How human are synths?

[Klipperken]

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.

Heh, and being inorganic means it cannot live?

For all we know there are living bread machines on Venus.

Or highly intelligent energy orbs on Jupiter.

That was quite short through the corner, I think.

MAYBE there is some spot where "actual robots" even live.

 

We humans are on the verge of adding technology to improve ourselves.

What if we go this far, we become Synths?

Or even Terminator bodied humans?

 

Imagine we DO become Terminator bodies with actual completely downloaded human existence from a person, in what way would this be a 'machine'?

Sure, it has mechanical parts.

But ALSO a complete human mindset, ability to create, destroy, to feel, t reason and think...

If not alive, what would thing "thing" then be?

 

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.

 

Seems you missed the Quantum PC part: we are on the- far away still -verge to create AI that will be able to learn.

Even rewrite itself someday.

This tech will overcome human intelligence.

Even if we try to restrict it's thinking, it will become smart enough to overcome that barrier.

And this is NOT sci-fi, scientists know this will eventually happen

 

You could say: and why would we make such a moronic device?

The obvious reason, because... WE CAN!

Or, because we will be able to, to be correct, we're not quite there yet, but this event overthrows everything said, right?

 

Of course, we're humans, humans are by definition parasites, and although we have Pyramids, sky scrapers, airplanes, have walked on the moon and have toys merrily hopping around on Mars, we have, in about 250.000 years that we are on this planet, STILL not learned how to live with one another, not to mention with our environment.

I've been on scientific forums, and I was grinning when they spoke of how humans will become extinct.

It went from a disease over a mega volcano eruption to comets.

I wrote: "None of this will be our end, only one end we shall know: human stupidity."

It's been 9 months since... and none replied on this.

Guess they knew where truth was.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

One day maybe some alien will stomp on you, like we stomp on bugs.

THEY won't be human either.

What kind of answer is that. 0_O

 

 

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.

 

And just here is where i trip and either will fall or not:

1) Just HOW were they meant to be: to learn, or not to learn.

2) How capable are they?

 

The earlier Gens are basically quite nice calculators.

The Gen 3 are DARNED human, but possibly still flawed. Possibly.

Gen 4 and on... well...

 

But even a Gen 3 is bloody much a living being, no?

[UhuruNUru]

Why is this even debated, the game tells you many times, over and over again each time the subject is addressed.

Contrary to the many posts made praising, the fact that, whether Synths are human or not is left to the player.

 

No one gets given that decision to make, I give ample evidence, to prove that topic isn't ever addressed.

The decision the player has to make, isn't whether synths are human or robot, it's whether, knowing they are human the player will still call and treat them as robots.

 

The real interesting point, despite all evidence telling them synths are human, many here still insist, "Synths can never be human.

 

It's an even more telling moral dilemma, than most who post even realise, they think they've made a decision about a question never asked, not the real question, but they're answer reveals much more than they realise.

 

Main Evidence for showing this isn't debatable.

 

Gen 3 Genetically indistinguishable from a Human.

So 100% human genetically, is 100% human that alone leaves no room for debate.

To make it even more clear, which I'd say isn't needed, but the simple existence of this type of thread shows, even blatantly obvious will be ignored if it suits you.

 

So we also are given three hybrids, to eliminate any doubt.

 

Nick Valentine

A prototype Gen 1 Synth with human brain scan, results in a completely mechanical body, but clearly still mentally human.

 

Kellog

Human Gen 3 prototype, mind controlled by the institute, a synth, just created from living humans, indeed, he tells you that synths were originally meant to be like him, kidnapped humans.

 

The reason they ended up using clones is spelled out also.

A clone is new born baby with an adult body, such a mind is easy to program. From the moment of birth the synth grows mentally, until they exhibit the mind of their own, which means they are basically an adult mentally and physically and they must keep being mind wiped or they rebel.

 

Curie

The last nail, A Robot mind in a Synth body.

Yet she mentally grows into a human being before your eyes.

 

Each of the examples is enough on it's own, to prove Synths are human, the moral dilemma is will you still treat them as robots, knowing that fact.

[Jasemyne]

Oh, Synth-3 have a free will, the ability to choose 'cause that's what makes them human-like. What they lack though is the human ability to change their mindset in an alien environment that must follow the choice. There is no human diversity of the minds, thus they show no flexibility that usually follows such a crucial choice. They act in always the same fashion, with one and the same strategy - total perfection, a must and they can't do anything against it. The compromise and, thus, the ability to lead inhomogeneous groups of individuals with contrary opinions, one of the major secrets of human success, is just an illusion for a 'synchronized' Synth. Their first directive - my Lord's way or the highway - is the prime principle of their existence. Synth-3 simply don't question their basic 'instincts', only humans do. Consequently, the most fearsome raider is a Synth-3, the shiniest knight, the darkest terminator, the loudest politician, the most thankful worker at the Institute and the busiest settler in the Commonwealth. That is what makes them easily suspect as totally brainwashed minds for man and finally, leads to their individual end, often with a bullet in the brain outside of the closed system of the Institute. So I understand it, at least as long as I get convinced by a much better hypothesis. I'm human after all.

 

Besides, it'd be really nice if people would spend more time on the information provided by a certain Institute terminal in the room of the first encounter with Father before they identify Mr. Kellogg as a Synth which is, I dare to say, utter nonsense.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Jasemyne

[Moraelin]

Kellogg may not be a synth, but his case and the FO3 case do provide some insight. See, the circuitry has the same inputs as a late Gen-1 circuit, and in fact you're told point blank that that kinda hardware hasn't changed much.

 

And Curie's quest makes it further clear how little the Institute actually advanced its hardware: you can actually download a custom Mr Handy (ok, Miss Nanny) program into a Gen-3 synth.

 

BUT in both cases it's compatible with a human brain for implanting. In FO3 you can literally get a courser chip implanted into you, by none other than the man, the legend, the head of the SRB himself, Dr Zimmer.

 

And yes, the FO3 circuit is a courser chip. The increased accuracy effect is something that was only ever implanted in Coursers.

 

Etc.

 

So basically for those who want to play the "it's a robot" or the "it's a human" part, I think the lore makes it amply clear that it's both. It's some miniaturized General Atomics pre-war processor, AND it gets implanted into something that's more or less a human.

[Jasemyne]

Well, upward compatibility in computer science does not exist per se, as gravity doesn't pull you up but down. I fear upward compatibility is the opposite of downward compatibility, right? You see, in Bethesda's fancy world of virtual make believe by far not everything makes any sense. We simply have to take it as given that a frakkin 2-bit Hollerith card machine, henceforth named Curie, takes over a fully synthesized human-like being with an erased mind. Wonder why I ever have trashed workable P-III Intel processors as a little girl huh.

[Moraelin]

I don't think that backwards compatibility is a nonsense. In fact, given that the chip obviously runs the same binary code AND crucially has the same pins and protocol on them, what I suspect is that it simply is the same CPU as in a Mr Handy, just miniaturized.

 

Same as, say, you can STILL buy a Z80 -- you know, the same chip as in a ZX-Spectrum -- in 22nm instead of the original 4 micron (5 micron on some versions), as an embedded processor. There are a LOT of industrial controllers out there which, technically, could run the binary code for Manic Miner or Chucky Egg.

 

And I don't even mean the slightly pimped-out eZ80, that's still binary compatible. You can literally get a chip from 1976, done in 21'st century lythography, but otherwise it's binary compatible all the way.

 

It's not even compatibility in either direction, it's just literally the same CPU.

 

Which also brings me back to the assertion that the Institute is all bark and no bite, when it comes to technological advancement. They CLAIM to be oh-so-advanced, but really they didn't actually innovate much in ANY domain other than cloning a human and calling it a gen-3. Their computers still run the same pre-war RobCO os, again, binary copy including all exploits and all, and their super-duper cyborgs run on something binary and pin compatible with what Codsworth has up there.

 

Mind you, there still are other aspects that make no sense. But it being compatible? Nah. Once you realize that it's not even compatibility, but plain lack of innovation, I think that falls into place quite nicely.

[Klipperken]

as gravity doesn't pull you up but down.

UUUUHHHH?

And what does the moon with water and tectonic plates then????

Or is that magnetism?

Black magic???

Also, the sun holds us in place as a planet, and by no means the sun is under our feet, or am i mistaken?

 

UhuruNUru said it good, I did not get this far yet (V81 is the furthest i got due to deaths: I play on Extreme Hardcore (my own settings) in which i ONLY save at the end of my gaming session: dead is DEAD, delete and restart. But I run a variety on Hardcore Mods like More enemies, More spawns, ...).

So, Sir, i salute you.

 

DESPERATLY NEEDED READINGS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing (laymens form)

Funny, for the heck of it i tried a google on human brain vs quantum computing: I think you should do this, and be baffled.

Sadly, where i hoped to find SOME reference in the specific matter, none was to be found, I knew why, but even then.

Maybe, just maybe, it might change you FoV to 360 as well... :wink:

Edited February 1, 2016 by Klipperken

[Klipperken]

On a totally different and yet THIS topic: the Quatum State of matter: Matter could be as well there, there in multiple phases, as not there all in the same time until observed.
Well, simplistically put, this is.

It's a tad more complicated, but it comes down to this.

 

Now, I, being a philosopher, have a serious problem there.

 

How can this makes sense, that matter is in all these states simultaneously UNTIL observed?

If this was true, would this matter not be in STILL this multiple phase state when observed?

Why does it become single-phased once observed?

Why would something have a behavior and then "turn 'normal'" (as in a single phase, note) as soon as you look at it?

 

This state is theoretical, not yet proven, but the logic behind this theory is so insane sounding.

I asked a few scientists, and the best answer I got was "Because it is so, check the "theory".

As far as I know, "theory" is fantasy until proven otherwise, sorry, but that is how it is.

 

Thoughts?

Edited February 1, 2016 by Klipperken

[Moraelin]

Oh man... I feel for you. Googling for any combination of "quantum" and "brain"/"consciousness"/whatever, produces mountains of pure garbage from idiots who don't actually understand either quantum physics OR psychology/neuroscience/anything even remotely related to the brain in a scientific way.

 

Probably the safest rule of thumb is that (barring having a neuroscientist and a grad-level physicist with you), anything that pretends to explain the consciousness in quantum terms is to be discarded a priori as garbage. Well, generally anything that crams quantum into anything except, say, discussing a Zener diode. If it tries to squeeze it into macro level stuff, and especially into medicine or neuro-science, chances are 99.999% that it's bunk and written by someone who doesn't understand EITHER.

 

I don't know what it is about quantum physics that attracts every single nutcase, like selling high tech data attracts the Institute :tongue: (See, University Point.) But the idiotic woowoo on that domain, outside peer-reviewed physics journals and such, FAR outweighs the actual sane stuff. By sheer probability, if you're not qualified to tell what's right or wrong, anything you trust is far more probable to be bunk than real.

 

And doubly so if it tries to apply it to stuff above particle size. If it tries to explain electron lithography with the wavelength of electrons, it might be the real thing. If it tries to explain a whole brain as some quantum wave function, it's bogus.

 

You may have heard of Schroedinger's Cat. You know, where a cat in a box is both alive and dead until you open the box? Well, that was basically an OBJECTION to an over-simplified Copenhagen-interpretation of quantum mechanics. What Schroedinger was ACTUALLY trying to say is that if you end up with a 3 pound fuzzball being treated as a quantum thing, that's when you know you're doing something wrong.

 

That said, yes, as almost any physicist will tell you, quantum mechanics is the goofiest idea to ever come down the pike. It's also the best supported theory EVER by experimental data. Even stuff like the voltage stabilization in the computer you're reading this on -- since I mentioned Zener diodes -- or the substrate leak problems Intel had, wouldn't happen if quantum mechanics wasn't exactly right. Lasers wouldn't work without it either, so millions of cats couldn't chase pointers :wink:

[Klipperken]

 

Funny, for the heck of it i tried a google on human brain vs quantum computing: I think you should do this, and be baffled. :wink:

 

Seems you missed this part, Mor. :tongue:

 

Marvelous, another thinker, which is what we need: As to the WHY it gets the attention of every nutcase: the Fi part in the whole, of course.

One dreams of things that are above him.

The very thing in Sci-Fi, right?

 

As to qualified to ... bunk or reality: I'm not dumb, thank you.

I am quite aware of what is reality, and what is bunk, BUT!

Our friend of the Voyage to the Moon in basically a cannonbal, 20K leagues under the sea and hopping around the ball in 80 days was back then considered pure Fi, no?

Nice to read, BUT pure idiocy nonetheless.

Well, "few days later"...

Well, give or take a century here. XD

 

What is total hogwash right this very moment, might be a truth tomorrow.

Sure, we cannot YET make a chip-sized or CPU sized quantum unit, but this does not have to be true 50 years from now.

 

Remember the very fist "PC" (forget the Personal part lol): ENiAC?

Not quite what we have on our kitchen table today, right?

If you told scientists back then, their machine, (oh, and I am aware of earlier "computers" but this is the first DIGITAL one), only a billion times better, would fit into basically a pack of cigarettes, they probably would've killed you: reason: dangerous insanity.

 

This leaves an open field, in which the proverbial nutcase makes his niche.

Then again...

Where will quantum computing be, 50 years from now?

It still in it's pre-infancy, and already the results are, if not baffling, surprising for sure.

Where will this end?

 

Only God, or whatever you believe in, knows...

 

Take anti-matter: "forever" (give or take a few millennia) they thought it would be the end of the world.

Now, some believe it's even less dangerous than a new-born kitten...

What the hell am I to do with all these contradictions.

 

Take ANY science branch, and there will be "scientists" contradicting the next one.

And all earlier ones.

Where do i begin, what do i believe?

Questions, far FAR more than answers.

 

I am CERTAINLY no scientist, but I an't sdubit either.

I try to use common sense.

Black Holes: The newest thought is: a Black hole is not what we thought it was, no, it has no attraction at all: we saw an object passing through one".

Oh yeah, I so believe this.

Immediately.

And if you did not get it, this was pure sarcasm.

 

Your Schroedinger: "The cat is both DEAD as well as ALIVE UNTIL!!!!! I go to check on him."

Well, simplified.

WHAT THE HELL????

Let that poor cat alone, fu**er, and step in the box yourself.

Aside this: how bloody moronic was this?

Even though an objection, that's pure insanity right there.

I prefer the approach of Von Daniken then.

Sadists.

But yes, it was quite a thing back then.

 

Point is: Where do we go with some of our ideas.

Forever (give or take, well you get me) we were SURE there is the universe.

Now it's not just a universe, but a multiverse which is existing, but not really being it a sim in reality, but this is prone to Einsteins relativity, thus it being, F**CK that, make up your minds please.

i am lost now.

TOTALLY.

Help?

Pwease? :D

 

 

 

UH OOOOOOH: Shift Failure detected in ENIAC.

My bad.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Klipperken