How human are synths?

[Moraelin]

It's more complicated. We may one day be able to scan all synapses in your brain, and we may be able to simulate all that in a computer. It's just the way it happens in the game that is utter bull.

 

To go on with the Skyrim analogy, sure, you can project a jet of fire... with a flamethrower. But not by learning to shout "YOL TOOR SHUL!" :tongue:

[Klipperken]

@ Evil D: whether uploading a human being, or running a program, what is the difference?
It's all just data, in the end, no?
And now with these Atom based chips they are working on, Quantum PC's... who is to say we are still superior of mind, in 200 years from now?

Things seem to change drastically.
What now is a fact, will be hopelessly old tomorrow.
Who knows where things will be tomorrow.

As for life: why would a dog be "less"?

The further we go, and the more we learn about animals, the more we see we were so wrong: animals are not stupid, do not lack emotion, hell, there is a recording on YouTube where a spider uses LEVERAGE to escape his terrarium.
That alone is... flabbergastingly insane.

As I see it, every life matters just as hard.
From a religious PoV, they share the same spark of life we got.
Which would make them equally important to us.
BUT!
We need to eat, so, killing them for food is OK, I reckon.
Things become bad when we kill them for sports, or fun.

 

Then again, some scientists believe we're mere sims, in a giant "Matrix".
Everything is relative, even relativity. heh...

@Moraelin:
I get that, but i asked: if my 'being' was to be put onto a chip,which would be installed on a synth, to say something, would I stop being me, or being alive?

As i asked before, just WHAT is life?

If you ask 1000 scientists, you're bound to get 750 different answers, some of them entirely contradicting the other.
Some even seem to think we are not, we are a computer game, the Sims, but in a more elaborate form.

This in turn begs the question: if we do not know what life is, or can't define life, then how can we assume "machines" (as in advanced Synths, think Roy from Blade Runner) are not-living?
Let's ask another question, which still is to the point, I think: should Roy (and assume YOU are his maker, as he so eloquently put in the movie) come to you, would you help him extend his life?

I would, if I could.

Even though he came out of a test tube, that sucker was BLOODY alive, I think.
Rachel was even a LOT further, having implanted memory and emotion.
Would it be right to have killed Rachel?
Not in my humble opinion.
And i bet, she (and she did) felt the same about this.

Then, so did Roy and his friends.

 

As for "being programmed", well so are we, no?

Let's go a tad gruesome: you claim to have freedom, in action and thought, right?

Let's prove you do not: pick up an axe, walk into a classroom of 8 year olds, and begin to chop heads.
Can you?

If not... why not?

We too are programmed.

And some lack certain "bits" making them possible killers.

Mere program, basically.

Of course, VERY simplified, there is naturally more to it.

 

Here's a jolly thing: lately you can put on this latex/silicon hat thingy, and use brainpower to work with a computer.

Extremely simple still, but the idea behind it is truly baffling.
And maybe, who knows, we will enter "the age of Shadowrun", where you can plug your brain into any computer.
Having direct feed between man and machine.

Hell, we ALREADY use chips planted in a brain, for example to battle epileptia.
I always knew, our brain and a PC are compatible, simply due to the fact that our brain... is electrical.

@Dante:
Hell, Imma going to do just this, brother, thank you. :smile:

 

@Evil D again:
Sure you can learn ancient tongues, and breath fire.

For the last, just visit a circus, for one. :tongue:

 

@JujooGuppy:

Why is this "dying"?

Imagine, you have a clone body, which you can "swap" to, on the other side of the galaxy.
Though being it a clone body, it STILL would be you, right?

If it were like a Synth, you would not just die because it's an anorganic body, no, you would CHANGE, I guess, but not die.

Imagine you were to be put into Data's body, sure, you would not longer be flesh and blood, but would you be any less?

As I see this, swapping body is not that different from swapping underwear.
And we all do this, right?

Well, I hope we all do... :tongue:

 

What makes you who you are?

Your mind/personality?

Your body?

The whole?

 

If you were to lose an arm (Godforbid), would you then be any less you?

And if that would not be the case, and losing your limbs would not change the YOU, why not the entire body then?

 

Merely thinking out loud, and giving something to think about. :tongue:

@Morealin again: True, in FO4 it is badly approached, I fully agree there.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Klipperken

[Moraelin]

@Klipperken

Well, it being simplified is what's really the problem. You can get wrong ideas about literally anything, if you strip away enough details. To use a cliche, the devil is always in the details.

 

Or to illustrate it with a (tasteless) Jimmy Carr joke, "When a dog is in heat, it means she wants sex, right? And that's what I told the judge too." Adding an extra detail than the original assumption is what makes the joke work.

 

That said, I think I stated repeatedly already that I'm pretty content at leaving it at: they pass the Turing test. Or to use in-game stuff, as Honest Dan puts it, if even after all they've done to her, they can't tell if she's a synth, does it matter?

 

So, yeah, I have no problem granting rights to synths, or for that matter to Codsworth.

 

It's just that then people come with arguments like "but it's a human brain" that ignore and contradict what's in the actual game. And piling up enough wrong arguments doesn't make a right one.

[Groogo]

Synths are machines built by man. There is no argument whatsoever that says otherwise.

[Boombro]

Synths are machines built by man. There is no argument whatsoever that says otherwise.

And?

Doesn't stop the fact that some day, humans can make a brain that is human like that can replace it. We already made eyes, hearts, legs, spines etc.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Boombro

[Jasemyne]

There is a basic flaw in the consideration.

A machine is always inorganic structured, the parts as well as the whole work but don't live, like a car and its parts, a coffee machine etc, whereas a synthesized organism is organic structured, the 'cocktail' lives and sometimes even works (as bacterium so far). Compared to Mother nature, man is not even a rookie in the business of genetic creation from scratch.

[TheOriginalEvilD]

@ Evil D: whether uploading a human being, or running a program, what is the difference?

It's all just data, in the end, no?

And now with these Atom based chips they are working on, Quantum PC's... who is to say we are still superior of mind, in 200 years from now?

Things seem to change drastically.

What now is a fact, will be hopelessly old tomorrow.

Who knows where things will be tomorrow.

 

As for life: why would a dog be "less"?

The further we go, and the more we learn about animals, the more we see we were so wrong: animals are not stupid, do not lack emotion, hell, there is a recording on YouTube where a spider uses LEVERAGE to escape his terrarium.

That alone is... flabbergastingly insane.

As I see it, every life matters just as hard.

From a religious PoV, they share the same spark of life we got.

Which would make them equally important to us.

BUT!

We need to eat, so, killing them for food is OK, I reckon.

Things become bad when we kill them for sports, or fun.

 

Then again, some scientists believe we're mere sims, in a giant "Matrix".

Everything is relative, even relativity. heh...

 

Well, there will always be a limit to what a program has been programmed to do. Always. With a human mind, there is no limit (well, there is a limit to how intelligent a person is, but strictly speaking on potential vs. potential). The bottom line is, a synth "mind" only knows what emotions are because a human mind programmed them into it. How is that not 100% black and white obvious on how they differ?

 

As for animals...I'm no bible thumper, but according to the bible God put those animals on this planet for our taking. I don't think God drew a line between cows and dogs and said "eat the cow, domesticate the dog". I'm not saying the life of a dog is meaningless, but it isn't worth the life of a human to me. This is just where we'll agree to disagree. I'll be first in line to support animal rights for 99% of the time, but when it comes to saving a human's life or advancing medicine etc, I'd kill every rabbit and mouse on the planet to cure cancer.

[Groogo]

 

Synths are machines built by man. There is no argument whatsoever that says otherwise.

And?

Doesn't stop the fact that some day, humans can make a brain that is human like that can replace it. We already made eyes, hearts, legs, spines etc.

 

Human like is not human.

[Moraelin]

There is a basic flaw in the consideration.

A machine is always inorganic structured, the parts as well as the whole work but don't live, like a car and its parts, a coffee machine etc, whereas a synthesized organism is organic structured, the 'cocktail' lives and sometimes even works (as bacterium so far). Compared to Mother nature, man is not even a rookie in the business of genetic creation from scratch.

There have been machines that have organic parts. E.g., in the time frame where Fallout technology seems to be stuck, the only way to make insulin was via a pancreatic tissue culture. You basically had a big machine in a big lab, where the organic part was the only reason for it to even exist at all.

[oldspice2625]

The simple fact here is that Synths are not human by a long shot.

 

The biggest piece of evidence that Synths are merely machines, is that a simple phrase is enough to render them completely helpless and at the whims of the person who said the pass code.

 

Humans made Synths, therefore, humans would not make them able to become "too human". It's like not showing your full hand at once, you keep some secrets locked away and keep whatever it is you want submissive to you, weaker and unable to overthrow you.

 

The people who created them, the Institute, envision them as machines. They program these machines with vague, general personalities. The synth then responds to stimuli within that parameter.

 

In the creation of CURIE, she was programmed to be the way she was. She doesn't CHOOSE to be thrilled by medical advancements or science. She HAS to enjoy those things. She is FORCED to like those things because that's her purpose. She is a tool. Now, the problem here, is that many get an attachment to these TOOLS and see them as more than just tools. This is where you get the Railroad being created. People who project their own desires, hopes, and dreams for these TOOLS onto said TOOLS, and value them to be more than what they actually are.

 

Now, you might be saying, well, that was CURIE, what about the rest?

 

Think about it... has there ever been a synth that was able to completely override a recall code when uttered, through sheer force of free will and determination? I don't think so. No matter what, the Synth is a machine with built in, hand crafted, programmed by human LIMITATIONS and CONTROLS because it's a tool, first and foremost.

 

Any affection that you might have for them, is YOUR feelings, it's not reality, it's just feelings... thoughts... emotions.

 

Just because you think 2+2=5 does not make it so, no matter how badly you want it to be that way.

 

Every single synth you meet is programmed to be the way they are. They don't get to CHOOSE who they are, like humans with free will do, they either get a personality forced on them by the institute, or by the railroad.

 

I think the biggest roadblock, would be "Did they choose, via free will, to run away... or is it a MALFUNCTION of a TOOL?"

 

They are sophisticated programs, so a malfunction might seem like it's free will, but I doubt it is, because at any moment, the tool can be reset.

 

If anything, they are an upgraded version of SIRI or something like that.

 

Nick, in his personal quest, sheds some light on this (Can't say anything, because spoliers) his reactions seem to be leaning toward being very frustrated about his revelations on the situation he's in.

 

You might say though, "he's not a full Gen 3 though"... well, perhaps that means something in the end. Fair enough.

 

Here's a question, "Does their programming fit within one programmed subroutine, or, is it like planting a few seeds, and leaving the seeds to be able to have the freedom to outgrow the planter's original design, and become something on their own?" In other words, did the institute merely plant the seeds for a basic personality, and have the program (Synth) DECIDE and make rational choices on how to react to the stimuli presented, or not? That's the biggest question, because if so, then the Synths indeed have free will to make their own minds up and choices, and therefore, are just like humans in nearly every way, and especially the most important way, full sentience complete with free will.

 

If not... they are VERY WELL PROGRAMMED MACHINES.

 

My two cents.