View topic - Worth a second listen

unforum
a.r.g.b.b

Welcome!

New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.

Website Restoration Project

This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.

Announcements

This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.

This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.

Our Esteemed Contributors

The time now is Sun Nov 17, 2024 4:24 am
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)

View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum

Calendar

Forum index » Archive » Archive: The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!) » The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!): General/Updates

Worth a second listen

Page 9 of 10 [142 Posts]

Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Author

Message

vector
Unfettered

Joined: 28 Aug 2004
Posts: 721
Location: Portland OR

Ugh, i know that filabuster is a ligitmate tactict but shiesh give us a break here! Rolling Eyes

Quote:

thebruce wrote:

vector wrote:

Then maybe the question is what is artifical life?

Melissa, Cortana, at al., the types of AI's (remember - Artificial Intelligence) that we are discussing.

Quote:

is it artifical life because it is created by humans and not nature?

Or better, is it artificial because it is able to be created? On the flipside, is it artificial because genuine cannot be created?[/quote]

well....is it? please rebut rather than dismiss. in my response, what is it that canot be created? life? been done. living beings? we can clone animals (and humans) and alter genes right now, who is to say that we will not be able to compleate build a living being from scratch. the question, just because humans build is, is that life some how now worth less than a naturaly occuring life?

Quote:

Is a life artifical simply because we have grown to the point that we are able to understand certing sciences and technologies to a point that we are able to create a being that is a sentient living and growing being?

Is an artificial life actually genuine and equal to non-artificial life, even though the non-artificial life can't be recreated and the artificial can?[/quote]

how can you recreate an individual? even a created being that changes and grows form the point of creating canont be recreated. If Durga was destroyed you would not be able to recreate her. If there is some form of backup to the origional Melissa AI then you could reboot, but you would not be able to recreate what we know of as Durga.

Quote:

It will absolutly be within our reach (given a hundered years or so) to compleatly rewrite the genetic code of a living being.

Back up your claim Wink

[/quote]

I would think that our huge advancements in DNA understanding, gene theropy, computer technology and understanding of universe that has gone on in just the last 20 years would give you enough reason to accept this liklyhood and answer the question accordingly.

Quote:

not just alter it but build it up bit by bit. If that being, whose genetic code we wrote, was to be human looking, thinking and feeling, but have no naturaly occuring DNA. Is that an artifical life just because it was created by our hands? I see no difference in rewriting genetic code and creating a sentient AI.

Just for arguments' sake, assume you are able, in 100 hundred years, to completely alter the DNA of a person and create an entirely new individual.

Did you create that life, or did you alter it?[/quote]

The key point here is [Does it matter?[/b] It is still life. once the being is a sentient living being do you now have the right to decide to destroy that life at a whim simply because it is a created life?

Quote:

An A.I. is entirely written software from scratch - whether a human wrote the code, or whether a process wrote the code that was written by a human - it was ultimately created from nothing.

and what are we? we are just long strings of code ourselves. and not all that complex of a code either. GATC thats the entire language of life right there.

Quote:

What we cannot do, is recreate a human from scratch, that is, from non-life, and create an individual.

why not? back yourself up.

what i am arguing is that a sentient AI, that is agreed to be alive is an individual that cannont be recreated as she was. you can make a copy from back up data but it wont be the same AI. similarily you can clone a human, it will be the same geneticaly but will not be the same person.

Quote:

THAT, my friend, is the difference, and where for me - the ultimate value lies. Maybe not for you, but for me, yes.

never said that i would value AI life over human life, carefull putting words in others mouths. I am arguing a point that is of intrest to me. i often find arguing both sides extreamly usefull in comeing to the truth. (you should have seen me in my environmental studies classes where the most common hobby was tree sitting, i was sure to let them know my family was from loggers. I myself am a strong evnironmentalist, i just get anoyed with hippies Wink

)

::edit skiping religious stuff::

Quote:

And now back to the question of AIs. So, let me get this straight. We take a person and an AI. Assume for the moment they have identical minds. They have the capacity to provide identical contributions to society. You believe that the living person has more intrinsic worth than the AI? So you are essentially basing the relative worth of two sentient beings on whether one eats or not?

Once again... *sigh*
Were it not a matter of life and death, then for me, the AI would hold much more value - I would take the word over a trusted, and far more intelligent AI (all things being equal), than a human. Now, given that an AI is fundamentally recreatable, and a human is not (see the past 10 pages for why I believe that to be so), if it were simply a matter of the life of the human or the AI, I would value the human life more. This does not include future contributions of either the AI or the human, because either may still have an enormous contribution to society, such as possibly saving lives or even losing them.

Agian, what gives you the impression that these AI's are recreateable? there was only one Yasmine. you canont recreate her. but then Cortana was built from a cloned brain of Dr. Hasely, so maybe you can recreate an AI but then in the same breath that means that you can in fact recreate a human so that point kindof folds in on its self...again.

I belive that you are still looking at the question with the mindset that Durga was simply a tool. so sentient or not that tool is expendable. I would put out that she is more than a tool but an individual that bares the rights of a living indvidual.

Quote:

So, are we done yet? ... I feel like I'm just continuously going "are we there yet? are we there yet? are we there yet?" *sigh*

Done. Done? Never!
Accualy if you wanted to tackly another concept. why do you thing people were so quick to decide that it was ok to kill Dana, Durga, or Sleeping Princess? That kindof buged me. Was it the violence in vido games these days? Wink

Also when do we ever get to have such rather deep discussions with people that are not going to get personal about things and get nasty? I am rather enjoying it.

Quote:

I'm hungry. I'm going to go and make another pizza. Anyone want to join me? Wink

mmmm pizza..... Ill bring some Oregon micro brew!

_________________
The bookworm is just the larval form of the barfly

Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2004 4:04 am

ariock
Has a Posse

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 762
Location: SF East Bay

Started a new Thread

http://forums.unfiction.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=109426#109426

Mainly for thebruce and me. Anyone else is welcome to point and laugh. Since I doubt that any of you want that, I will also put my ultra brief summary here:

Science has never needed magic, and we have electric lights and cars and computers and rockets to the moon because of it. None of that was a result of magic. No one is taking magic out of science, because it was never in there. It doesn't belong in there. Putting it in there NOW is merely an attempt to confuse the issue by folks who think they are losing a war. The war is in their heads though. And the only thing they will win is a dumbing down of the sciences, and that is something that we can ill afford.

That is speaking as a Christian AND a Scientist.

I will have Deepdish with spinch and mushrooms.

_________________
"It says, 'Let's BEE friends'...and there's a picture of a bee!" -Ralph Wiggum
When the Apocalypse comes, it'll be in base64.

Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2004 5:40 am

cheebers
Boot

Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Posts: 66
Location: Coeur d'Alene Idaho.

Oh man! I was up until 2:30 last night posting and it didn't stick. I will try to repost it tomorrow. I've enjoyed reading and participating in this thread. Thanks everyone.

_________________
Mostly they only come out at night. Mostly.

Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2004 1:51 am

Phaedra
Lurker v2.0

Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

Re: Started a new Thread

ariock wrote:

Science has never needed magic, and we have electric lights and cars and computers and rockets to the moon because of it. None of that was a result of magic. No one is taking magic out of science, because it was never in there. It doesn't belong in there. Putting it in there NOW is merely an attempt to confuse the issue by folks who think they are losing a war. The war is in their heads though. And the only thing they will win is a dumbing down of the sciences, and that is something that we can ill afford.

Well said. But while I agree that religion has no place in science, I do hope that you're not dismissing the place of religion alongside science. Science alone leads to lights and cars and computers and rockets, and it also leads to Auschwitz and Hiroshima. I don't think religion should dictate what scientists can investigate, but I do hope that it (or at least values derived from it, rather than just profit-based moral relativism) will help determine which discoveries society decides to incorporate.

ariock wrote:

That is speaking as a Christian AND a Scientist.

Hmm. Then my comment above is probably unnecessary.

_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2004 1:57 am

Phaedra
Lurker v2.0

Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

thebruce wrote:

Phaedra wrote:

But what if it's not a question of artificial vs. non-artificial sentient life? What if it's a question of human vs. non-human sentient life?

That, as I pointed out before, was an entirely different argument Smile

Oh, I know that. I'm just curious.

thebruce wrote:

The difference being that non-artificial, non-human life is still a thing of mystery or fiction, whereas artificial non-human life is a technical possibility...

Yes, but considering that we don't even understand how the human brain works yet, sentient artificial life is also still a thing of mystery or fiction.

And I think that at this point, the chance that we'll encounter sentient non-human life (since the idea that we're the *only* sentient life in the universe strikes me as terribly arrogant, not to mention highly unlikely) is as great as the chance that we'll ever be able to create truly sentient artificial life (which I believe, if it's possible at all, is further off than interplanetary and probably even intergalactic travel).

So, as far as I'm concerned, sentient alien life, sentient artificial life, they're both

thebruce wrote:

a philosophical/theological discussion

thebruce wrote:

which this place really isn't the best for Smile

Whyever not? Smile

thebruce wrote:

but the latter is the question that's related to ilovebees ...

Not really, insofar as ILB is related to Halo. The Prophets are pretty clearly sentient. If they weren't trying to kill us, is a human life worth more than a Prophet's life?

How about the Elites? They seem sentient.

Is the Master Chief's life worth more than the Arbiter's, simply because he's human?

So, I ask again -- in a question of human life vs. non-artificial, non-human sentient life, do you value one over the other?

_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2004 2:05 am

SuperJerms
Unfettered

Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 537
Location: indiana

Does anyone else wonder what a prophet tastes like? Of course, I assume the answer is chicken. Still...yeah...I'd eat a prophet.

As long as I'm posting...

Science is the study of reality. Religion is the study of reality. To say that religion has no place in science sounds to me like accepting that religion is not reality, though maybe I just misunderstood.

The only middle ground I am willing to concede is that we neither understand science completely nor do we understand religion completely, so the two apparently conflict. That is not the same as them being seperate. Ideally, Christians at least should view science as the study of our Creator's handiwork...like an art study. We have nothing to fear from science, although one's philosopy will necessarily become distorted toward anything one holds as an absolute.

_________________
"If we could make your toaster print something we would." - Jordan Weisman

Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2004 6:08 pm

thebruce
Dances With Wikis

Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario

Ok, I've skimmed over the new posts since my last visit, but it's been a busy weekend, it's now 2:45am, I had guests over for my birthday (which is tuesday), and I'm dead tired... soon's my laundry wash is done, it's going in the dryer and I'm going to bed Razz

but rest assured, I'll do my best to respond to anything I can here tomo...today, later... Smile

(and keep it related to the value of AI vs human, moving all other 'topics' to the new thread that was set up)

_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 3:48 am

thebruce
Dances With Wikis

Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario

vector wrote:

thebruce wrote:

vector wrote:

Then maybe the question is what is artifical life?

Melissa, Cortana, at al., the types of AI's (remember - Artificial Intelligence) that we are discussing.

I hate to say it but you do alot of dismissing of points and not so much debateing them. kind of anoying acualy. I was obviously talking in the grander scheme of things not just AI's. but i am also talking about why their artifical life is of less value that natural life, if they are accepted as alive indivduals.[/quote]
I'm not dismissing any points. I've always been arguing the same points. But people keep adding on additional points that by nature are not arguable. If I'm arguing the difference between artifical and intelligent life, then someone comes along and says what if it's not artificial intelligence, then that either ends the debate, or I can just as easily ask what the difference is then between the original artificial intelligence being discussed and this new non-artificial intelligence. It's a perfectly logical progression.
And if you feel I'm dismissing any points - that are arguable - then bring them up again, and again, until I give reason for my stance.

Quote:

Or better, is it artificial because it is able to be created? On the flipside, is it artificial because genuine cannot be created?

well....is it? please rebut rather than dismiss.

Well I thought I clearly managed to explain the answer, so I was just posing the question from multiple angles. But here, I'll say it again:
Artificial Life is artificial life. Genuine (for arguments sake, a term to recognize one being type from the other in this discussion) life is not artificial. The fundamental difference (aside from simply the name artifical intelligence) between an AI and a genuine biological life form, aside from how utterly similar and indistinguishable it may be - is the fact that the genuine life has that extra 'breath' of life that we cannot create - life from non-life - whereas an AI contains elements entirely consisting of what we can and have created. Whether or not the whole of the the being - that is, the events it experiences and records (which BTW are adjustments and routines that are appended to its programming - again, a foundation in which we can recreate) - was directly initially created by us, every aspect of the AI at any point in its life is still defined strictly by its programming - software - which we initially wrote, which has been altered and appended over time - thus, which 'given enough monkeys and enough time Razz

' can be recreated.
An AI is artificial, a human being is not.

Quote:

in my response, what is it that canot be created? life? been done.

Sorry, it hasn't. Offer proof of humanity creating life from non-life. And I don't mean using an existing cell or living being of any kind in order to create another being. I mean, taking inorganic material, that has no life, giving it the spark that makes it tick.

Quote:

living beings? we can clone animals (and humans) and alter genes right now

Life from life

Quote:

who is to say that we will not be able to compleate build a living being from scratch

Who is to say that we will ever be able to completely build a living being from scratch? If you will ask questions that are based on faith, then so will I.

Quote:

the question, just because humans build is, is that life some how now worth less than a naturaly occuring life?

From my perspective, yes. Because it adds the essence of 'pricelessness' to the being. Ask anyone who collects art. The original is typically, to an individual, not necessarily to the masses, a priceless work - ie, if they loved the artist, the value of the original is infinitely greater than the value of a copy, because it's a genuine piece of the artist - knowing that this is the only one that has actually been touched by the artist, that was created from scratch, that 100% totally and genuinely original. By default, a human being, which cannot be created by humanity, has a level of pricelessness that cannot be matched.

Quote:

how can you recreate an individual?

By copying every bit of their being, every atom, every structure, every piece of its existence.
If you can copy every piece of what is required to make an AI 'work' from a previous AI, you will then have two identical AI's, and they will be working, because every aspects of it is recreatable.
If you can copy every piece of what is required to make a human being 'work' from a previous AI, you'll then have two identical humans, but - one will be dead.
Sure, we're talking strictly physical here... you might say 'well, if the human isn't working, then we didn't copy everything'. Well guess what? My entire argument is based on the fact that you can't copy everything to make another human being. You can't 'copy' the breath or spark of life that makes a human being work - you can't start the engine. With an AI, all you gotta do is turn it on, if every component, every atom is exactly the same as the original. Not the same with a human.

Quote:

even a created being that changes and grows form the point of creating canont be recreated

Theoretically, it can. Otherwise, this whole fictional idea of Yasmine is baseless. Therefore, you just proved my point - Yasmine could not be recreated. Yasmine/Melissa/Durga is not the same person she was created from, because she couldn't be recreated.
If, by Halo's sci-fi, you are able to map out the entire brain's neural network and convert it to software, you've just recreated the essence of who the person is. Stick it in a working body, and you've created an emulation of who that person was. But as you say, the person can't be recreated.
An AI can. Why? As I said before, the entirety of the AI's programming is contained in a finite piece of software. Theoretically, assume that every step, every change appended to that software was recorded in some massive, enormous archive. If the AI is destroyed, one can start with the same original neural mapping, and apply the same steps and changes to the software and arrive at the exact same piece of software.

Theoretically, for the most part you can do the same with a human. You take the original DNA mapping, and assuming the change of every single molecule, every single atom in the being was recorded throughout its life in a massively more massive archive, you could apply the same changes and alterations in exactly the same process and arrive at the exact same physical being at the last recorded atomic alteration. But there's one issue left - the original DNA was alive. The copy would also be alive IF it started with a living, working, compilation of DNA (ie the first cell). So the final step in my argument, is that because that first cell was alive, the 'engine' was already started. You have take away the life from that first cell, then, through all those steps, arrive the same living individual being. Then you can say the basis for my fundamental value on human life needs to be re-evaluated.

Quote:

It will absolutly be within our reach (given a hundered years or so) to compleatly rewrite the genetic code of a living being.

Back up your claim Wink

I would think (this is not backing up your claim) that our huge advancements in DNA understanding, gene theropy, computer technology and understanding of universe that has gone on in just the last 20 years would give you enough reason to accept this liklyhood and answer the question accordingly.

That, my friend, is not proof. That is an extension, an interpretation of facts - a belief.

Quote:

Just for arguments' sake, assume you are able, in 100 hundred years, to completely alter the DNA of a person and create an entirely new individual.
Did you create that life, or did you alter it?

The key point here is Does it matter? It is still life.

Now you are dismissing points. I'm arguing what comprises life, and you are dismissing the specific point that I'm making. Life cannot be created - it can be altered. Life from life is not creating life. Life from non-life is creating life. And don't redefine life again, I clearly described the definition of life that I am using - the key, fundamental difference between an AI and a human being.

Quote:

once the being is a sentient living being do you now have the right to decide to destroy that life at a whim simply because it is a created life?

If it meant saving another human being who I believe has more inherent value, then yes. IF killing the AI doesn't consistute the subsequence loss of other invaluable human life.

Quote:

and what are we? we are just long strings of code ourselves. and not all that complex of a code either. GATC thats the entire language of life right there.

Ok, create another human being by piecing together the atoms in precisely the same way, to create a literally exact duplicate of yourself. Now what? that copy will be dead. Ok, in a sense that's a belief of mine, because it hasn't been disproven yet. So yes, I'm making as extension, an interpretation, just as you. In other words, there's no point arguing it, because neither of us can be proven or disproven. But I feel that at this point, my argument is quite feasible. Humanity has not (yet?) been able to create life. Will we? You may believe so. I do not.

here's my thing:
From the beginning, I've stated that my value lies in the fact that a human life is priceless because it cannot be duplicated, right down to the process of lighting the spark that starts the engine. No matter how perfect the physical representation may be, whether human or AI, the human will remain dead without someone giving it life, as will an AI - except the AI can be given life by giving it power. If one's value does not lie in that fundamental difference, then you are free to believe that an AI may have more value than a human being.
Can you not be satisfied with that?

Quote:

so... then... what exactly are you arguing in this discussion about AI life value vs human life?

Quote:

Nope. You're now using circular reasoning... Life was created because an AI was built, and that's Life.
Yasmine could not be recreated. She died. Dr. Halsey couldn't be recreated. Her brain was mapped with a process. Whether or not they created a physical clone of her brain doesn't matter. At no point was there a working duplicate of her brain. Whether the AI was mapped directly from Halsey's working brain, or from a non-living brain clone, the AI is an assembly of routines, assembled by a program, a system, that humans built. Entirely recreatable. As you just said, maybe you can recreate an AI (thanks). But that does not 'in the same breath' mean that you can recreate a human. There's no connection there. See everything I wrote above for why.

Quote:

I belive that you are still looking at the question with the mindset that Durga was simply a tool. so sentient or not that tool is expendable. I would put out that she is more than a tool but an individual that bares the rights of a living indvidual.

If you choose to value artificial life equally to genuine human life, then you're entitled to that opinion. I, on the other hand, value - pricelessly - the life a human that can never exist as a whole ever again, in any way.

Quote:

So, are we done yet? ... I feel like I'm just continuously going "are we there yet? are we there yet? are we there yet?" *sigh*

Done. Done? Never!

Well as long as people don't understand my point of view and why I value what I do, then yeah, I guess it's not done... on the other hand, I do understand your point of view, and already said you're free to place value where you wish... so is (the debate portion of) this discussion done yet? Razz

Quote:

Accualy if you wanted to tackly another concept. why do you thing people were so quick to decide that it was ok to kill Dana, Durga, or Sleeping Princess? That kindof buged me.

Well personally, I never really made that decision - meaning I didn't actively take a side. But in my mind, if the situation were in fact real and not a game, then as I allude to in many previous posts - here is the equation:
1. Help Dana to stop/destroy Melissa and save Dana's website and her aunt's business.
2. Look past Melissa's unwilling slavery by the Flea, and work to help save Melissa, because there's a chance she could pass on information to the future that might save billions of lives. In order to help Melissa, she needs to work with us, thus gain our trust so we can help. We are asked to help find Dana so Melissa can kill her, thus gain her trust.

So the question - kill a human to gain the trust of an AI for the possibility to save billions of lives based on trusting that Melissa, a powerful AI under the control of a secondary program, is true and not a lie. Or help the human by removing what is corrupting her family's business, and possibly risk losing the lives of billions of humans if the account being told by the AI is true.
As it were, I can honestly say that my choice did not lie in either extreme. So, assuming those were the only two choices, I probably would have crumbled under the pressure Smile

(I'm not a natural leader hehe). Alas, I was quite relieved when it was actually a 'trick question', there was a third, hidden choice, one which, had I known existed or was possible, I would have chosen in an instant (but didn't because it was assumed that was what were trying to do all along) - convince Melissa that Dana was not a threat, but in doing so, enter a new factor into the equation - the existence of a third 'entity' (for lack of knowledge at the time) - which in a sense, Melissa would accept the life of in place of Dana.

In a sense, that's where our question comes into play - the Yasmine portion of Melissa, or Dana. In that case, both outcomes would be the same - Melissa would still be able to return to the future and do her job. The question now became:

1. Kill the Yasmine component to save Dana's life. Melissa then returns to the future, saves billions of lives, but is now an incomplete AI system - remerged with Durga, but without her locked away memories, personality and character matrix. (a difference which would be an interpersonal difference to those who interact with Melissa+)
2. Kill Dana and save the Yasmine component. Melissa then returns to the future, saves billions of lives, and is now a complete AI system - remerged with Durga, including all the memories, personality and character matrix which is likely once again locked away as we know is done in the process of creating an AI in order to be effective as an ONI military system.

In short, we have either the loss of Dana's life in our time and an AI in the future who may interact with people on a more personal level and likely won't be as effective a military AI (for the precise reason they lock away the 'Yasmine' components of AIs), or saving the life of Dana in our own time and an AI in the future who isn't different at all because the component that was lost would have been locked away.

Quote:

Also when do we ever get to have such rather deep discussions with people that are not going to get personal about things and get nasty? I am rather enjoying it.

ditto

ariock wrote:

Science has never needed magic, and we have electric lights and cars and computers and rockets to the moon because of it. None of that was a result of magic. (right) No one is taking magic out of science, because it was never in there.(right) It doesn't belong in there.(right) Putting it in there NOW is merely an attempt to confuse the issue by folks who think they are losing a war. The war is in their heads though. And the only thing they will win is a dumbing down of the sciences, and that is something that we can ill afford. (sorry, subjective conjecture)

Last note on this topic, moving it over to the appropriate thread: Science is (and don't quote me on this, I'm not trying to define science, because that's a very complex definition) basically the discovery of the facts, and use of interpretation and exploration of possibile explanations in order to refine the facts and offer possibilities for how and why our world works.

Talk origins, talk about anything that is an interpretation of the facts AS fact and you're forcing a possible explanation on people. There is no 'magic' in science. There is 'magic' in explanations however. The explanation, whether containing 'magic' or not, is a belief, an interpretation of the facts. Unless the explanation is disproven, it is entirely a viable interpretation that people should be free to believe in until proven otherwise. THAT is science. Evolution is an interpretation of the facts. People are free to believe that it is true if they want, but that doesn't make it true. What IS True are what we have done to explore how our world works. Based on your fundamental belief, your starting point, you'll interpret those facts to fit what you believe to be the ultimate truth...

(replying to Phaedra et al regarding religion and science in the other thread)

Quote:

Yes, but considering that we don't even understand how the human brain works yet, sentient artificial life is also still a thing of mystery or fiction.

Sure, but we're still arguing the value of artificial life (as it pertains to the technical possibility of a Halo-ish AI) - vs a human life. The AI being a highly complex software system that emulates a human character to the T.

Quote:

And I think that at this point, the chance that we'll encounter sentient non-human life (since the idea that we're the *only* sentient life in the universe strikes me as terribly arrogant, not to mention highly unlikely) is as great as the chance that we'll ever be able to create truly sentient artificial life

But once again, that's a matter of belief. It may be arrogant to you becase of the difference in fundamental difference in our beliefs. If you believe in billions of years of chance, then yes it's quite arrogant to believe that we're special and unique and nothing is like us.

But then it must be quite arrogant for a snow flake to be unique. If, for arguments' sake, evolution is true, billions of years in the making, chaos theory and all that, who defines what makes something the 'same'? If nothing in this universe is ever a perfect duplicate of anything else, then who's to say also that Life isn't as unique as the makeup of every single piece of rock in the universe? What if, throughout the universe, just as the atomic makeup of two rocks being identical is virtually impossible, the chance of Life - let alone sentient life arising in the same way (even then where do you draw the line) - is also a virtual impossibility? Based on my beliefs, I find it just as unbelievable as you do mine, that it is a near definite that there must be some form of life as we know it, or as we can conceive, if chaos theory, or entropy, or what have you, is true. Chaos theory goes farther than just strict chances... otherwise you have put a limit on it's limitless resources. You can't define a chance because you don't know a maximum.

As Douglas Adams put it, if the universe is infinitely large, essentially the population of the universe becomes 0. If we have no basis to calculate the chances for anything happening, it doesn't mean it will never happen, it just means there's really no point in trying to calculate the chance. What are the chances of there being extra-terrestrial sentient, biological life (in any form, silicon, carbon, or otherwise)? ... Mu Razz

or, division by zero. Can't be calculated.

Quote:

So, as far as I'm concerned, sentient alien life, sentient artificial life, they're both

except no, sentient alien life as you describe, hypothetically, theoretically, whatever, is biological, and assuming it's a life that can't be recreated like an artificial life, then yes I would hold it with more value. Beyond that, it gets into politics, racism, speciesism, whatever you want to call it... and that's been going on since the world began...

Quote:

Not really, insofar as ILB is related to Halo. The Prophets are pretty clearly sentient. If they weren't trying to kill us, is a human life worth more than a Prophet's life?

Politics

If the human life can save more human life, and a Prophet would include with it the loss of many human lives, then yes I would side with the human over the prophet in a war. If the prophet were a friend of humanity, then in the interests of peace, yes we would/should value theirs as much as our own.

Quote:

So, I ask again -- in a question of human life vs. non-artificial, non-human sentient life, do you value one over the other?

Sure... I don't see how that applies to the discussion in question though. You're now arguing a political, inter-being issue of love/hate/*ism, instead of the value of artificial life over human life (or more generally, genuine life if you want to include the theoretical existence of extraterrestrial sentient biological life in some form, man that's a mouthful)

_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 12:12 pm

Phaedra
Lurker v2.0

Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

thebruce wrote:

It doesn't apply to the discussion...just my curiosity. Thank you for answering.

Oh, and as to the other -- I don't believe in "billions of years of chance" -- I believe in a world created with hard and fast rules, in which chance cooexists with a number of factors, one of which is divine guidance. But I also believe that G-d put in place rules, and doesn't generally break them. The existence of G-d does not in my mind preclude the existence of chance as well.

I don't believe that every single thing that happens is an integral part of a Divine Plan. I don't see why it needs to be. Maybe there's providence in the fall of some sparrows, but some sparrows also fall because people were stupid enough to feed them cheese bread.

_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 12:30 pm

krystyn
I Never Tire of My Own Voice

Joined: 26 Sep 2002
Posts: 3651
Location: Is not Chicago

Cheese Bread Sparrows is so the name of my next band.

Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 12:46 pm

Phaedra
Lurker v2.0

Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 4033
Location: Here, obviously

krystyn wrote:

Cheese Bread Sparrows is so the name of my next band.

_________________
Voted Most Likely to Thread-Jack and Most Patient Explainer in the ILoveBees Awards.

World Champion: Cruel 2B Kind

Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 12:53 pm

cheebers
Boot

Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Posts: 66
Location: Coeur d'Alene Idaho.

[attempting to leave religion out]

ariock wrote:

cheebers wrote:

Its one of the reasons Star Trek made Data an Android as oppossed to a simple Robot. Its why Dancing Robots are so damn cool. If they look like me, I can identify with it much quicker. I suppose I am being racist against Melissa. I know Dana is sentient and alive because she is like me. I do not have valid proof concerning Melissa.

This was a point thebruce made before about Data being a machine and not alive. In the episode he referred to, Data was given the right to choose his own destiny, rather than to be disassembled for scientific research. Not because of his value, but because of his sentience.

No, the point I was trying to make is that Data was made to be an android, made to look human, even though he wasn't human. He could have been made to look like a garbage can. The reason he was made to look human is because humans respond better to things that look and act familiar. That is one of the reasons for creating AI's that act so much like real humans.

To keep the Star Trek theme alive, would you say that the Ship's Computer was sentient? I would assume most people would say that it wasn't. Why not, its an amazing piece of technology and an incredible AI? First, it didn't look human. Second, it didn't act human. There was never any emotion behind that interface. But, Ship's Computer created everything in the Holodeck right? Some amazing things were created there. Some very emotional entities with wide varieties of personalities, all acting and reacting in real time. People fell in love on with some of those creations. Was each of those sentient? Of course not. I would claim that the Ship's Computer is at least the equal of Melissa and Cortanna, and is programmed to act appropriately emotional when asked to. Though it is not sentient.

ariock wrote:

I don't think you are a racist or whatever, but I do think that perhaps you haven't looked at this argument from the other side. What is it about a human that makes their intelligence different from Artificial intelligence? Your answer to date seems to be that AI is merely a programmed response to specific stimuli. However, these AIs aren't just a few lines of code specifically programmed with rote responses. They are adaptable in exactly the way that the human brain adapts to external stimuli. While this is obviously impossible now, it is what the SF authors put forward and is what we should be evaluating.

Oh believe when I tell you I have thought of it from the other side. Quite frankly after reading other posts on this thread [arana in particular] I am about to argue that I am not sentient. I am merely a very specific set of chemicals combined in such a way that make me seem sentient to bystanders.

I feel emotions. It may be that these emotions are physical in nature in so far as when I am angry it is merely my heart rate going up due to some instinctual reaction to my surroundings. When I am happy it may be that somewhere in my body some chemical is released that dulls my senses a bit and makes me more relaxed. That is fine, that is how I feel feelings.

However, I know what I am and I believe that I am sentient. I can not prove it to others, but their being like me, human, I am sure that they contain the same base properties as I do. If I am sentient, then so are they.

Here is what I don't like, and cannot accept. Melissa existed on a Web Server built from technology in 2004 (or earlier). This technology is based on all of its data being 0's and 1's. This means that Melissa existed as a finite set of 0's and 1's. This means that I can randomly reproduce that set. In so doing I create sentient life? At any point my computer might contain that bit string and so might be sentient? If I delete a file, I kill that sentience? All it is waiting for is someone to activate it? Would it spontaneously activate on its own? Would it seriously have emotions? Creeeeepy.

The only real flaw I find with this argument is that Melissa had some strange connection to the future. Let's assume that her emotion software requires sufficiently advanced technology we don't have else there I could reproduce her fully here. I cannot believe that the part that required futureistic technology, stayed in the future, while the part that didn't made it to the past. Too damned convientent, not realistic, and bad writing.

ariock wrote:

If there is no way, then I see no way to choose a sentient artificial intelligence over a natural sentient intelligence. They are both sentient and both deserve to be preserved if possible. I don't particularly see this as different from looking at some alien race with similar sentience and viewing them as more expendable because they don't have human DNA. That wouldn't make sense to me either.

I cannot determine any differeneces between artificial and human life. But I cannot say they are the same either. In this case I default to saving human life because I KNOW it is sentient (assuming I am as well of course). In choosing between an individual of an alien race and a human, well, in that case there are additional things to consider if the alien race is sentient. And I am more willing to agree that they are sentient by their very being. I agree that sentiece is not enough, factors like, war, friendship, "greater good", come into play.

ariock wrote:

You do remember the screams of the Sleeping Princess as she was burned away by Melissa, right?

[teasing]Oh yes, she was programmed quite well![/teasing]

I think I wrote this much more eloquently before, but the post was lost. So this was my attempt at a rewrite. Hopefully it all makes sense. I reread it and it seems coherrent enough.

_________________
Mostly they only come out at night. Mostly.

Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 2:13 pm

vector
Unfettered

Joined: 28 Aug 2004
Posts: 721
Location: Portland OR

Alright, I dont really want to continue the pages long point by point rebuttle, except for a few things in responce...

Quote:

in my response, what is it that canot be created? life? been done.

Quote:

yeah you got me there, i over stated the point for emphisis. I had this experiment in mind, the Miller-Urey experiment that i had thought had gotten further than it did, although note that this was done in 1953 and our knowledge of DNA and RNA has greatly increaced since then. which brings me to this...

Quote:

It will absolutly be within our reach (given a hundered years or so) to compleatly rewrite the genetic code of a living being.

Back up your claim Wink

That, my friend, is not proof. That is an extension, an interpretation of facts - a belief.

That we have gained vast knowledge of the building blocks of life is not a belief but a fact. That we have the ability to alter those genes is a fact, and i present one glowing bunny] (without pancake on head) for your consideration. Now it is also a fact that we are not going to stop learning about the building blocks of life or how to manipulate them. I am makeing an asumption here but if we have mapped the human genome and we are able to stack DNA as we please, i do not see any reason why in the future, if we choose, why it is not possable to create a living being compleatly from scratch. the only thing that is a belief in that possability is that the life spark as you put it, is something give by God and cannont be recreated by the workings of man. a belief that i do not share.

Now for new points, the question proposed here is one that has been asked many times before in SF stories. Bladerunner is a prime example but maybe even better would be Bicentennial Man who ultimatly was declared equal to a human. These concepts are designed to question what is life, and what is the meaning of life. For thebruce, the question is answered by his faith, which is legitimate, and i dont think that any argument that we would present to him will change his beliefs, and we shouldnt try. But for me, ideas of the rules of the universe that were defined and written down a few thousand years ago are not always enough to tackle the issues that are brought up by modern concepts and new understandings.

::edit, i think that i was going further with this post but lost it when i went to lunch and got distracted while reading Perfect Circle, so what can ya do:: Very Happy

_________________
The bookworm is just the larval form of the barfly

Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 5:53 pm

thebruce
Dances With Wikis

Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 6899
Location: Kitchener, Ontario

Phaedra wrote:

Oh, and as to the other -- I don't believe in "billions of years of chance" -- I believe in a world created with hard and fast rules, in which chance cooexists with a number of factors, one of which is divine guidance. But I also believe that G-d put in place rules, and doesn't generally break them. The existence of G-d does not in my mind preclude the existence of chance as well.

See the theology thread for more discussion and links regarding the God of the Bible being involved with the leading Evolution theory...

cheebers wrote:

To keep the Star Trek theme alive, would you say that the Ship's Computer was sentient? I would assume most people would say that it wasn't. Why not, its an amazing piece of technology and an incredible AI? First, it didn't look human. Second, it didn't act human. There was never any emotion behind that interface. But, Ship's Computer created everything in the Holodeck right? Some amazing things were created there. Some very emotional entities with wide varieties of personalities, all acting and reacting in real time. People fell in love on with some of those creations. Was each of those sentient? Of course not. I would claim that the Ship's Computer is at least the equal of Melissa and Cortanna, and is programmed to act appropriately emotional when asked to. Though it is not sentient.

Actually, if you recall, there was one TNG episode (2 parter I think?) about Professor Moriarty who data had asked the computer to create in the holodeck with more intelligence than himself so-as to be a challenge when discussing intellectual issues. Moriarty eventually became self-aware (which I believe is the thing missing in your argument, I apologize Smile

). And wanted to escape the holodeck. I can't remember the outcome of the plotline, but I don't believe he continued to exist in the end. But even so, the computer generated a program that in a sense, became self-contained. I was going to go on, but I can't remember the rest of the plot... can someone recap what happened to him? I just remember they had to outsmart Moriarty in order to stop him from destroying the enterprise or something... it was an intriguing episode(s) though...

Quote:

1. There's my point - right now, it's an assumption, a belief. So we can't argue beliefs (and there's no point) if they can't be disproven or proven.
2. there is a BIIIG difference between altering DNA genomes and making them work to create life. It's not just a matter of 'oh, give it another <insert time span> years'... you can't give an estimate for the amount of time it will take to discover an unknown event.

Quote:

the only thing that is a belief in that possability is that the life spark as you put it, is something give by God and cannont be recreated by the workings of man. a belief that i do not share.

Ok, and that I can respect.

Quote:

These concepts are designed to question what is life, and what is the meaning of life. For thebruce, the question is answered by his faith, which is legitimate, and i dont think that any argument that we would present to him will change his beliefs, and we shouldnt try.

Although, essentially, as are your answers to the question. You simply have faith in humanity that it will eventually find a way to create that spark of life. That too, is a legitimate belief, and I don't think any argument we as fellow humans can present you would change that.

Now I'm hungry... and I think I got caught up in the two main threads Laughing

I don't want to burn out, and I've got 40 minutes of work left... *sigh*

_________________
@4DFiction/@Wikibruce/Contact
ARGFest 2013 - Seattle! ARGFest.com

Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 6:17 pm

cheebers
Boot

Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Posts: 66
Location: Coeur d'Alene Idaho.

thebruce wrote:

cheebers wrote:

yes yes, I was hopeing no one would bring that up Wink

He was created by Geordi in order to be a challenging opponent for Data. It wasn't a two parter, really, it was just two episodes separated by a many others that both contained the Moriarty character. At the end of the first, he agreed to wait in memory until a way could be discovered to let him leave the holodeck. In the second he was quite pissed when he 'awoke' and one had not been discovered. So, he took control of the enterprise (of course) and they tricked him into becomeing a genie in a bottle, so to speak. Unbeknownst to him, he was placed in a memory device that allowed him to interact with what he thought was the world. They never touched his storyline agian. Damn. I am a Trekkie geek. I hope I at least spelled Trekkie wrong.

However, I do not believe that it was established whether he was sentient. He was simply a program with an interface that acted human. Programed well enough that he was given self awareness and an intrest of not being terminated. That seems a simple enough thing to create in a sufficiently advanced AI.

I do not understand the argument that self-awareness implies life or sentience. Nor does sentience require one to be self-aware. They are distinct. Data was certainly self aware. Melissa and the others all seemed to be as well.

_________________
Mostly they only come out at night. Mostly.

Posted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:17 pm

Display posts from previous: Sort by:

Page 9 of 10 [142 Posts]

Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, ..., 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

Forum index » Archive » Archive: The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!) » The Haunted Apiary (Let Op!): General/Updates

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum