Synth Shaun: Moral Issue?

[jjb54]

Just got the image of Elder Maxson remodeled to be overweight and shouting "SYYNNTHSS!!!" into a mic on the bridge of the Prydwen.

 

This made me :smile:

 

Great image, I think????

[mkborgelt13]

 

Just got the image of Elder Maxson remodeled to be overweight and shouting "SYYNNTHSS!!!" into a mic on the bridge of the Prydwen.

 

This made me :smile:

 

Great image, I think????

 

 

Maxson seems the type. He did get his scar fighting a deathclaw mano-a-mano (or so the scribes say), and that is a kind of reptilian creature...

 

This issue is probably going to be relevant to real-life within a couple of decades. Scientists recently created an artificial neuron. It is well-known in computer science that you can approximate intelligent responsiveness by using an adaptive algorithm.

 

There are actually practical advantages of this research. Our largest computers are intrinsically flawed due to the early nature of their construction and the mathematics used to describe their operation. There are certain algorithms or problems a computer cannot decide, but a human can. So investigating what makes a human "sentient" and "consciousness" is useful to a variety of technological industries.

 

If someone creates a machine that can factor large prime numbers (or something like that) electronic security would be broken, no more RSA encryption, etc. It's kind of scary. The reason this security works is because of this intrinsic flaw in computers, and the math is too voluminous for a human. But... some kind of dark-science hybrid of nerve tissue with the precise constraints of a machine? This sounds very sci-fi and "out there" but it is totally possible to see this kind of research emerging soon.

 

If you think about it, going all the way back, our nervous system is a bio-electric thing, using rapid synapses to convey information... kind of sounds like a computer, if you ask me... a biological computer, of course, but similar in premise.

 

I'm deep into a heady mix of armchair philosophy and post-graduation thoughts so I think I am just gonna walk myself out...

[jjb54]

 

 

Just got the image of Elder Maxson remodeled to be overweight and shouting "SYYNNTHSS!!!" into a mic on the bridge of the Prydwen.

 

This made me :smile:

 

Great image, I think????

 

 

Maxson seems the type. He did get his scar fighting a deathclaw mano-a-mano (or so the scribes say), and that is a kind of reptilian creature...

 

This issue is probably going to be relevant to real-life within a couple of decades. Scientists recently created an artificial neuron. It is well-known in computer science that you can approximate intelligent responsiveness by using an adaptive algorithm.

 

There are actually practical advantages of this research. Our largest computers are intrinsically flawed due to the early nature of their construction and the mathematics used to describe their operation. There are certain algorithms or problems a computer cannot decide, but a human can. So investigating what makes a human "sentient" and "consciousness" is useful to a variety of technological industries.

 

If someone creates a machine that can factor large prime numbers (or something like that) electronic security would be broken, no more RSA encryption, etc. It's kind of scary. The reason this security works is because of this intrinsic flaw in computers, and the math is too voluminous for a human. But... some kind of dark-science hybrid of nerve tissue with the precise constraints of a machine? This sounds very sci-fi and "out there" but it is totally possible to see this kind of research emerging soon.

 

If you think about it, going all the way back, our nervous system is a bio-electric thing, using rapid synapses to convey information... kind of sounds like a computer, if you ask me... a biological computer, of course, but similar in premise.

 

I'm deep into a heady mix of armchair philosophy and post-graduation thoughts so I think I am just gonna walk myself out...

 

 

I'll get a little " heady " with you if you like?

 

Right now I'm writing a Sci-Fi Space Story. The Star Ship has an A.I. and while I was at my doctor's office this week, I was reading about bionic limbs and where they are " today ". Talk about fitting in w/what you posted.

 

It also fits, because the A.I. on the ship, having been created by the alien race that gave it to me, well " he " has no real programing in dealing with Humans. He knows how to relate to and dialog w/the race that created him.

 

So in reading this, I realized, you are correct. It's ' down the road ' and a real " Data " or what ever the 1st Gen's will be like ... we will indeed be ' crossing ' that bridge.

[RattleAndGrind]

 

 

 

 

Is there a difference between Commander Data from ST: TNG and Synths?

 

 

<snip>

 

 

 

No, not really. And the reason is simple. By definition, neither Data nor Synths are living beings. The dead end for both is:

 

Reproduction The ability to reproduce and pass genetic information onto their offspring.

 

Without this ability, even a sentient humaniform machine is just clockworks and battery.

 

 

Your logic doesn't make much sense to me. The page you link to gives a purely technical definition that is meant to separate the animal kingdom from the mineral kingdom, and is not suitable as a basis from which to derive morality. According to your logic, a sterile human being is not deserving of moral considerations.

 

You also ignore the possibility that that definition would be expanded if we had Data-like androids running around. That definition only defines life as we know it, for the purpose of categorizing what currently exists in our sphere of experience, which excludes sentient androids and gen-3 synths. As far as I'm concerned, you are unjustifiably re-purposing that definition to fit your preconceived idea, and you are irrationally hanging on to a technicality that is irrelevant in a world that has non-animal sentient beings.

 

 

Fortunately for me, I am not responsible for your inability to comprehend a simple premise. Neither am I bound by your contortions of my comments so they affirm your lack of understanding. Nor can I be held accountable of your attempts to dismiss a scientific article entitled "Characteristics of living things" because is does not fit what you wish to be true.

 

You may twist the definition of "alive" to include chemical reactions and nuclear explosions and collapsing stars and the rapidly expanding universe and the entirety of the cosmos if it will help you feel better. But such convolutions do not conform to the reality of biology.

 

I look at what exists and contemplate the future based on reality. I do not indulge in flights of fantasy or wishful thinking (not often at least). I do not delve into the fantastic or postulate 'what if' as fact. I eschew the existential and esoteric. You are allowed to do otherwise. When contemplating the future, there should be no limits on ones imagination. However, what one is not allowed to do is violate the laws of physics or the nature of biology.

 

 

>You may twist the definition of "alive" to include chemical reactions and nuclear explosions and collapsing stars and the rapidly expanding universe and the entirety of the cosmos if it will help you feel better.

You're making a caricature of what I said by grossly exaggerating it, effectively putting words in my mouth. My first argument was that your rigid use of a scientific definition to inform your morality is unreasonable, when we're talking about intelligent, sentient, self-aware entities (especially when they're capable of experiencing physical and emotional pain). Apparently it's my second argument you have a problem with here, which states that science has not yet had the chance to seriously consider the issue of artificial life because it doesn't exist at this time, and that the definition of life might be different if there was such a thing as sentient artificial intelligence interacting with the environment through an artificial body. I did not twist any definitions, and I agree that the definition of life that you linked is correct.

 

>I look at what exists and contemplate the future based on reality. I do not indulge in flights of fantasy or wishful thinking (not often at least). I do not delve into the fantastic or postulate 'what if' as fact.

I find that hard to take seriously, when on this thread you just gave your opinion on the morality of a fictional situation that happens in a fictional story set in a fictional universe.

 

>When contemplating the future, there should be no limits on ones imagination. However, what one is not allowed to do is violate the laws of physics or the nature of biology.

OK, but what I've said violates neither the laws of physics, nor the nature of biology. I can't imagine how you figure that it does.

 

 

"rigid use of a scientific definition" - Exactly. It is a definition which is measurable and repeatable, and which is commonly accepted among the scientific community. Any other definition is based on opinion, wishful thing or heartfelt desire. Now, if you wish to change the definition of "alive", I recommend you undertake a course of study which would grant you the scientific credentials to do so. Until then, the current scientific definition is all there is. All of your arguments toward changing the definition of 'alive" to include non-biological machines are contrary to " the nature of biology".

 

Your comment about a sterile human was a caricature of the definition of "alive"? Am I not allowed to respond with literary devices with which you are familiar? Is not your ridicule of that device just a little hypocritical? And I used the exaggeration to give you some insight into the lunacy of you claims. Obviously, that failed.

 

The debate regarding the social status of sentient machines has been ongoing since the days of Alan Turing. It has been addressed in scientific journals and science fiction alike (including games based on science fiction). It is not a new discussion, and I have been participating in the discussion for decades. It is not a flight of fancy to discuss the realities of sentient machines in an environment where such capabilities are quite probable within the next century. It is a subject to be dealt with seriously; with deliberate thought and due diligence. In other words, "I look at what exists and contemplate the future based on reality. I do not indulge in flights of fantasy or wishful thinking (not often at least). I do not delve into the fantastic or postulate 'what if' as fact."

Edited August 14, 2016 by RattleAndGrind

[TheGadget1945]

 

 

Just got the image of Elder Maxson remodeled to be overweight and shouting "SYYNNTHSS!!!" into a mic on the bridge of the Prydwen.

 

This made me :smile:

 

Great image, I think????

 

 

Maxson seems the type. He did get his scar fighting a deathclaw mano-a-mano (or so the scribes say), and that is a kind of reptilian creature...

 

This issue is probably going to be relevant to real-life within a couple of decades. Scientists recently created an artificial neuron. It is well-known in computer science that you can approximate intelligent responsiveness by using an adaptive algorithm.

 

There are actually practical advantages of this research. Our largest computers are intrinsically flawed due to the early nature of their construction and the mathematics used to describe their operation. There are certain algorithms or problems a computer cannot decide, but a human can. So investigating what makes a human "sentient" and "consciousness" is useful to a variety of technological industries.

 

If someone creates a machine that can factor large prime numbers (or something like that) electronic security would be broken, no more RSA encryption, etc. It's kind of scary. The reason this security works is because of this intrinsic flaw in computers, and the math is too voluminous for a human. But... some kind of dark-science hybrid of nerve tissue with the precise constraints of a machine? This sounds very sci-fi and "out there" but it is totally possible to see this kind of research emerging soon.

 

If you think about it, going all the way back, our nervous system is a bio-electric thing, using rapid synapses to convey information... kind of sounds like a computer, if you ask me... a biological computer, of course, but similar in premise.

 

I'm deep into a heady mix of armchair philosophy and post-graduation thoughts so I think I am just gonna walk myself out...

 

 

I remember reading about the German wartime "Enigma" machine that the code was broken because "no machine can produce a random sequence of letters or numbers...there always has to be a pattern".

[greentea101]

"rigid use of a scientific definition" - Exactly. It is a definition which is measurable and repeatable, and which is commonly accepted among the scientific community. Any other definition is based on opinion, wishful thing or heartfelt desire. Now, if you wish to change the definition of "alive", I recommend you undertake a course of study which would grant you the scientific credentials to do so. Until then, the current scientific definition is all there is. All of your arguments toward changing the definition of 'alive" to include non-biological machines are contrary to " the nature of biology".

 

Your comment about a sterile human was a caricature of the definition of "alive"? Am I not allowed to respond with literary devices with which you are familiar? Is not your ridicule of that device just a little hypocritical? And I used the exaggeration to give you some insight into the lunacy of you claims. Obviously, that failed.

 

The debate regarding the social status of sentient machines has been ongoing since the days of Alan Turing. It has been addressed in scientific journals and science fiction alike (including games based on science fiction). It is not a new discussion, and I have been participating in the discussion for decades. It is not a flight of fancy to discuss the realities of sentient machines in an environment where such capabilities are quite probable within the next century. It is a subject to be dealt with seriously; with deliberate thought and due diligence. In other words, "I look at what exists and contemplate the future based on reality. I do not indulge in flights of fantasy or wishful thinking (not often at least). I do not delve into the fantastic or postulate 'what if' as fact."

 

 

You keep ignoring my arguments, and keep responding to imaginary versions of them. For example, you say I want to change the definition of "alive", when my argument is that if the Star Trek or Fallout 4 universes (or approximations of them) were reality, then in that context, science might change the definition of life, not me. Science might expand the definition to include artificial life alongside animal life, while leaving the definition of animal life unchanged (considering the existence of artificial entities in that universe). You could have argued that it wouldn't, giving reasons why you think that, but instead you've been throwing straw man arguments at me. The only thing you've said that even comes close to addressing this point, is mentioning that this debate has been going on for decades in the scientific community, and that was only in your latest reply as I write this.

 

That is just one example of you not hearing me, and I'm not going to go into the rest. Talking to you is like hitting a wall of dogma and contrarianism, and I'm done wasting energy on addressing what you have to say.

[RattleAndGrind]

 

<snip>

 

That is just one example of you not hearing me, and I'm not going to go into the rest. Talking to you is like hitting a wall of dogma and contrarianism, and I'm done wasting energy on addressing what you have to say.

 

Now you know how I felt yesterday. But, I kept the lines of communication open in the hopes that you might actually read and comprehend something which differed from your view. I am now truly sorry for the attempt, because is just wasted both our times.

Edited August 14, 2016 by RattleAndGrind

[greentea101]

I've given up on "discussing" this with RattleAndGrind, so this time I'm going to aim my thoughts in the general direction of the thread readers. To summarize the essence of RattleAndGrind's position, as I understand it and as it relates to the OP's morality question, he's saying that actions that would be immoral when done to a human being are not immoral when done to Synth Shaun and gen-3 synths in general, because gen-3 synths don't meet all the criteria for qualifying as animal life. And since animal life is the only life that current "real-world" science recognizes, then gen-3 synths are technically not alive, and THAT is the single most important factor in determining morality in this scenario, overriding any other considerations.

MY position is that no, there are other considerations that are clearly more important and relevant, such as the fact that gen-3 synths are obviously sentient and experience physical and emotional pain (the game makes that clear enough). To ignore that and instead cling to a technicality is unreasonable to say the least (stronger words I might use are "callous" and "deranged"). I don't know if anyone cares about this at this point, but I wanted to make my position clear.

[mkborgelt13]

@jjb54

Especially if you think of living creatures as a bio-electric computer, with such advanced processes it can regenerate its own cells, and so on. In my opinion, "Consciousness" is actually a very advanced bioelectric circuit which has evolved from millions of years of life-forms on earth. I do not believe in the concept of a soul, nothing which makes living things different from a well-designed machine, other than the sophistocation of the organism. In other words being sentient or conscious does not grant any special rights or unique treatment (all things should be treated well anyway).

When neurologists have a better understanding of the brain it is totally possible to create an interface which converts digital signals into a synaptic pattern which neurons can interpret. Think of the transition from punch cards.

Most of us are already cybernetic things anyway-- in concept. I feel "amputated" when I do not have my phone, for example, as if I lost one of my senses. It is a small step to transcend the input barrier (touch screen, keys, etc) and allow direct access to mind, such as a bionic limb, or artificial eyes. Then I could play Fallout hands-free :)

 

This is what I enjoyed about Automatron, and the Robobrains. AI is a fascinating field. There is a limit approaching infinity to the closeness in approximation, and at that point it is impossible to tell the difference (this is what the Covenant settlers were trying and failing to do).

 

@TheGadget1945

Yes exactly. And in fact, the work on the Enigma machine laid the foundations so to speak for modern computing. The "flaw" I described in my earlier post is a result of using the Turing-model computer as the basis for our modern computers. This study of this problem is called NP-COMPLETE. Basically, some questions a human can answer in a minute, but it would take a computer hundreds of years to reach a decision.

 

What is "random," anyhow? Nobody has the answer to that. A lot of time and effort is spent trying to create a "perfect" RNG, they are technically referred to as "psuedo-RNG" because true randomness is difficult to achieve, which is what you described about the Engima.

[jjb54]

@ mkborgelt13

 

 

When neurologists have a better understanding of the brain it is totally possible to create an interface which converts digital signals into a synaptic pattern which neurons can interpret.

 

Already being done, actually. There have a " bionic eye " - which is working basically what you described above. They also have a " bionic leg / foot and Arm " that are built on the same technology. Nano-carbon fiber optics that relay actual nerve signals .. it is actually rather technically very cool.