How human are synths?

[Moraelin]

That said, it's not possible to explain QM (quantum mechanics) in intuitive terms, because your intuition didn't form for this and there is nothing macro-level that you could have ever experienced that you can use as an analogy. Things at that level fundamentally work differently.

 

But for the sake of giving you a headache, imagine this: you skip flat stones on a pond. They make waves in the water, right? Well, a particle is both the stone and the waves. Think of them as one game object that fundamentally includes both the stone and the waves. So fundamentally included, that if you place some obstacles on the water, and the waves going around them interfere (you know, multiple sets of waves causing higher or less high waves), it actually causes the stone to curve its trajectory.

 

And yes, you can actually see exactly that happening with electrons. You mess with its wave in a CRT, and the electron actually starts going into places it shouldn't be able to go in a straight line.

 

What I'm trying to illustrate is actually how fundamentally different it is from ANYTHING macro-level you might try to make an analogy with. That stuff just doesn't behave ANYTHING like a stone or a wave on a lake. It's crazy stuff, man. LSD kinda crazy.

 

And also why you might want to be weary of anyone making an argument from analogy with macro stuff to support their quantum-brain woowoo. Chances are their analogy doesn't even work.

 

The good news though is that that isn't any remark on your intelligence or anything. That stuff really IS that crazy. And even people with a Ph.D. in physics have trouble imagining it in any way that a human mind can comprehend. That's why they come up with stuff like the Copenhagen interpretation, or many worlds, or (my personal favourite) the objective collapse interpretation. It's all trying to imagine it in a way that a human brain can even start to cope with. Because no human brain can actually imagine the raw stuff, really.

 

The thing about QM is that it basically is a set of equations that work. You can plug in the values and calculate how many electrons in a Zener diode get to the other side, and it will be basically based on that incertitute. Given a distribution of electron speeds, some of them will have enough energy to go right against your voltage barrier (think throwing a ball over a wall: if it packs enough energy, it will go right over the wall, if not, it goes down and hits the wall), and some basically will just materialize on the other side of the wall, because basically, they could already be on the other side. You calculate that stuff and it gives you the exact number. It works.

 

But WTH did an individual electron do? Did it go over the wall? Or did it materialize on the other side of the wall? Or was it one of the many that bounced back? You don't know, man.

 

You don't know until you somehow measure it. That's really what the being observed means. You shoot an electron at a phosphor-covered screen, and see if it hits the screen. When it actually sparks a dot on the screen, that's when you know where it went. You have the formulas to tell you accurately what percentage will hit there, and what percentage hits in that other band, and all, but until it actually interacts with something, you fundamentally don't know where the hell that electron went.

 

But the formulas also work, and work damned accurately, and for a LOT of domains, so we know they're true. But the actual explanation for why the formulas work is, well, very very probably correct, but it's the kind of stuff that you have no analogies that your brain can wrap itself around. You've never ever seen anything that behaves anything like that.

 

Which is why scientists come up with these "interpretations". They're not really needed for making the formulas work, mind you. They're just there for the humans to be able to think of them in some terms they understand.

 

E.g., the many worlds interpretation is imagining that the world is splitting into possible universes at each moment. In one world, the electron didn't go through a Zener diode junction, in the other world, it did. Essentially ALL outcomes happen, just you happen to be in a universe where just one or the other did.

 

E.g., objective collapse is... well, kinda like many worlds, except without the many worlds :tongue: I don't care if there are infinite universes (except for fiction purposes), in THIS one only one or the other happened. There was some moment where it was basically already decided whether the electron went this way or that other way. E.g., when it interacted with some atom and was "observed" by that atom. An electron in a CRT is "observed" when it hit the screen and caused a spark of light.

 

E.g., Copenhagen interpretatation is, well, on the opposite side of objective collapse, all the way to it. Essentially, objective-collapse is the thin line in the middle between many worlds and Copehagen, and can be explained in terms of either, or as a subcase of either. Copenhagen essentially means, "man, you won't know until you measure it". Essentially it's not over until you open the flippin' box and see if your radioactive sample killed the cat.

 

And it can go all the way to the far fringe of ideas like whole colonies of cats not being decided if they're dead or alive, until some guy actually takes a look. Only then it's decided. Sad to say, some of these actually come from actual professors of physics. Which just illustrates how hard it is imagine it in any way that makes sense.

 

But at the end of the day, the only thing that remains is: the maths works independent of that. Regardless of whether you imagine the universe to split, or the universe depending on some Jack Cabot guy observing the experiment, or whatever, the maths works just the same.

 

Corollary 1: so for any practical purpose, stick with the maths. If you want to design a better laser for your Gatlin laser, just do the maths, man. That's where it is. You may or may not philosophize about parallel universes, or about the universe depending on your observing the shots from that laser, or whatever, but that's ultimately not very important. That's not what makes the laser work.

 

Corollary 2: anything useful MUST do the maths. Any argument that just skims one of the interpretations, well, is based on the irrelevant part. It's like trying to design a plane based on the age of the stewardess. Not very useful. Now don't get me wrong, it makes for some really interesting philosophy to think about, and in the right hands it makes for some really good SF. But as proving that anything works, or how anything works... Nah, if it doesn't do the maths, just ignore it as an actual explanation.

[Moraelin]

Well, or lemme try a simpler version: believe what works.

 

Scientists don't just contradict each other for the sake of it. They come up with something that explains the existing stuff, and the fringe cases that the previous theory didn't quite explain. But it's not pulled out of the ass. It has to predict and explain how something happened.

 

E.g., Newton wasn't wrong per se, but his theory explains things at low speeds and weights. You chuck a stone with a trebuchet, yeah, it will tell you where it goes. Einstein didn't contradict Newton per se. You apply SR to a trebuchet stone, it gives you the same result as the simpler Newton theory. Or within 0.000001% margin of error. You apply the more complex General Relativity to that trebuchet, well, you just used some very complicated formulas to give you the same result as SR.

 

Basically scientists don't know EVERYTHING, and they know that they don't. Otherwise, to quote Dara O'Briain, they'd stop. But they understand more and more. A theory comes that explains a bit of the data, then someone figures out how to extend it to explain even more data. The GR that goes into your GPS, is just expanding the domain we understand. Newton was enough for chucking a stone, but wasn't accurate enough for that. Someone figured out a way to essentially extend it to explain more.

 

So, sure, we don't know all the details. And we may never understand all the details. But each step gets one more thing that works well enough.

[Moraelin]

And if you want to stick God in it, think about it this way: this is his handiwork. This is how he made it. He made all those electrons and stuff that we can't even properly imagine. Isn't it WONDERFUL to decypher the work of the greatest scientist ever?

 

The ancients believed in a divine LOGOS -- poorly translated in the meantime as the Word Of God -- but logos didn't really mean "word". Just a dictionary word was "lexis". "Logos" was more like reason. It's the root word for logic. Sure it can mean reason as in reasoning with someone, but it's also, well, raw REASON.

 

Philo of Alexandria wrote that humans were created by and in the image of that God's Logos (which John made Jesus be), because humans have reason. Because we're intelligent beings. That's the defining thing that makes us human. Not the shape, but the reason. That's what makes us like God's Reason.

 

But the Divine Reason was so much more than that. Well, at least for the Platonics before Philo, but probably to Philo too. It was the reason why the universe does everything it does. It was the mind and principle behind it all. It was why the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, or why the planets move in the sky, or why the seasons change length. It was the REASON behind all things seen and unseen.

 

So every time we figure out how one more bit of the universe works, we're getting a glimpse into God's reason. Maybe not an exact one, but it's amazing.

 

And if John is right about Jesus being the Logos, well, you get the idea.

 

Well, I'm an atheist myself, but as I was saying, if you want to stick God into it, it seems to me like it would be awesome to get a glimpse into his handiwork. It may not be very accurate, but it's better than nothing, right? Don't dis science, basically. It's our best tool to try to understand God's work and reason :tongue:

[Klipperken]

But that's it, they are nothing but interpretations.

Imaginary.

Voodoo.

No hard science.

No: Here is a tree, it is here because you can feel, see, smell, even taste it hardcore science.

Nothing but... wild imagination, for all I care.

 

Einstein "proved" that the speed of light is the fastest speed that can exist, I do not agree with this, I for one know an even faster one: the moment.

There was this... oddity... in CERN where the speed barrier was broken, but then, they took this back, saying it was a fluke recording, an error in there machine.

For long i was following up in this, but to none surprise, no further info on this, what caused this fluke recording, nothing.

Sure, they could not repeat the process (on what i seem to understand as not being fixed at all).

Now, we all know of oddities that happen: People can be born very small to very big.

We can have 2 genital parts,

I mean, nothing is certain.

DID they actually break this speed limit?

I'm inclined to believe this, that they had an oddity going on, a bizarrity, an anomality.

In the '30s they believed, that the ultimate speed was the speed of sound, passing this barrier, some SCIENTISTS even believed, would open a gate to hell, and bring forth demons.

Now, OK, back then they were not as evolved in rational thinking, but still.

Right now, we passed this limit by a few times.

Heck, Lockheed's SR72 will be quite a ship right there.

 

Think Big Bang: this tiny object, a ball of all, the Singularity, would explode in this absolute nothingness, and create two third (according toooooo.... forgot which professor) of the known galaxy in 0.07 second.

Let's calculate a wee: seeing how ginormous the universe is, and the speed of light being 299 792,458 km/s or 186282m/s, about how much would be made?

NOT AT ALL 2/3rd i reckon.

Heh, not even .00000000000000001.

But hey, 2/3rd in 0.07 seconds...

...would mean...

...slightly above... no?

 

We cannot measure above this limit, and certain elements would indeed indicate this would be implausible!, but not impossible.

 

Now, I spoke of MOMENT, not TIME, two entirely different things, time is relative, prone to for one gravity, and temperature, and...

The moment is an abstract something, it's within time, but it's therefor not time.

Like wood is in a tree, but a tree is therefor not in wood.

It's something not even scientists are clear about.

I once heard a Jesuit say: "God is the moment. The moment is God."

Who knows he was on the right track.

 

Math is indeed powerful, but it's not divine.

Math didn't get it always right.

Why else would some math equations be reviewed.

We learn everyday, and this learning curve results to new approaches.

 

Take this big bang again: of course, it's all theory, nice and very mathematical, but think:

IF 2/3rd of the universe was indeed created in 0.07 seconds...

Well this alone would be quite some proof Einstein had it wrong.

And nowaday scientists as well, I reckon.

 

However, as stated, science does a marvelous job contradicting itself, specifically in the theoretical field.

And i am lost, hopelessly, right now...

[Klipperken]

Basically scientists don't know EVERYTHING, and they know that they don't.

And still they act as if they are God, knowing ALL and then some.

Frikken irritating.

And then there's the contradictions.

 

So, do tell me, whom do i go with.

If I take 10 different Astronomers, professor in their field, i will hear 6 different views.

Whom do i shoot?

Whom do i follow?

Where do I go?

There is SO MUCH forest, that the trees went missing in the fields of science.

 

And let's be slightly reasonable: some ideas out there are simply beyond LSD overdose in extremis.

 

 

Uh ooh: I made a mistake: I thought the forum would auto-merge the posts, as it is on modern forums, my bad.

I did not mean to post upon my post, Sir Admin/Moderator.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Klipperken

[GnatGoSplat]

@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?

 

I agree with JujooGuppy. If you clone your brain, it is a copy, but it is not you. What makes you "you" must have at least a physical component. Maybe the brain, maybe a part of the brain, maybe it's what the "soul" is, who knows?

You can lose an arm and you'll still be you. Maybe you can also have your brain transplanted into a new body and it would still be you. However, to have your mind duplicated into a new brain, that would not be you.

Say you've created a clone body, and you copy your mind into its brain. Everything is identical. However, since you've not transferred anything physical and you could both exist simultaneously, you've created a twin, a distinct individual. Identical twins are clones of each other. They share identical DNA. However, they are two distinct individuals. The clone will see the world as you do, have the same thoughts as you would have, and would be his own individual, but would not be you. Even if original you dies, you don't live on in your copy any more than a deceased individual continues to live on in their surviving twin.

 

As for the original question, I would say gen 3 synths are "human enough". As far as I can tell, they have self-awareness, personalities, emotions, cognitive thought processes, and desire to exist. If they have all these human qualities, to me, that would be enough to treat them as human and consider them as such. You could say that this is all simulated and only appears real, but if I can't see things through their mind's eye, then I can only assume what I'm seeing is true and give them benefit of the doubt.

 

Physically, it's my understanding synth DNA is derived from Father's DNA, so they are biological, living tissue. Their brains, as I understand it, are also biological, very similar to human brains, but man-made. Modeled after the human brain, but since they were created by humans, their brains are fully understood and the creators have the knowledge to erase and program them easily using artificial means. To me, that doesn't make them any less human. The difference being the human brain isn't as well understood by humans, because we didn't design or create it. We do know that the human brain can be programmed, it can be erased, personality can be changed by physical, physiological, or psychological means. Like gen 3 synths, we are biological machines. If we ever did gain a full understanding of how the human brain works and had the ability to program, erase, and reprogram a human brain, would that make us any less human?

 

Also, Curie is mentioned. You see that her mind, being uploaded into the synth body, she starts growing, developing emotions, feeling new experiences.

 

You can argue that humans aren't pre-programmed like the synths, but I don't think that's true either. Humans tend to react similarly and almost predictably when we're sad, angry, happy, etc. Nature and DNA has a lot more to do with how our personalities turn out than some people believe. We all come with a great deal of our minds pre-programmed.

 

Sort of off the topic, but anyone wish there was a gen 2.5 synth? One that looks indistinguishable from human on the outside, but is completely in-human on the inside, like Terminator? Shooting at its face or torso might reveal shiny mechanical robotics inside, or shooting its limb might blow off its human-like flesh revealing a robot hand like Nick Valentine's. The gen 2 synths work kind of this way, but I think it would be cool if you don't even know it's a synth till you get in a fight with it. Finding a synth component on a human-like corpse isn't that exciting. I feel like the gen 3 synths are just too human to be very interesting.

[Klipperken]

I get you, but this clone, would he be aware of what he is?

Would he not think, you would be the clone?

If one is transfered, "copied" into perfection, then who is to say which of one is you?

Would YOU know who it is?

 

Then we get to the argument of: can this copy be seen as just this, a copy?

Ethics.

Moral.

A debate with no end.

 

Some would say, the copy, no matter how perfect, is but mere a copy, and thus not prone for considering it valuable enough to be seen as a being.

Others would severely disagree.

 

What would you do?

 

Let's put this into a different light: What makes you you?

Your body, or the data you hold in your skull?

 

Once you got that figured out, the answer is quite simple.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Klipperken

[JuJooGuppy]

@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.

 

I stated my view, the mind is what defines who we are -- your memories, thoughts, etc. Its what you are. But in order to transfer to another body. You are making a copy of it, even exact. But it is still the COPY. The copy will wake up not noticing any different, but you, as a living being, will be dead. Your copy will be going on. That make sense?

 

Think of it in a modern technological view: If you copied everything on your computer, every single detail, and put it on another computer. The MOMENT you transfer it, while the files are all the same, they are NOT the original files, they are a copy (Yeah, I know, windows PC's wouldnt like this anyway :P)

 

I don't think it will ever be possible to actually "cut and paste" rather than "copy and paste", which is why I say it would mean immortality to your, persona, but death to you as an individual.

 

 

Don't want to get too far off topic though.

[Klipperken]

What is the mind?

Your brain, or the data it holds?

Yes again this question, i know.

 

Already we have long distance/no time copying through identical but reversed atoms, known as Quantum Entanglement.

Still sure we won't ever be able to "Cut'n'Paste, say 200 years from now?

If you would speak of a train going 200 times the speed of a horse, back in the early 1800's, they would not believe you.

 

But right this very moment, Quantum Entanglement IS a fact.

 

Who knows where it will be in 200 years.

 

What seemed entirely not possible back in the early 1800, is not just as impossible now, is it. :smile:

Edited February 1, 2016 by Klipperken

[Moraelin]

@Klipperken:

Actually, there was a very good explanation for that particle speed fluke, and it simply had to do with how well the clocks were synchronized. Because the start and stop time were measured on different clocks. And one was a tiny bit behind the other.

 

Or if you want to go deeper on the science of it, when they moved one, relativity basically says that its speed changed slightly compared to the stationary one. Not enough to matter for your daily clockkeeping, but enough to matter when a nanosecond matters.

 

Yeah, the sensationalist lay media didn't find the news worthy of front page when it just said, "nah, everything's normal". That's not the kind of stuff that sells copies. So you only saw the first announcement making front page, but not the "boring" physics part for either, and especially not the second piece of news.

 

But still, even there, it doesn't mean you couldn't find out what happened. There were enough layperson -- if geeky/nerdy kinda layperson -- sites that explained it. Hell, a basic explanation was even on IT sites like The Register.

 

But if you'll excuse me, I find it pretty damned daft to go on a whole dumb anti-science rant just based on what titles you skimmed from non-science journals. It's not even just that it's an argument from ignorance (you're building an argument from what you DON'T know), or even that it's wilful ignorance (yeah, you don't seem to even try to fix that ignorance before basing stuff on it), it's that it crosses outright into wilful stupidity. Which, no, isn't a valid criticism of science or of anything else.

 

Being too mentally unequipped by half (even in the not knowing the facts department, if anything else) to even know what you're talking about, doesn't mean you win the argument. It means just that: you're just unfit to be making that argument.

 

It doesn't even matter if it's about science, or theology, or Fallout lore, a hypothetical argument about Picard's lightsaber (because, yeah, that's the caliber of the nonsense), or what. It matters that you should be making arguments about stuff you know. Not just based on your not knowing even high-school level stuff, and definitely not based on apparently not even being interested to frikken google it before you throw the mouth in gear about what's wrong with science.

 

Not knowing WTH you're talking about is NOT an argument.