Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/7854/ultronsitvq7.gif
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/8486/eradicatorcm4.jpg
http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/4091/visionavengersdi8.gif

In comics, are these and various other synthetic beings alive?

I say no. AI does not equal life imo (though I reserve the right to change my mind)

If they have sentience and sapience, sure why not. Ego's a living planet. Mercury of the New X-Men is made of inorganic (unlike the organic metal of Colossus) mercury, how that works I have no idea.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
If they have sentience and sapience, sure why not. Ego's a living planet. Mercury of the New X-Men is made of inorganic (unlike the organic metal of Colossus) mercury, how that works I have no idea.

I think Mercury's could be considered like Iceman. Her mind just occupies a stockpile of mercury.

Ultron, yes. Eradicator, sorta. Vision, used to be, but not anymore. In Vision's case, it was losing the brain patterns of Wonder Man. I think he's working his way back up. Ultron, for all his hatred of organics, exibits more than enough qualities to be called sentient, but what defines life? Eradicator is a grey area, given his multiple personalities. I'd lean towards yes. Iron Man's sentient armor could be called alive. Same with the phalanx and Apocalypse's ship.

So Vision was alive (before Disassembled) but Eradicator isn't?

Originally posted by marvelprince
I say no. AI does not equal life imo

Why not?

I'd say yes on vision, but Eradicator is dicey. I'm leaning towards yes, but it's hard to tell with him.

We make the mistake of assuming that humans aren't simply insanely complex machines. The emotions, feelings, and responses that supposedly seperate us from machines can literally be equated to little more than electrical synapses firing in our brains.

The material they're made out of is, excuse the pun, immaterial.

So "yes" would be my answer.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
We make the mistake of assuming that humans aren't simply insanely complex machines. The emotions, feelings, and responses that supposedly seperate us from machines can literally be equated to little more than electrical synapses firing in our brains.

The material they're made out of is, excuse the pun, immaterial.

So "yes" would be my answer.

A lot of people would disagree with you there. The Biological definition of consciousness only works in a deterministic universe and doesn't allow for the presence of Free will. In other words you have never made a free choice in you're entire life, and nor has anyone else. Do you honestly believe that Digi ? By suggesting that, you remove the concept of morality, and consequently the ideals of Good and evil, i.e. they are just delusional interpretations of chance and probability. Also established meta physical concepts such as the Spectre, Presence and the soul gems, have to be ignored.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
We make the mistake of assuming that humans aren't simply insanely complex machines. The emotions, feelings, and responses that supposedly seperate us from machines can literally be equated to little more than electrical synapses firing in our brains.

The material they're made out of is, excuse the pun, immaterial.

So "yes" would be my answer. Nicely put, and i agree.

Originally posted by Doctor S.T.D.
A lot of people would disagree with you there. The Biological definition of consciousness only works in a deterministic universe and doesn't allow for the presence of Free will. In other words you have never made a free choice in you're entire life, and nor has anyone else. Do you honestly believe that Digi ? By suggesting that, you remove the concept of morality, and consequently the ideals of Good and evil, i.e. they are just delusional interpretations of chance and probability. Also established meta physical concepts such as the Spectre, Presence and the soul gems, have to be ignored.

Actually, yes. That sounds about right. At least as far as real-life goes...I realize that certain origins, powers, and/or characters may utterly fall apart in comics if such suggestions were accepted, and the characters and stories were written as such.

Originally posted by Doctor S.T.D.
The Biological definition of consciousness only works in a deterministic universe and doesn't allow for the presence of Free will.

Why not?

Originally posted by Scoobless
Why not?

Because if we're nothing more than complex machines, everything we do is entirely deterministic. Each action, word, thought, response, etc. that we make is the direct effect of the causes that preceded it, and nothing more.

It removes any idea of free will and choice that is so prevalent is much of Western society, largely due to religious influence on the subject.

We are biological machines but our actions are not determined by preceding events in our lives ... however they are strongly influenced by them.

Just because people are machines does not mean they can't make choices.

The concept of "machine" that you are using is far too primitive.

Originally posted by Scoobless
We are biological machines but our actions are not determined by preceding events in our lives ... however they are strongly influenced by them.

Just because people are machines does not mean they can't make choices.

The concept of "machine" that you are using is far too primitive.

No, the conept of choice you're using is too vague.

How do you arrive at any choice? Chocolate instead of vanilla, for instance. The causes that preceded it, however random and arbitrary they may seem, force that outcome. If you choose, say, chocolate, the universe would not allow for any other choice other than "chocolate" given the circumstances that preceded the choice....simply because that's the one that happened.

Saying something like "well, I could've chosen vanilla" is false, because if you had chosen vanilla, the causes that preceded it would have allowed for the choice, and we would exist in a differently ordered universe. Thus, "chocolate" affects everything in the universe that follows it, just as everything that that preceded it caused "chocolate" in the first place.

In such a system of thought, choice itself is an illusion. Concepts of choice and free will are themselves determined by causes, and not exempt from determinism.

The choices are already made....or at least they are inevitable. We just don't know what they'll be, thus our continued excitement in life.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
No, the conept of choice you're using is too vague.

How do you arrive at any choice? Chocolate instead of vanilla, for instance. The causes that preceded it, however random and arbitrary they may seem, force that outcome. If you choose, say, chocolate, the universe would not allow for any other choice other than "chocolate" given the circumstances that preceded the choice....simply because that's the one that happened.

Saying something like "well, I could've chosen vanilla" is false, because if you had chosen vanilla, the causes that preceded it would have allowed for the choice, and we would exist in a differently ordered universe. Thus, "chocolate" affects everything in the universe that follows it, just as everything that that preceded it caused "chocolate" in the first place.

In such a system of thought, choice itself is an illusion. Concepts of choice and free will are themselves determined by causes, and not exempt from determinism.

The choices are already made....or at least they are inevitable. We just don't know what they'll be, thus our continued excitement in life.

Basically Chaos Theory, "Everything effects everything else and everything that happens was always going to happen because all the events were always going to have the same effect on one another, leading to the same outcome"

Something like that?

Originally posted by Entity
Basically Chaos Theory, "Everything effects everything else and everything that happens was always going to happen because all the events were always going to have the same effect on one another, leading to the same outcome"

Something like that?

Sure. I'd call it a Unified Field Theory, but it sounds like you're referring to the same thing, or at least a similar concept.

Originally posted by Entity
Basically Chaos Theory, "Everything effects everything else and everything that happens was always going to happen because all the events were always going to have the same effect on one another, leading to the same outcome"

Something like that?

So basically when I say that I will win the tournament and when I do it was always going to happen that way anyways and none of the contestants have a say in the matter

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Sure. I'd call it a Unified Field Theory, but it sounds like you're referring to the same thing, or at least a similar concept.

Yea, I'm not exactly sure how to put it into words (because I am not always great at expressing my exact thoughts in writing) but, I think between what you and I said that should about sum it up enough for others to get what we're saying.

Originally posted by Blair Wind
So basically when I say that I will win the tournament and when I do it was always going to happen that way anyways and none of the contestants have a say in the matter

Precisely. There's only 1 way the tourney can end. We're just finding out which ending that is.

I'd sidetrack this thread with more tourney smack-talk, but this is actually an engrossing discussion, so I'll refrain.

Well, while I disagree with your opinion, you guys can all get excited about the topic. Interesting while it may be, I refuse to believe that everything is pre-arranged and that free will is nothing more than a set of choices already set to happen. Thats my two cents on it

Originally posted by Blair Wind
So basically when I say that I will win the tournament and when I do it was always going to happen that way anyways and none of the contestants have a say in the matter

If you do win... then yes!

but according to this theory whoever wins has always eventually been going to.

Originally posted by Blair Wind
Well, while I disagree with your opinion, you guys can all get excited about the topic. Interesting while it may be, I refuse to believe that everything is pre-arranged and that free will is nothing more than a set of choices already set to happen. Thats my two cents on it

Fair enough, and you're entitled to your opinion.

...

I just can't fathom how anything is somehow "outside" of causality, which is what would need to happen for anything like free will or choice to actually exist.

Nothing in the physical world displays anything of the sort. And while arguments involving spirituality, souls, divine creators, etc. may hold some weight (and I wouldn't openly refute them), we still exist in the physical world and adhere to the same principles as anything else. Our choices are no more "choice" than a pen chooses to fall to the ground if you drop it because of gravitational forces.

...

So back to the topic:

If Vision isn't "alive", neither am I.
And if I'm "alive", so is all of existence.

Broad, I know, but that's my view.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
No, the conept of choice you're using is too vague.

How do you arrive at any choice? Chocolate instead of vanilla, for instance. The causes that preceded it, however random and arbitrary they may seem, force that outcome. If you choose, say, chocolate, the universe would not allow for any other choice other than "chocolate" given the circumstances that preceded the choice....simply because that's the one that happened.

Saying something like "well, I could've chosen vanilla" is false, because if you had chosen vanilla, the causes that preceded it would have allowed for the choice, and we would exist in a differently ordered universe. Thus, "chocolate" affects everything in the universe that follows it, just as everything that that preceded it caused "chocolate" in the first place.

In such a system of thought, choice itself is an illusion. Concepts of choice and free will are themselves determined by causes, and not exempt from determinism.

The choices are already made....or at least they are inevitable. We just don't know what they'll be, thus our continued excitement in life.

if that were the case, it would follow that there is potential for us to at some point 'predict the future' -- ie -- given any set of circumstance, we should be able to accurately predict the outcome of said event if only we can understand the processes involved or find the correct mathematical formula. i disagree with that assessment.

as far as scoob's question: based on current definitions of consciousness and life, i'd say that yes, all those you listed above ARE alive.

nice topic, scoob.

Originally posted by leonidas
if that were the case, it would follow that there is potential for us to at some point 'predict the future' -- ie -- given any set of circumstance, we should be able to accurately predict the outcome of said event if only we can understand the processes involved or find the correct mathematical formula. i disagree with that assessment.

as far as scoob's question: based on current definitions of consciousness and life, i'd say that yes, all those you listed above ARE alive.

nice topic, scoob.

Well, several scientist have agreed that if you could accurately know the path and movement of all electrons in the universe you could possibly predict the entire outcome of all time and space. Past, present and future!

Originally posted by leonidas
if that were the case, it would follow that there is potential for us to at some point 'predict the future' -- ie -- given any set of circumstance, we should be able to accurately predict the outcome of said event if only we can understand the processes involved or find the correct mathematical formula. i disagree with that assessment.

as far as scoob's question: based on current definitions of consciousness and life, i'd say that yes, all those you listed above ARE alive.

nice topic, scoob.

To the predicting the future: yes and no. Allow me to explain...

In theory, if we could, say, make a computer capable of running the infinitely astronomical calculations necessary to "predict the future" we could indeed do just that.

But the very act of predicting the outcome would alter the system in which it was predicted. So if the prediction came out "chocolate", the prediction is instantly invalidated.

Because the outcome may still very well be "chocolate", but it will be from an entirely different set of circumstances than the ones which were used to make the initial prediction. Thus, we'd still have no way of telling whether it would be "chocolate" or "vanilla".

...

A lot of that is paraphrased from an essay I have by some physicist, whose name eludes me right now. But the chocolate/vanilla anaolgy, as well as the actual wording, are my own.

....

And it's not unknown for deterministic systems of thought to arise independant of science. Buddhism, for example, is entirely deterministic in its philosophy.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
To the predicting the future: yes and no. Allow me to explain...

In theory, if we could, say, make a computer capable of running the infinitely astronomical calculations necessary to "predict the future" we could indeed do just that.

But the very act of predicting the outcome would alter the system in which it was predicted. So if the prediction came out "chocolate", the prediction is instantly invalidated.

Unless the act of predicting the future was always part of the original past anyway.

This is what I understand and I have so much trouble explaining to my friends. Like when it comes to movies or TV when people have visions of the future. The times when "visions" so to speak, try to tell people the future but also that there is no changing it. Most people never consider that the very knowledge of this possible future was always part of the said future's past too.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
To the predicting the future: yes and no. Allow me to explain...

In theory, if we could, say, make a computer capable of running the infinitely astronomical calculations necessary to "predict the future" we could indeed do just that.

But the very act of predicting the outcome would alter the system in which it was predicted. So if the prediction came out "chocolate", the prediction is instantly invalidated.

Because the outcome may still very well be "chocolate", but it will be from an entirely different set of circumstances than the ones which were used to make the initial prediction. Thus, we'd still have no way of telling whether it would be "chocolate" or "vanilla".

...

A lot of that is paraphrased from an essay I have by some physicist, whose name eludes me right now. But the chocolate/vanilla anaolgy, as well as the actual wording, are my own.

....

And it's not unknown for deterministic systems of thought to arise independant of science. Buddhism, for example, is entirely deterministic in its philosophy.



that sounds like godel. but godel's theorems don't imply that free will is an impossibility. collections of things, people, electrons, transcend their origin states naturally all the time. emergent phenomena arise from these collections. there is no reason why, given an infinite amount of complexity, that NEW and random effects can't be generated. what is randomness if not something that is infinitely difficult to predict?

So what do you call it if you pick chocolate, but then decide to take vanilla instead or just close the fridge? You're defining the concept of choice and free-will too narrowly. You have to accept the idea of something chosing a previously unthought-of option. For example, if you had a stick in the stone age, you could use it as a club or maybe a pillow or a throwing stick. But what you rub too stick together? You get fire. Does that the fact that fire wasn't a known option mean that you are now outside the known laws of causality? There is causality, but it's not absolute. Take the matrix, 99% accepted it, but it was the random 1% that didn't that turned into a problem for the machines. That 1% is free will. By attempting to suppress free will and defining the concept of choice by only a few options, you ignore the possibility of someone thinking outside the box.

Originally posted by Entity
Unless the act of predicting the future was always part of the original past anyway.

This is what I understand and I have so much trouble explaining to my friends. Like when it comes to movies or TV when people have visions of the future. The times when "visions" so to speak, try to tell people the future but also that there is no changing it. Most people never consider that the very knowledge of this possible future was always part of the said future's past too.

But you couldn't formulate a prediction method that accounts for the prediction itself being a part of the history, because you'd have to know the outcome of your prediction before you made it. Your explanation only works with the TV "visions" and such, not in, say, a laboratory setting.

Originally posted by leonidas


that sounds like godel. but godel's theorems don't imply that free will is an impossibility. collections of things, people, electrons, transcend their origin states naturally all the time. emergent phenomena arise from these collections. there is no reason why, given an infinite amount of complexity, that NEW and random effects can't be generated. what is randomness if not something that is infinitely difficult to predict?

What is random exactly? "Random" is simply things that are beyond our ability to measure and/or predict. It doesn't mean they don't follow rules like anything else.

Originally posted by TricksterPriest
So what do you call it if you pick chocolate, but then decide to take vanilla instead or just close the fridge? You're defining the concept of choice and free-will too narrowly. You have to accept the idea of something chosing a previously unthought-of option. For example, if you had a stick in the stone age, you could use it as a club or maybe a pillow or a throwing stick. But what you rub too stick together? You get fire. Does that the fact that fire wasn't a known option mean that you are now outside the known laws of causality? There is causality, but it's not absolute. Take the matrix, 99% accepted it, but it was the random 1% that didn't that turned into a problem for the machines. That 1% is free will. By attempting to suppress free will and defining the concept of choice by only a few options, you ignore the possibility of someone thinking outside the box.

Actually no. All you're doing is throwing more perceived "choices" into the equation. "Chocolate vs. vanilla" was simply to simplify it down to 2 things. But everything I've described holds true for the infinitely many number of effects that happen in each instant. So yes, closing the fridge, switching your choice of ice cream, one molecule going one way instead of another, etc. is all still within the laws of causality.

And did you really just try to use the Matrix as a discussion point?


....


This is always fun because most of the people in the English-speaking world are so firmly entrenched in a free will philosophy because it's just ingrained within our culture. Your opinions are certainly valid, but too often I run into people who refuse to consider that free will might be a complete illusion simply because they don't want to force themselves to think that way. Usually their logic is completely unsound, but at least it makes sense to them.

That's not quite the case here (this is an interesting discussion) but it's something I see a lot, since I've had similar talks with friends and family and such.

Oh I agree. But it's partly because of the uncertainty principle. People aren't willing to live with having unknowns. They seek to define things even if they can't be properly defined. And by doing so, they lock themselves into a thought pattern.

Yes, I admit it, I tried to use the matrix. It was the exact kind of thing that they were talking about in the 2nd and 3rd movies. Which kind of shows how this discussion could go. I like the topic, but ultimately, aren't we just going to get so far into it that we sound like Matrix: Reloaded?

Originally posted by TricksterPriest
Oh I agree. But it's partly because of the uncertainty principle. People aren't willing to live with having unknowns. They seek to define things even if they can't be properly defined. And by doing so, they lock themselves into a thought pattern.

Yes, I admit it, I tried to use the matrix. It was the exact kind of thing that they were talking about in the 2nd and 3rd movies. Which kind of shows how this discussion could go. I like the topic, but ultimately, aren't we just going to get so far into it that we sound like Matrix: Reloaded?

Probably. I didn't like the movies at all, but I'm honestly probably more in accord with "The Source" (the dude in the chair) and the Oracle than Neo, philosophically at least.

Hey, not to venture too far off of the theoretical physics but Digi's talk about Western ideas of free will and consciousness and such relates very much to this.

In neuro psychology, they have recently found that the brain prepares for an action long (in brain terms) before an individual becomes consciously aware of it. So, as you read this, however you respond consciously has already been set into motion and pre planned by your unconscious mind.

Further, consciousness has become an almost enigmatic concept that refers more to a "binding problem" then a real entity as most philosophy would put it. Explaining consciousness is more explaining how certain regions of the brain work to produce different neural signals which are combined together to form our experience. There is no "centre of consciousness" in the brain, and no single part responsible for "free will" or any such notion, but rather very specialized parts that, when working together, produce this experience that we have historically referred to as the "self".

And I recommend the book "The Meme Machine" by Susan Blackmore

Originally posted by inamilist
Hey, not to venture too far off of the theoretical physics but Digi's talk about Western ideas of free will and consciousness and such relates very much to this.

In neuro psychology, they have recently found that the brain prepares for an action long (in brain terms) before an individual becomes consciously aware of it. So, as you read this, however you respond consciously has already been set into motion and pre planned by your unconscious mind.

Further, consciousness has become an almost enigmatic concept that refers more to a "binding problem" then a real entity as most philosophy would put it. Explaining consciousness is more explaining how certain regions of the brain work to produce different neural signals which are combined together to form our experience. There is no "centre of consciousness" in the brain, and no single part responsible for "free will" or any such notion, but rather very specialized parts that, when working together, produce this experience that we have historically referred to as the "self".

And I recommend the book "The Meme Machine" by Susan Blackmore

Good stuff. And it probably supports my argument here, though I won't make that claim without proper knowledge of it.

It's also scary how closely that resembles Buddhist thought (which I've mentioned once already, go figure). The "self" doesn't exist to them, and the path to this realization is a large part of the road toward enlightenment.

An ideological difference, to be sure, probably as much so as any scientific difference in philosophies.

Who cares if technically there is no free will?if it is pre-ordained it still feels to us like we made the choice doesn't it?What i don't like is how some people have got together to try and make it feel like we have as little control over our own actions as we do over the rest of the world,if you presented this evidence to a person who suffers depression do you reaslly think they would keep putting off that suicide if they feel that it has always been their ultimate destiny.

Ultron will never really die

He's like Iron Man in FF: The End, just destroying his body doesn't kill him, it will only transfer to another elsewhere

The real Vision is dead. Now we have this bland YA vision

Seriously, bring back Iron Lad and the REAL Vision

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Good stuff. And it probably supports my argument here, though I won't make that claim without proper knowledge of it.

It's also scary how closely that resembles Buddhist thought (which I've mentioned once already, go figure). The "self" doesn't exist to them, and the path to this realization is a large part of the road toward enlightenment.

An ideological difference, to be sure, probably as much so as any scientific difference in philosophies.

It defiantly supports the idea that we don't have free will in the conventional sense.

Its not as absolute as the sort of atomistic determinism you were talking about, because human behavior is still variable, only based primarily on factors that occur before conscious awareness. For instance, the part of your brain that emotionally processes incoming stimuli (generally speaking) processes information before you become consciously aware of it, and sometimes processes stimuli you aren't even consciously aware of. However, in the Western world, we are so attached to the concept of the inner "self" we attribute these feelings to a justified intellectual process that gives us a sense of ownership over it which makes these findings almost counter intuitive to some. I can remember coming out of Cognitive Psyche lectures with students just denying what they had just heard because they still needed to think they had free will.

Blackmore's Book talks about that exact same connection to Buddhism that science is discovering. As far as introspection and understanding of how consciousness might work from and experiential level, the eastern philosophies are so much further ahead than the western ones are. However, there are some parts of Buddhist mythology I obviously wouldn't claim have any place in science. I believe Sam Harris is doing Neurological work with Tibetan Monks to see what could possibly be learned from them in an empirical sense.

There is also the evolutionary consideration. Our minds are only as conscious as was necessary for those of us with this level to reproduce more and those with a little bit lower level to reproduce less. It is argued that the intense socialization of early man, especially with the invention of language, would have been what pushed for some type of reflexive thought, but only what was necessary, as neural development is very costly from a body resource perspective. Not that this undermines free will, but it again demystifies the idea of "us" as this special thing that exists, peering out through our eyes that reflects and makes choices. It refers to conscious thought as more of a tool or survival technique in an environment that demanded increasingly more complex social interaction.

bleh, I will desist in the rambling.

i read an article on exactly what you're talking about inamilist. but even that in itself does not preclude free will. it simply says that are brains are capable of gathering and processing information more quickly than we thought, and more quickly than we can perceive. there is also nothing that says the brain was preparing for one specific choice over another. least i don't believe there is.

if something is infinitely difficult to predict (ie -- truly random), can we say a rule can possibly exist to predict it?

either way, whether free will is an illusion or not, it makes no difference to us, aside from creating a mind-set in which we live. i've never really understood why people would choose to accept that every thing is already determined. that implies nothing is novel, or ever will be novel. it leads to one thinking why bother agonizing over any decision -- why take time to think things through and consider options? just seems . . . depressing to me.

no offense, digi . . .

Originally posted by inamilist
I can remember coming out of Cognitive Psyche lectures with students just denying what they had just heard because they still needed to think they had free will.

I've noticed the same, though in less academic environments.

Originally posted by inamilist
However, there are some parts of Buddhist mythology I obviously wouldn't claim have any place in science.

Absolutely.

Originally posted by leonidas
if something is infinitely difficult to predict (ie -- truly random), can we say a rule can possibly exist to predict it?

I'd argue that no such randomness exists. We used to refer to things being "magic" but it was really just what we couldn't explain. And now we have uncertainty principles, random values, and the like to describe similar phenomenon. But, despite the uncertainty principle, a particle will follow a definite path. The uncertainty principle simply says we can never precisely measure it, but not that it isn't adhering to a set of rules.

Originally posted by leonidas
either way, whether free will is an illusion or not, it makes no difference to us, aside from creating a mind-set in which we live.

Right. In a conventional sense it doesn't mean much, but it's just a shift in perspective.

Originally posted by leonidas
just seems . . . depressing to me.

no offense, digi . . .

None taken. And to be honest, my feelings on this way of thinking were similar when I first started to adopt it, so I know we're you're coming from.

But again, all it takes is a shift in consciousness and/or prespective to see it as something that is liberating rather than binding, and natural rather than depressing and unnatural.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
No, the conept of choice you're using is too vague.

How do you arrive at any choice? Chocolate instead of vanilla, for instance. The causes that preceded it, however random and arbitrary they may seem, force that outcome. If you choose, say, chocolate, the universe would not allow for any other choice other than "chocolate" given the circumstances that preceded the choice....simply because that's the one that happened.

Saying something like "well, I could've chosen vanilla" is false, because if you had chosen vanilla, the causes that preceded it would have allowed for the choice, and we would exist in a differently ordered universe. Thus, "chocolate" affects everything in the universe that follows it, just as everything that that preceded it caused "chocolate" in the first place.

In such a system of thought, choice itself is an illusion. Concepts of choice and free will are themselves determined by causes, and not exempt from determinism.

The choices are already made....or at least they are inevitable. We just don't know what they'll be, thus our continued excitement in life.

That is merely a belief.

It is based on the concept of something that can't be disproved rather than something that can be proved and is, by definition, unscientific.

________________


*A & B are at the movies ... B is enjoying his chocolate ice-cream*


A. "You chose chocolate because the universe wanted you to"

B. "really? .... but what if I had chosen vanilla?"

A. "well then that would've been because the universe would have decided you would choose vanilla"

B. "so no matter what I had done you're saying it's because of an unseen force that no one can actually prove"

A. "Um .............. I would've chosen strawberry"

________________

No offence to anyone's beliefs .... you can all worship a giant space worm for all I care.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Fair enough, and you're entitled to your opinion.

...

I just can't fathom how anything is somehow "outside" of causality, which is what would need to happen for anything like free will or choice to actually exist.

Nothing in the physical world displays anything of the sort. .

Um mm sorry Digi buts thats completely and utterly false. Electrons and other quantum particles violate causality ALL the time. Thanks to the development of quantum theory in the early 20th century, the deterministic perspective of the universe is all but nonexistent now.

eradicator is definatley alive.cuz the program invaded some poor sap and erased his baseline dna, and his mind and overwrote it with kryptonian...the same that brainiac has been wet dreaming about doing to superman and almost did to doomsday

Um mm sorry Digi buts thats completely and utterly false. Electrons and other quantum particles violate causality ALL the time. Thanks to the development of quantum theory in the early 20th century, the deterministic perspective of the universe is all but nonexistent now(although many wish it was).

This is especially applicable when you consider the fact that our universe was once a LOT smaller than a electron, and therefore susepctible to quantum effects that violate CAUSALITY. Infact it has been debated since the 5th centuary whether or not causality is actually as big a delusion as Free Will. I.e. its the way in which our brain percieves Entropy(The process of time moving forward), allowing us to utilize contingency (Cause and effect) me to survive. E.G. i will eat this food (The cause) and it will give me energy to survive (The effect). Its known that this process of entropy brakes down at the quantum level (The very small, atoms and electrons) therefore why should it apply to the visible universe ?

Originally posted by Doctor S.T.D.
Um mm sorry Digi buts thats completely and utterly false. Electrons and other quantum particles violate causality ALL the time. Thanks to the development of quantum theory in the early 20th century, the deterministic perspective of the universe is all but nonexistent now(although many wish it was).

This is especially applicable when you consider the fact that our universe was once a LOT smaller than a electron, and therefore susepctible to quantum effects that violate CAUSALITY. Infact it has been debated since the 5th centuary whether or not causality is actually as big a delusion as Free Will. I.e. its the way in which our brain percieves Entropy(The process of time moving forward), allowing us to utilize contingency (Cause and effect) me to survive. E.G. i will eat this food (The cause) and it will give me energy to survive (The effect). Its known that this process of entropy brakes down at the quantum level (The very small, atoms and electrons) therefore why should it apply to the visible universe ?

I'm familiar with quantum mechanics, at least in layman's terms.

It doesn't necessarily invalidate determinism, but merely states that we can't accurately measure quantum effects (because of the uncertainty principle).

And while I've never asserted that total causality exists, I stand firmly by the assertion that what most people consider to be "free will" is nothing of the sort. I'll use the anaolgy again, that any choice we make is no more a choice than a pen "chooses" to fall to ground when it's been dropped due to gravitational forces.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'm familiar with quantum mechanics, at least in layman's terms.

It doesn't necessarily invalidate determinism, but merely states that we can't accurately measure quantum effects (because of the uncertainty principle).


It is, when you consider Schroedinger's cat (Which I'm sure you are familiar of), causality gets thrown out the window when you consider the collapse of wave functions and the SPONTANEOUS appearance of particles in the vacuum of space, or in layman's terms (Zero Point energy). The key word being SPONtANEOUS in that sentence.

from digi's pov, that can all be explained away easily -- we just haven't yet figured out the rules that bind these seemingly 'spontaneous' events.



schroedinger's cat doesn't really support EITHER view, imo. afterall, it's up to the universe to decide whether we open the box, or not. right digi . . .?

i do agree with the, erm, 'doctor', though. quantum mechanics seems to throw quite a large fly in the ointment of determinism. things like action at a distance seem to negate all the laws that atomistic physics seems to pride itself on. even inflation -- where the universe apparently expended at a rate FASTER than light -- seems to break the commonly held rules of causality.

once again i fall back on emergent phenomena. increase complexity to a certain level and spontaneous, emergent events can and have occurred.

in other words, i like to think we are -- all of us -- MORE than the sum of our parts.

Did you clear that statement with King leonidas?

Originally posted by leonidas
i read an article on exactly what you're talking about inamilist. but even that in itself does not preclude free will. it simply says that are brains are capable of gathering and processing information more quickly than we thought, and more quickly than we can perceive. there is also nothing that says the brain was preparing for one specific choice over another. least i don't believe there is.

Aside from some really messed up work done in the past couple of years where they have predicted movement in monkeys by monitoring brain activity, no, there is no way in accurately determining what people will do sometimes.

However, there are many things about behavior that are predictable. Social psychology has some really interesting findings, however, no, there is nothing that really is 100% predictable.

I guess the best argument that can pose against free will would be more along these lines; Free will supposes that there is someone inside of us making those choices, it almost assumes a duality between brain and mind. There have been no findings in neuroscience that support that though. There is no centre of the brain that makes these yes or no choices, it is a continuous flow of activity moving from one subconsciously preplanned action onto the next.

The control we do seem to have is linked to the inhibition of actions. when we get consious awareness of our subconsious processess, there is a small window of opportunity for us to suppress their action. From an evolutionary standpoint this can be explained in light of intense socialization. To mate, it would have become more and more necessary to inhibit natural urges and act "civilized".

It doesn't rule out some form of free will, other than to say the whole concept is not in line with scientific findings.

Originally posted by leonidas
if something is infinitely difficult to predict (ie -- truly random), can we say a rule can possibly exist to predict it?

Things that are infinitely difficult to predict are unscientific. The fate of every atom in the universe may be something just like that. I don't know if it will ever be possible for humans to comprehend that.

Originally posted by leonidas
either way, whether free will is an illusion or not, it makes no difference to us, aside from creating a mind-set in which we live. i've never really understood why people would choose to accept that every thing is already determined. that implies nothing is novel, or ever will be novel. it leads to one thinking why bother agonizing over any decision -- why take time to think things through and consider options? just seems . . . depressing to me.

I find studying the brain to be the most rewarding thing I have ever done. Regardless of what conceptions of the world I may have to abandon, its so incredible to understand how we work.

There are over 150 billion cells in the brain, and more connections between them than stars in our galaxy.

Originally posted by leonidas
no offense, digi . . .

I'm offended

Originally posted by leonidas
from digi's pov, that can all be explained away easily -- we just haven't yet figured out the rules that bind these seemingly 'spontaneous' events.



schroedinger's cat doesn't really support EITHER view, imo. afterall, it's up to the universe to decide whether we open the box, or not. right digi . . .?

i do agree with the, erm, 'doctor', though. quantum mechanics seems to throw quite a large fly in the ointment of determinism. things like action at a distance seem to negate all the laws that atomistic physics seems to pride itself on. even inflation -- where the universe apparently expended at a rate FASTER than light -- seems to break the commonly held rules of causality.

once again i fall back on emergent phenomena. increase complexity to a certain level and spontaneous, emergent events can and have occurred.

in other words, i like to think we are -- all of us -- MORE than the sum of our parts.


Nice.

Originally posted by inamilist
Aside from some really messed up work done in the past couple of years where they have predicted movement in monkeys by monitoring brain activity, no, there is no way in accurately determining what people will do sometimes.

ironically, we can predict the behavior of groups to a MUCH higher degree than we can predict the behavior of any one individual. some of taken to using group predictions to make decisions, the theory being that while any singular prediction may be wrong, the group itself will negate these single errors. it's kind of a fascinating idea but it think the jury is still out on just how well it works.



you are MORE than welcome to your opinion. i just find the idea of a determined universe very . . . limiting. why do anything if, regardless of what we do, it's already determined? scoob also raised an excellent point above in his post that fits nicely with my personal feelings on the matter. and neuroscience is still an emerging field, with new findings all the time. beyond that, many in the field itself believe in the idea of free will. searle and turing, (i believe . . . it's been a while since my cognitive neruopsych classes . . .) to name a couple of giants.



not as we currently understand them, anyway . . .



nor will we perhaps ever understanding how a biological life form like ourselves could evolve free will.



i studied neuroscience at university as well, and should have stayed with the field. an unwillingness to move and a lack of money dictated i go into teaching. if i could do it again i would have pursued the area. it was the a truly awesome field to study.

Originally posted by leonidas
from digi's pov, that can all be explained away easily -- we just haven't yet figured out the rules that bind these seemingly 'spontaneous' events.



schroedinger's cat doesn't really support EITHER view, imo. afterall, it's up to the universe to decide whether we open the box, or not. right digi . . .?

Now wait a second. Let's not pigeon-hole me quite that much.

Anyway, as for Schrodinger, yes the emergent phenomenon and uncertainly with the cat (or anything else) throws an interesting loop into strict determinism.

It's something called an "unknown variable theory" that suggests that certain forces may be inherently unpredictable and/or random, but still within the realm of causality. "Random" itself may be included in the equation, and simply beyond our ability to ever understand or predict. Sketchy? Probably. Able to account for, say, the random appearence of particles in space or the >> light speeds of the supposed Big Bang? Maybe not. I can't say I'm enough of an expert on the subject to make a definitive judgement.

My initial point (taking it back to Scoob's original topic) is simply that peoples' idea of "self" or consciousness, or conepts like choice and free will, are much less romantic than most would believe, and in my opinion completely illusory except for accepted conventions of societal norms. The idea of "me" can be broken down to electrical impulses no different than any machine, albeit an insanely complex machine capable of self-awareness.

Whether or not this includes absolute determinism I won't touch any more, because you guys make some interesting points that I'm not sure I can totally refute (though I'm more than happy to admit such). But our behaviors, largely at least, are as controlled and predictable as benign physical occurences that we take for granted (like my pen analogy).

Originally posted by leonidas
ironically, we can predict the behavior of groups to a MUCH higher degree than we can predict the behavior of any one individual. some of taken to using group predictions to make decisions, the theory being that while any singular prediction may be wrong, the group itself will negate these single errors. it's kind of a fascinating idea but it think the jury is still out on just how well it works.

you are MORE than welcome to your opinion. i just find the idea of a determined universe very . . . limiting. why do anything if, regardless of what we do, it's already determined? scoob also raised an excellent point above in his post that fits nicely with my personal feelings on the matter. and neuroscience is still an emerging field, with new findings all the time. beyond that, many in the field itself believe in the idea of free will. searle and turing, (i believe . . . it's been a while since my cognitive neruopsych classes . . .) to name a couple of giants.

nor will we perhaps ever understanding how a biological life form like ourselves could evolve free will.

You are compleatly right, as far as the absolute answer to free will, the jury is still out. It'd be something I'd love to be involved in the research of, although very hard to pin down.

Its these mysteries that make life so wonderful. Great arguments and great discussion, DANKE!

Oh, and a quick note on Schroedinger's cat... I don't even think Schroedinger himself would have postulated those ideas... The cat in the box, as a philosophical concept, has for the most part been taken out of context.

A lot of quantum physics is based on predictable results, but the mechanisms behind those results are not yet known. Any extrapolation from there, even the assumption that observing a phenomena alters it, are not "scientific" as they have not been tested.

A great article from the Skeptical Inquirer talks about this at length, and why quantum theory isn't necessarily so crazy. The problem is, we have no context that comes close to accurately explaining the phenomena we observe, so it allows for ANY reasonable explanation.

Like the article says: "Its hardly headline news for a Physicist to come out and say that, in response to the question of how everything in the universe works, the answer is I don't know"

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Now wait a second. Let's not pigeon-hole me quite that much.

Anyway, as for Schrodinger, yes the emergent phenomenon and uncertainly with the cat (or anything else) throws an interesting loop into strict determinism.

It's something called an "unknown variable theory" that suggests that certain forces may be inherently unpredictable and/or random, but still within the realm of causality. "Random" itself may be included in the equation, and simply beyond our ability to ever understand or predict. Sketchy? Probably. Able to account for, say, the random appearence of particles in space or the >> light speeds of the supposed Big Bang? Maybe not. I can't say I'm enough of an expert on the subject to make a definitive judgement.

My initial point (taking it back to Scoob's original topic) is simply that peoples' idea of "self" or consciousness, or conepts like choice and free will, are much less romantic than most would believe, and in my opinion completely illusory except for accepted conventions of societal norms. The idea of "me" can be broken down to electrical impulses no different than any machine, albeit an insanely complex machine capable of self-awareness.

Whether or not this includes absolute determinism I won't touch any more, because you guys make some interesting points that I'm not sure I can totally refute (though I'm more than happy to admit such). But our behaviors, largely at least, are as controlled and predictable as benign physical occurences that we take for granted (like my pen analogy).



Originally posted by inamilist
You are compleatly right, as far as the absolute answer to free will, the jury is still out. It'd be something I'd love to be involved in the research of, although very hard to pin down.

Its these mysteries that make life so wonderful. Great arguments and great discussion, DANKE!

Oh, and a quick note on Schroedinger's cat... I don't even think Schroedinger himself would have postulated those ideas... The cat in the box, as a philosophical concept, has for the most part been taken out of context.

A lot of quantum physics is based on predictable results, but the mechanisms behind those results are not yet known. Any extrapolation from there, even the assumption that observing a phenomena alters it, are not "scientific" as they have not been tested.

A great article from the Skeptical Inquirer talks about this at length, and why quantum theory isn't necessarily so crazy. The problem is, we have no context that comes close to accurately explaining the phenomena we observe, so it allows for ANY reasonable explanation.

Like the article says: "Its hardly headline news for a Physicist to come out and say that, in response to the question of how everything in the universe works, the answer is I don't know"



nice discussion gents.

*last-minute entry*

In order to answer whether an artificial character is alive or not, one first has to operationally define what one means by life. But before we even get to that, I will assume that since we are dealing with comic-book characters, we would define life within a comic-book context.

That said, may I remind everyone that in the comic-book universe, things like mysticism, magic and the supernatural are just as real as the laws of physics. Thus: 'immortal souls' can be taken as fact.

Therefore: a character is alive if it has a soul. No soul = at best, an excellent simulacrum of a living thing.

Originally posted by Mindship


That said, may I remind everyone that in the comic-book universe, things like mysticism, magic and the supernatural are just as real as the laws of physics. Thus: 'immortal souls' can be taken as fact.

Therefore: a character is alive if it has a soul. No soul = at best, an excellent simulacrum of a living thing.

Agreed, as i mentioned previously in my post. Souls are regularly made reference to, in all comics including the more realistic ones.

So how do you decide if someone has a soul or not?

Originally posted by Scoobless
That is merely a belief.

It is based on the concept of something that can't be disproved rather than something that can be proved and is, by definition, unscientific.

Just like God (One of the most contraversal debate topics of all time) right?

Originally posted by Entity
Just like God (One of the most contraversal debate topics of all time) right?

Pretty much.

It's all more a question of faith than science.

Originally posted by Scoobless
Pretty much.

It's all more a question of faith than science.

I am a man of science but, I do agree with what your saying in that respect.

Originally posted by Scoobless
So how do you decide if someone has a soul or not?
In the comic world, in-panel evidence, I suppose. Has it ever been stated, for example, that Ultron has a soul? If so, we can say he's alive. If it's never been stated...the question in his case may be unanswerable, or at best, inferred with a margin for error.

Who would state that that is an expert on the subject? ... Dr Strange is about the only person who may know and I don't think he's ever met Ultron.

A lot of people are called "soulless" even though they are humans or superhumans, that's more just a reflection of their actions than a comment on their actual soul (or lack thereof)

Originally posted by Scoobless
Who would state that that is an expert on the subject? ... Dr Strange is about the only person who may know and I don't think he's ever met Ultron.
Ultron was just an example. But what about someone like Thor? I would imagine that he (using Mjolner) or anyone with powers which are magical/mystical/supernatural could detect the presence of a soul.

A lot of people are called "soulless" even though they are humans or superhumans, that's more just a reflection of their actions than a comment on their actual soul (or lack thereof)
Agreed.

hmm, a good point.

perhaps they WOULDN'T be considered alive, after all . . .

damn, now i don't know. thanks ms, who asked you to join this discussion anyway!

Chaos theory is nothing like it has been described in this thread lol. Read Glicks Chaos it has nothing to do with predestination, lol. From Jacques Hadamard, Pierre Duhem and the father of the Chaos theory, Henri Poincere you will find it is to do with the idea of chance being the determining factor in dynamic systems because of some factor in the beginning that we didn't know about. This is the basis of the mathematics behind Mandelbrot and Julia sets. Chaos and predestination hilarious.

Back to topic, can a machine be alive? Not so far! Unless you go down the route of organisms as biological machines. Which is always interesting and dates back to Leonardo Da vinci. Posthumanism..............hmmm................................. That's the phrase you're all looking for.
Vernor Vinge and the Singularity..............hmmmmm..................
Can machines be alive in fiction? Of course, can a machine have compassion or show emotion? We really have no way of knowing until one does, Vinge's ideas are perhaps the most famous on how this might come about.

By Crom!

Originally posted by leonidas
hmm, a good point.

perhaps they WOULDN'T be considered alive, after all . . .

damn, now i don't know. thanks ms, who asked you to join this discussion anyway!



Someone very wise, who reminded me to think inside the comic box.
cheers

Originally posted by Mindship
Someone very wise, who reminded me to think inside the comic box.
cheers

yeah, well . . . now we're even.


thumbsup

He was talking about me ....

Originally posted by Scoobless
Do just on occasion randomly start to bump your threads for the fun of it

I was looking for one in particular then noticed a few others that could still have some life in them (no pun intended ..... honest .... )

Originally posted by Scoobless
I was looking for one in particular then noticed a few others that could still have some life in them (no pun intended ..... honest .... ) Sure


Anyways by comic book standards I think it deals more with how they interact with the input we know all synthetic beings receive.

In short can they make unconditioned responses from conditioned input. Meaning can they self-expand their initial perimeters.

Or can they not do anything past their programming perimeters.

Originally posted by Newjak
Sure


Anyways by comic book standards I think it deals more with how they interact with the input we know all synthetic beings receive.

In short can they make unconditioned responses from conditioned input. Meaning can they self-expand their initial perimeters.

Or can they not do anything past their programming perimeters.

This is going to be hard for me to vocalize without sounding very circular, but here goes;

It isn't as cut and dry as you say here. There is a distinction that can be made between computers that are created to be artificially intelligent, and those that spontaneously spark artificial intelligence.

The ones that are created with the intention of being artificially intelligent are programmed to expand their own programming, so to speak. Hence, by going past their programmed instructions, they are following their programmed instructions, if you get my meaning.

Originally posted by Scoobless
I was looking for one in particular then noticed a few others that could still have some life in them (no pun intended ..... honest .... )

That's awful

Originally posted by Soljer
This is going to be hard for me to vocalize without sounding very circular, but here goes;

It isn't as cut and dry as you say here. There is a distinction that can be made between computers that are created to be artificially intelligent, and those that spontaneously spark artificial intelligence.

The ones that are created with the intention of being artificially intelligent are programmed to expand their own programming, so to speak. Hence, by going past their programmed instructions, they are following their programmed instructions, if you get my meaning. I understand what you mean.

That is why I added the Unconditional responses to input.

For instance Vision falling in love with someone. It is an unconditional response why because there exists no emotional or biological link to set stimuli or the response.

It happens outside of the programming of what they can execute or what they can learn to execute.

Ok let me try to say this without sounding circular either. Ok now you use the example of A.I. designed to expand their initial perimeters. In short they can adept.

Ok but what I was getting at is a true A.I., even an adapting A.I. can only generate one response to input, and then they can only base it off that input without other options being viable.

Ok let's say we have an A.I. its initial programming does not include anything about guns. It primary programming is to go out into the world and learn and expand from there. Also that it can not hurt humans.

Then it meets someone with a gun but it shoots the AI. Well that AI would expand its programming to state humans with guns can hurt AI. Now the input is that guns hurt but it came from a human.

Would it expand it programming to hurt the human or would it simply run. A Machine would choose one or other as the viable option to the input given to it.

Either way it expanded it's programing either by choosing to run from the input of guns or disregard initial programming and carry on new programming.

Well ok but here is something what if it instead decides to expand and add both. Once again referring to Vision. At least one version would run from, say a bunch of misguided police, thinking he was bad. Yet he would disarm a bad guy looting a bank because he is waving a gun at a kid.

There is no emotional or biological response to that input a true thinking AI would only adopt one way or the other as the conditioned response to that input. A, I'll say weird AI, would consider that the Input can generate different responses in different circumstances from the same Input and that is something that simply can not be programmed in or taught it.


This may not be enough to constitute life but it is human thinking and if an AI could be considered alive I think that would be a very important step.

Originally posted by Newjak
I understand what you mean.

That is why I added the Unconditional responses to input.

For instance Vision falling in love with someone. It is an unconditional response why because there exists no emotional or biological link to set stimuli or the response.

It happens outside of the programming of what they can execute or what they can learn to execute.

Ok let me try to say this without sounding circular either. Ok now you use the example of A.I. designed to expand their initial perimeters. In short they can adept.

Ok but what I was getting at is a true A.I., even an adapting A.I. can only generate one response to input, and then they can only base it off that input without other options being viable.

Ok let's say we have an A.I. its initial programming does not include anything about guns. It primary programming is to go out into the world and learn and expand from there. Also that it can not hurt humans.

Then it meets someone with a gun but it shoots the AI. Well that AI would expand its programming to state humans with guns can hurt AI. Now the input is that guns hurt but it came from a human.

Would it expand it programming to hurt the human or would it simply run. A Machine would choose one or other as the viable option to the input given to it.

Either way it expanded it's programing either by choosing to run from the input of guns or disregard initial programming and carry on new programming.

Well ok but here is something what if it instead decides to expand and add both. Once again referring to Vision. At least one version would run from, say a bunch of misguided police, thinking he was bad. Yet he would disarm a bad guy looting a bank because he is waving a gun at a kid.

There is no emotional or biological response to that input a true thinking AI would only adopt one way or the other as the conditioned response to that input. A, I'll say weird AI, would consider that the Input can generate different responses in different circumstances from the same Input and that is something that simply can not be programmed in or taught it.


This may not be enough to constitute life but it is human thinking and if an AI could be considered alive I think that would be a very important step.

You're talking about the difference, as I noted, between spontaneous artificial intelligence and programmed artificial intelligence - and I hate to give such a short reply to one that seems quite thought out, but I don't have a lot of time, and really - therein lies the rub, so to speak.

You're talking about a limited AI - something way more realistic than the theoretical AI I'm describing. I'm talking about something that was programmed with only the intention of learning, almost like a child. It learns good and bad from whatever 'teaches' it, just like a child. It learns about pain and pleasure (assuming said computer is fitted with receptors for both inputs) the same as a child.

I'm not talking about an adapting robot. I'm talking about THE adapting robot - an entirely artificial analogue to a human being.

Originally posted by Soljer
You're talking about the difference, as I noted, between spontaneous artificial intelligence and programmed artificial intelligence - and I hate to give such a short reply to one that seems quite thought out, but I don't have a lot of time, and really - therein lies the rub, so to speak.

You're talking about a limited AI - something way more realistic than the theoretical AI I'm describing. I'm talking about something that was programmed with only the intention of learning, almost like a child. It learns good and bad from whatever 'teaches' it, just like a child. It learns about pain and pleasure (assuming said computer is fitted with receptors for both inputs) the same as a child.

I'm not talking about an adapting robot. I'm talking about THE adapting robot - an entirely artificial analogue to a human being. It's ok.

I described both a realistic AI and your theoretical.

In fact that is what I described my weird AI.

Here is where I think we kind of miss each other.

where you think that because it was programmed to learn like a human it is therefore still AI. Thats fine that is exactly what my wired AI is.

Now comes the question if that weird AI capable of making conscious decisions like a human then could they not be treated like a human being.

Now does that grant them life maybe not but then again I feel the only way to find out if an AI could have life is if it thought like a human being. Being that it can make unconditioned responses to stimuli like a human can.

But one could just as easily argue that a human doesn't make unconditioned choices. One could very easily argue that everything we do is already predetermined by the actions that preceded them.

Originally posted by Soljer
But one could just as easily argue that a human doesn't make unconditioned choices. One could very easily argue that everything we do is already predetermined by the actions that preceded them. Umm I'm not arguing for that whole thing a few pages back. That is a completely different topic.

I'm just saying that if a Robot could be considered alive it would have to think and act like a human being able to even overturn its own programming.

That is the only way to really begin to think it is alive.

Originally posted by Newjak
Umm I'm not arguing for that whole thing a few pages back. That is a completely different topic.

I'm just saying that if a Robot could be considered alive it would have to think and act like a human being able to even overturn its own programming.

That is the only way to really begin to think it is alive.

Oh, well, fair enough.

Originally posted by Soljer
Oh, well, fair enough. I know because a Robot will never have the formal definition of being alive.

Like you know being made up of cells.

Therefore if Robots can live there has to be a stepping stone where we could judge such a thing.

Think like Matrix AIs

Depends on how you define "alive"

You guys want to know something funny?

The reason Scoob originally made this thread was in an attempt to show that robotic stuff was as much "alive" as we are, so that we'd have more freedom with Space Phantom in the last partner tourney.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
You guys want to know something funny?

The reason Scoob originally made this thread was in an attempt to show that robotic stuff was as much "alive" as we are, so that we'd have more freedom with Space Phantom in the last partner tourney.

Sneaky guys getting other people to do your work for you

.... not the only time it happened either.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=439983

whistling

Yeah, the underhanded debating techniques were hilarious. I remember specifically quoting DC from that thread in order to use his own words against him so that they couldn't object to Cpt. Universe Thor

Originally posted by DarkCrawler
At least 100x.

These guys are stated to be alive...

http://cache.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/johnny5x.jpg

http://jablaii.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/optimus-prime.jpg

Originally posted by Avlon
These guys are stated to be alive...

http://cache.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/johnny5x.jpg

http://jablaii.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/optimus-prime.jpg

Optimus Prime: Turing Tested, Mother Approved

Originally posted by Endless Mike
Depends on how you define "alive"

I liked Picards defence of Data in that one episode of ST:TNG, he based his arguments on whether or not the machine was self aware..