of the efforts of science, a product of evolution. The geth were programmed for self-optimization, an analogue to evolution. I see no reason why the geth could not reprogram themselves as necessary. Clearly they have constructed new types of mobile platforms since their time with the quarians, these platforms require software.

Esker02 wrote...

It seems to be a pretty simple decision to me, that even you weren't sure the geth deserved their freedom and the right to determine their own future, you would still err on the sight of what seems to be right, rather then enslaving them or committing genocide.

What seems right to me is property rights of a people who have been wronged by the universe, and a certain degree of prudence in declaring things as conscious beings.

You're more concerned about possibly violating the property rights of the quarians than the possible enslavement or genocide of an entire race. I don't agree with your priorities.

Also, sentience implies consciousness.


Summary: You believe geth do not deserve the rights of life because they lack free will, yet you can not prove that humans have free will. However, it is easier for you to simply assume that humans do and geth do not, because you claim to understand how the geth mind works while ignoring your lack of understanding of the human mind.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 05 mars 2010 - 06:25 .

[GuardianAngel470]

[quote]Inverness Moon wrote...

[quote]Esker02 wrote...

*sigh* I try to bow out but misunderstanding always ropes me back in...
[quote]Inverness Moon wrote...

Indeed, I mentioned this too. It seems I have a habit of allowing others to distract me away from points I make against them so they can just ignore it. [/quote]
No need for the snide insinuations, I did not ignore it. In fact, I'll reply to it again:
[quote]shinobi602 wrote...

The codex says they are sentient and intelligent. It doesn't say "The Geth think they are", no. It says they ARE. Bioware has created the Geth like this when writing their story, no ifs ands or buts.
[/quote]
If you read the remainder of my posts (I take it you did not), I already replied to Inverness Moon on this detail. I conceded their "sentience" in the Mass Effect, BioWare sense, but I have argued that this alone does not entitle them to the rights of life, and that free agency is the more proper criteria. To put it as clearly as possible, free agency is not a necessary aspect of sentience, and thus it matters not if they are "sentient," they still fail to achieve the status of "alive."[/quote]Who are you to decide what is the proper criteria for the rights of life in this or the Mass Effect universe? Hundreds of years ago, some people though you had to have white skin to have the rights of life. Admiral Xen most likely thinks you need to be organic to have the rights of life. Both myself and the geth believe you need to be sentient to have the rights of life.

BioWare is the literal god of the Mass Effect universe, and I believe they've made their stance on the geth quite clear.

The idea that the geth lack free will is your assumption. An assumption based on your lack of understanding of free will in humans, and your perceived understanding of machines. Not very credible, for science could reveal sometime in the future that your free will is completely explainable.
[quote]Esker02 wrote...

[quote]Inverness Moon wrote...

Do you imply that because the geth might not fit our definition of a person, that they don't have the right to determine their own future? [/quote]
Of course I imply this. I would think that in order for something to meaningfully be able to determine a future, it would necesssarily have to have free will over its choices. That implication is right in the term self-determination. As the geth lack free agency, they are not building "their own future." They are merely building the future which is an inevitability, a consequence of a simple chain of causality from the instance the Quarians created them in the manner they did. They are machines without will. They have no future of their own. They can make no such claim of possession over their actions, regardless how sentient, because they are not true free actors.[/quote]These are just more assumptions based around your unverifiable idea of free will.

You're also saying that you will determine the future of another species based on your own unverifiable ideas. Isn't that what happens in religious wars?
[quote]Esker02 wrote...

[quote]Free agent - a person who is self-determining and is not responsible for his or her actions to any authority.

I believe the geth fit that definition.[/quote]
Their authority is their programming, and without free will they have no means to overcome it - they are at the mercy of the whims of whatever programming they happen to have. Therefore, they are not free agents.[/quote]Humans have programming of a different sorts, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. Some we can overcome, some we can not.

Additionally, I see no reason why the geth could not reprogram themselves. In that way that have more control over themselves than we do.
[quote]Esker02 wrote...

If it fits yours, by all means. Perhaps all it takes for you to say life has occurred is intelligence. Or maybe only sentience. Or maybe only those two things together. I have argued, though, that a fundamental aspect of what we consider to be conscious life is free will. Both from our subjective perspective, and from the necessity of such a thing in an actor if the actor is going to be said to truly be self-determinate and responsible. Interestingly, I think the N7 armor which Legion wears could be made into an argument that there is, in some sense, a possession of free will there, but that's an argument that I would need directed at me before I would engage it.[/quote]You can not argue that free will is a fundamental aspect of life when you do not understand how free will occurs. Because then you simply assume you posses free will and assume others do not, like you are now. It is not verifiable.

As I said before, your valued and so-called free will is the result the cooperation of the cells in your body. Like geth they can not achieve sentience alone, they only become something more when they share data and work together. Like geth, they're created to perform specific functions and have clear programming and/or patterns of behavior.

We are able to manipulate the cells in our bodies and other organisms as a result of the efforts of science, a product of evolution. The geth were programmed for self-optimization, an analogue to evolution. I see no reason why the geth could not reprogram themselves as necessary. Clearly they have constructed new types of mobile platforms since their time with the quarians, these platforms require software.
[quote]Esker02 wrote...

[quote]It seems to be a pretty simple decision to me, that even you weren't sure the geth deserved their freedom and the right to determine their own future, you would still err on the sight of what seems to be right, rather then enslaving them or committing genocide.[/quote]
What seems right to me is property rights of a people who have been wronged by the universe, and a certain degree of prudence in declaring things as conscious beings.[/quote]You're more concerned about possibly violating the property rights of the quarians than the possible enslavement or genocide of an entire race. I don't agree with your priorities.

Also, sentience implies consciousness.[/quote]

You guys are actually arguing whether the geth have free will?  Free will isn't even a factor of sentience.  Animals have free will.  They can make choices about their actions. Ever see a dog lie down in front of you instead of your sibling?  That means that dog chose to lie down where it did.  No genetic memory or impulse made it do that, it chose to.  Sentience is an ambiguous term in and of itself. Dictionary.com defines it as thus:

sen·tient   [sen-shuhnt]  Show IPA–adjective1.having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.2.characterized by sensation and consciousness.–noun3.a person or thing that is sentient.4.Archaic. the conscious mind.

That boils down to questioning one's existance, which the geth have.  They also know the answers, but you have to ask the question to understand the answer (42 anyone?).

[Inverness Moon]

Esker02, have you listened to all of the dialogue from Legion?