Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I would become what I always wanted to be, a supervillian

The only question I have is, how would that impact my life of crime?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Asherian, some of us have had broken bones, open-heart surgery, DNA tests and children. If a machine can do all those things and pass for human, then it is a goddam human. I've met people on the bus who're less identifiably human.

Yes? and?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I would become what I always wanted to be, a supervillian

If you want the answer to your question, shouldn't you just watch the Battlestar Galactica reboot? That's pretty much the plot of the show from season 2 onward.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
I'd probably hunt down the scientists who made me and start beating them until they released the technology for general use. Just think of what you could do with prosthetic and stuff.

Fixed version:
I'd probably hunt down the scientists who made me and start beating them until they gave me the technology for me to make billions out of, to pay for eternal repairs to give myself eternal life. Just think of what you could do with prosthetics and stuff. Heck, I'd sell the technology used to create my brain (obviously a hyper-advanced IA) or use it en masse to improve on it endlessly (because these machines are obviously not affected by human rights right?), until I finally reach a singularity. I'd then improve my own programming, and become a post-singularity being (potentially even finding a way to safely time-travel and undo all the the horrible/unethical things I did to get to this point without destroying my own continuum).

Sorry, but your comment was a bit too nice (and shortsighted) there

 Asherian Command wrote:
Lets begin!

HMMMMMMMMM

a) Does your concept of yourself change? Nope. Are you the same person you thought you were? Yep
b) Does your understanding of the world itself change? Kinda in the more than meets the eye kinda way.
c) Do you reveal the information to others, or do you keep it to yourself? Why? nope. why bother creating more tension
d) make something else up that you would personally do... Try to interface directly with the interwebs for da knowledge

 Desubot wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Lets begin!

d) make something else up that you would personally do... Try to interface directly with the interwebs for da knowledge

OMG, forget this robot that looks and acts just like a human. Now this is an interesting philosophical topic!

If you could interface directly with the internet, knowing full well that it would take you some time to fully control your access, would you?

Taking in the raw, unfiltered stuff of the web to gain the ability to access everything at a much faster rate than others.

Now this would I think dramatically reduce your humanity, and elevate your consciousness when online to something more than human.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Taking in the raw, unfiltered stuff of the web to gain the ability to access everything at a much faster rate than others.

Now this would I think dramatically reduce your humanity, and elevate your consciousness when online to something more than human.

Remember, this includes the raw unfiltered excrement of your average Fox News commenter as well - there's the possibility you could end up as something way less than human.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Asherian, some of us have had broken bones, open-heart surgery, DNA tests and children. If a machine can do all those things and pass for human, then it is a goddam human. I've met people on the bus who're less identifiably human.

Yes? and?

So your premise is broken. You are either a robot with a set of false memories, or you are a biological being/clone and not a machine at all. Can't be both a nonhuman machine and a being that has satisfied every requirement for being human. The kinds of questions your scenario, broken as it is, raises are not the questions you seem most interested in discussing.


But for the record, I'd refer to myself as a jinzoningen for the lols.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Asherian, some of us have had broken bones, open-heart surgery, DNA tests and children. If a machine can do all those things and pass for human, then it is a goddam human. I've met people on the bus who're less identifiably human.

Yes? and?

So your premise is broken. You are either a robot with a set of false memories, or you are a biological being/clone and not a machine at all. Can't be both a nonhuman machine and a being that has satisfied every requirement for being human. The kinds of questions your scenario, broken as it is, raises are not the questions you seem most interested in discussing.


But for the record, I'd refer to myself as a jinzoningen for the lols.

How so? I didn't say all your life you have been a robot. What if boom you wake up one day and you find out you are a robot. To be made exactly the same.

They still aren't human. You can have all the necessary parts to be human, but that still does not make human.

What type of questions do you think I am thinking of?

Let me ask you something....

Can you read my mind? Can you pull back the folds of the internet and see the various notes I have taken on this premise? Can you? The answer is no, you cannot . You are not a mind reader, and no one can pull back the folds and see the various notes I have taken. Not only did i state this wasn't my premise, I did state: it was from the Talos Principle. So saying it is my premise is quite disingenuous and saying It is my fault for crafting it is also pretty rude. And only shows me that some here just read snippets and react.

To me it sounds like some (Not all) are just trying assert themselves as more dominant and more intelligent. Like this is some sort of competition to prove who is better and who is more intelligent. You can deny things all you want but that has been the frame of mind of some people here. Its only natural and one that I see time and time again from various peoples.

You keep saying my premise is broken, though if you are referencing peregrine I can see why, even though his points are not as near solid as they are filled with many logical leaps and flaws. Though it is a valid opinion. Though it is not 'truth'. The first truth every human being must accept is that they know nothing and there is no truth.

Some people on here have given pretty neat answers and have taken it seriously. Others are just subtracting from it and not giving any real answers instead they are acting like teenagers trying to steal from a thread because they find it funny to ruin a things people have thought about. Often times I wonder why I even bother.

Considering Transhumanism and several other ssubjects this question is asking are references to other works and other questions. The reader has to think. What is it to be human, and what is it to be a person? What is a person? Are they a drone or do they have some purpose?

This xenophobic idea that all robots will be the death of humanity is a funny one because once humanity is truly gone what the hell are we going to leave behind other machines and our knowledge?

Nothing but machines. This stupid outlook on possible intelligences just makes me quite angry. The idea that robots would first seek the most logical outlook on things is kind of bull. Seeing as most likely an Artifical intelligence would slowly evolve to have emotions and a personality. The singularity is a very real concept and one that has been debated for years and years whether how would humanity react to it. As we get closer and closer to the singularity instead of thinking Artifical intelligence as alien think of it as one of our creations. Because when humanity is dead, and it will die out (I promise you it will, through human stupidity), what would you rather leave behind a race of beings that are created by us? Or nothing but smuldering ruins and no one to keep our knowledge?

A robot can't be a human, and a human can't be a robot. They can be similar but they can never be one in the same. They can talk and walk like a human but that doesn't make them human. Robots can't be human. Its like saying, we are like god. When its more obvious that is not the truth, we are not like god, nor are we near to our creator. We may be similar but we are not like god. We are not gods.

If you don't believe in god think of it liket this. In a similar way its like saying a monkey is a human being. That a monkey is like a human. Is a monkey a human being? No not at all. Humans are a species of their own. Even if thousands of years evolution were to happen to these monkeys they would not become humans. They would always remain far from human beings. They might be similar but that doesn't mean jack all if there is no true likeness.

But that doesn't mean a robot is not a Person or a Citizen, if they can form rational thought or reasoning, then they are a person a citizen It is a very aggorant way of thought to think that other beings want to be like us. Robots will do what we want to do. Not be like other human beings, not being like our parents. There maybe some robots that might want to, but most would rather be unique. One day when humanity is finally gone maybe we will become gods? Which is a scary thought.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Henry wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Taking in the raw, unfiltered stuff of the web to gain the ability to access everything at a much faster rate than others.

Now this would I think dramatically reduce your humanity, and elevate your consciousness when online to something more than human.

Remember, this includes the raw unfiltered excrement of your average Fox News commenter as well - there's the possibility you could end up as something way less than human.

Or you know your memory gets full and you can't take anymore information in and you overload? No mind can hold infinite amounts of storage.

No mind can contain the vast information of the internet, without some severe data loss.

I would pretty much go about my business as usual. Would my understanding of myself change? Yeah, of course but not significantly. I do not view humans as being terribly different from machines just with fleshy bits instead of robot parts. But it would answer one of humanity's great questions about AI: Whether they can enjoy true consciousness or just a programmed pseudo-consciousness. At least to myself since I could not prove that I was truly conscious and self aware to others.

Asherian, I think the flaw is basically the idea that something could pass for human flawlessly enough to be unaware of its artificiality, and indistinguishable to every known test of medical science would mean that there is no difference between human and robot big enough to discuss.

If you want to approach the idea of transhumanism, replicable or transferable consciousness, or true artificial intelligence are generally the hot area of debate. If I could put my intellect, with all of its experiences into a robot body, would I then be a robot, or human? That's one where the difference is distinct enough to generate a true debate. Or forget that, go broader and let the participants set the tone.
When would a machine be considered human?

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Asherian, I think the flaw is basically the idea that something could pass for human flawlessly enough to be unaware of its artificiality, and indistinguishable to every known test of medical science would mean that there is no difference between human and robot big enough to discuss.

If you want to approach the idea of transhumanism, replicable or transferable consciousness, or true artificial intelligence are generally the hot area of debate. If I could put my intellect, with all of its experiences into a robot body, would I then be a robot, or human? That's one where the difference is distinct enough to generate a true debate. Or forget that, go broader and let the participants set the tone.
When would a machine be considered human?

Might be a better point than a theoritical stand point debate, where we bring in an individual and place it to the minds of the people in the debate.

If it was inextinguishable? Would we truly tell the difference?

Obviously no. Because there is no liklihood of you actually being screened to check if your human in this day and age. For instance maybe your body your robot body is meant to replicate but it isn't true to the actual form of a human being it is a replication, meaning it is so good at it but you are still a robot. You are just projecting it in such a way that no one can tell not even a scientist or a doctor.

If a group what rich/powerful enough to create an something that appeared to be outwardly human to it'self and others and create fake records and family, I don't see how they couldn't just arrange for doctors are stuff you see to give you fake results, ect.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Asherian, some of us have had broken bones, open-heart surgery, DNA tests and children. If a machine can do all those things and pass for human, then it is a goddam human. I've met people on the bus who're less identifiably human.

Yes? and?

So your premise is broken. You are either a robot with a set of false memories, or you are a biological being/clone and not a machine at all. Can't be both a nonhuman machine and a being that has satisfied every requirement for being human. The kinds of questions your scenario, broken as it is, raises are not the questions you seem most interested in discussing.


But for the record, I'd refer to myself as a jinzoningen for the lols.

How so? I didn't say all your life you have been a robot. What if boom you wake up one day and you find out you are a robot. To be made exactly the same.

I'm pretty sure your OP indicated otherwise. It changes the entire question if we find out we've been replaced by a synthetic body instead of finding out something inherent about ourselves. Pretty much the entire rest of my life would be devoted to finding the real me and making sure the people behind the switch never violate anyone else if I can prevent it.



More Stargate SG1 and less Battlestar Galactica for your inspiration?

They still aren't human. You can have all the necessary parts to be human, but that still does not make human.

If I was a 'robot' when I reproduced, and still eat, poop and breathe, I'm pretty sure I'd still be classified as human. Not sure what I would find out that would make me think I wasn't human. Why don't you give us some specifics? Everything about your mindgame rests on the details and you are being purposefully vague.

What type of questions do you think I am thinking of?

What it would change about us if we discovered we were secretly machines. How it would change what we think about machines and the relationship between humans and machines. Do we believe machines (we) could have a soul, etc., etc..

Let me ask you something....

Can you read my mind? Can you pull back the folds of the internet and see the various notes I have taken on this premise? Can you? The answer is no, you cannot . You are not a mind reader, and no one can pull back the folds and see the various notes I have taken. Not only did i state this wasn't my premise, I did state: it was from the Talos Principle. So saying it is my premise is quite disingenuous and saying It is my fault for crafting it is also pretty rude. And only shows me that some here just read snippets and react.

Never heard of the Talos Principal. Apparently it's some game. Since you want us to give the credit where it is due, why not provide a link or quotation. I suspect the premise as stated directly from the source will either be much clearer and more specific, or will be some anime-level-stupid thing.

To me it sounds like some (Not all) are just trying assert themselves as more dominant and more intelligent. Like this is some sort of competition to prove who is better and who is more intelligent. You can deny things all you want but that has been the frame of mind of some people here. Its only natural and one that I see time and time again from various peoples.

You keep saying my premise is broken, though if you are referencing peregrine I can see why, even though his points are not as near solid as they are filled with many logical leaps and flaws. Though it is a valid opinion. Though it is not 'truth'. The first truth every human being must accept is that they know nothing and there is no truth.

I posted a not very serious reply early in the thread because it is what your OP warranted. Your scenario was not very clear or well thought out. After reading your wall of ignorance against peregrine, and your hilariously hypocritical dismissal of him given your own blind spots, I decided to add my voice. But condescension and arrogance on your part will surely bring this thread where you want it to go. Nevermind people aren't responding how you hoped they would, pointing out your errors. Don't bother rethinking yout initial position and tweaking it to get the discussion you want; just blame everyone else. The fault lies with them, clearly.

And are you trying to bring in solipsism or just quote a fortune cookie?

Some people on here have given pretty neat answers and have taken it seriously. Others are just subtracting from it and not giving any real answers instead they are acting like teenagers trying to steal from a thread because they find it funny to ruin a things people have thought about. Often times I wonder why I even bother.

Considering Transhumanism and several other ssubjects this question is asking are references to other works and other questions. The reader has to think. What is it to be human, and what is it to be a person? What is a person? Are they a drone or do they have some purpose?

If you want us to consider these questions, ask them. Don't provide a poorly-worded fictional framework that will only appeal to the philosophically minded people with no attachments and responsibilities. If my body is swapped for a robot's, why in the hell would I sit there thinking about what it means to be human when I have much more personal and pressing questions to answer? If I was always a robot and only just found out, then why should that change much when I clearly lived a very human life?

This xenophobic idea that all robots will be the death of humanity is a funny one because once humanity is truly gone what the hell are we going to leave behind other machines and our knowledge?

Is this aimed at me? I never posted anything like that.

Nothing but machines. This stupid outlook on possible intelligences just makes me quite angry. The idea that robots would first seek the most logical outlook on things is kind of bull. Seeing as most likely an Artifical intelligence would slowly evolve to have emotions and a personality. The singularity is a very real concept and one that has been debated for years and years whether how would humanity react to it. As we get closer and closer to the singularity instead of thinking Artifical intelligence as alien think of it as one of our creations. Because when humanity is dead, and it will die out (I promise you it will, through human stupidity), what would you rather leave behind a race of beings that are created by us? Or nothing but smuldering ruins and no one to keep our knowledge?

Making a lot of assumptions here.


Also, whose definition of singularity are you using? Kurzweil's? Stross's? Some other guy's?

A robot can't be a human, and a human can't be a robot. They can be similar but they can never be one in the same. They can talk and walk like a human but that doesn't make them human. Robots can't be human.

I tend to think Asimov was closer to the mark. As we improve ourselves with enhancements as prosthetics, and as our robots advance and are better engineered to work for and alongside humans, there will be a serious blurring of the lines.

Unless you're poor and your family is poor. No upgrades for you!

Its like saying, we are like god. When its more obvious that is not the truth, we are not like god, nor are we near to our creator. We may be similar but we are not like god. We are not gods.

This is where the conversation is getting creepy. I don't even know where this is coming from.

If you don't believe in god think of it liket this. In a similar way its like saying a monkey is a human being. That a monkey is like a human. Is a monkey a human being? No not at all. Humans are a species of their own. Even if thousands of years evolution were to happen to these monkeys they would not become humans. They would always remain far from human beings. They might be similar but that doesn't mean jack all if there is no true likeness.

But that doesn't mean a robot is not a Person or a Citizen, if they can form rational thought or reasoning, then they are a person a citizen It is a very aggorant way of thought to think that other beings want to be like us. Robots will do what we want to do. Not be like other human beings, not being like our parents. There maybe some robots that might want to, but most would rather be unique. One day when humanity is finally gone maybe we will become gods? Which is a scary thought.

First of all, a monkey that could breed with humans and pass medical tests as a human would be human. Second, your bizarre reference to evolution raises questions about your understanding of science. Third, are you just trying to start a conversation about sapience? About the legal and moral rights and responsibilities for sapient creatures? It kind of seems like you're rambling. I don't see what not wanting to be like your parents has to do with someone waking up and discovering he is a robot.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
If a group what rich/powerful enough to create an something that appeared to be outwardly human to it'self and others and create fake records and family, I don't see how they couldn't just arrange for doctors are stuff you see to give you fake results, ect.

Once again, the "wake up a robot" aspect of the OP is the least important part to discuss. My world view would change more based on the existence of an entity that could make me a robot than it would from me being a robot.

The US government perhaps? They have done testing on humans on the past that have been much worse than creating a synthetic human (stuff like eugenics).

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
If a group what rich/powerful enough to create an something that appeared to be outwardly human to it'self and others and create fake records and family, I don't see how they couldn't just arrange for doctors are stuff you see to give you fake results, ect.

You would think so. But apparently that is outlandish and considered the least important bit of information by people.


Apparently in everyones world they would clearly be intelligent enough to find out in the past if they were a robot. Because you know this a daily thing that happens.

But yeah I like that reasoning.

If an organization is just able to boom plop someone create a fake life and everything and trick people into thinking you are a normal human being, then it goes without a shadow of a doubt that is what goes on.

For reference to those who are saying I did. Here it is....



Because you know I would just think of this randomly.

I am not asking you to prove me or it how it couldn't work. I really don't care what your opinion is on that. (Not pointed at you, Co'tor shas.)

You can try to prove it and waste valuable time. But thats up to you.

Making a lot of assumptions here.

What that humanity will die out one day? A very real possibility? You are trying to point fun at me when the facts lie around us everyday.. At any moment the human race could be wiped out. And none of them would survive.

First of all, a monkey that could breed with humans and pass medical tests as a human would be human. Second, your bizarre reference to evolution raises questions about your understanding of science. Third, are you just trying to start a conversation about sapience? About the legal and moral rights and responsibilities for sapient creatures? It kind of seems like you're rambling. I don't see what not wanting to be like your parents has to do with someone waking up and discovering he is a robot.

Impossible. As they monkeys would still be unable to reproduce with humans. they aren't even in the same species, nor will they ever be. Your understanding of science stands on more of a pseudo bit.

And legal moral rights that is everything. That is the basis of this discussion. This not about how you became a robot. Is what you do as a robot. Who cares about the how it just is. You can keep trying to fight that. And keep on trying to say that is impossible but that is just ignorance and willing to only see one way of thinking.

You are shutting down a conversation before it even begins.

I tend to think Asimov was closer to the mark. As we improve ourselves with enhancements as prosthetics, and as our robots advance and are better engineered to work for and alongside humans, there will be a serious blurring of the lines.

Unless you're poor and your family is poor. No upgrades for you!

Not true. If you are talking about the bit where humanity will slowly start to replace itself with cybernetics it holds little weight as most people probably won't go down that road. Not every rich person will replace their normal bodies with cybernetics there might be a split but it won't just be between the rich and poor.

It would be more of a morality bit where people choose to be more human than others that choose to be less human.

Is this aimed at me? I never posted anything like that.

If I didn't directly state you, then no.

If you want us to consider these questions, ask them. Don't provide a poorly-worded fictional framework that will only appeal to the philosophically minded people with no attachments and responsibilities. If my body is swapped for a robot's, why in the hell would I sit there thinking about what it means to be human when I have much more personal and pressing questions to answer? If I was always a robot and only just found out, then why should that change much when I clearly lived a very human life?

Why would I ask them. If I knew about the xenophobic look on robots. Why would I talk about it? When before I did, on my facebook, I only faced adversory and xenophobia. What would that change? I gave you the frame work you work with it. I already have an opinion on it. Why would I need to share my opinion? I don't need to feel validated, I just think it is the best answer I can come up with on those subjects. I don't think they are perfect but I will not share those questions or my opinions for that matter on them. Because I don't think my opinion is important not in this case.

I posted a not very serious reply early in the thread because it is what your OP warranted. Your scenario was not very clear or well thought out. After reading your wall of ignorance against peregrine, and your hilariously hypocritical dismissal of him given your own blind spots, I decided to add my voice. But condescension and arrogance on your part will surely bring this thread where you want it to go. Nevermind people aren't responding how you hoped they would, pointing out your errors. Don't bother rethinking yout initial position and tweaking it to get the discussion you want; just blame everyone else. The fault lies with them, clearly.

And are you trying to bring in solipsism or just quote a fortune cookie?

I was quoting Aristotle and Socrates.

So thank you for insulting the person you are debating with. Especially if I've had a history with Peregrine where I often dismiss him quite often.

I'm pretty sure your OP indicated otherwise. It changes the entire question if we find out we've been replaced by a synthetic body instead of finding out something inherent about ourselves. Pretty much the entire rest of my life would be devoted to finding the real me and making sure the people behind the switch never violate anyone else if I can prevent it.

Hmm. It doesn't clearly state that. It leaves that bit ambigious it doesn't say how. It just says you are now a robot. Identical but not the same. It even states you are not a human being. firing that whole idea that you are basically a human being. The question literally tells you that is not what happens.

If you want to joke and you want to have fun, then maybe you shouldn't be thinking I want your silly opinion on it. I even said. Take this with a grain of salt. I am telling you right now, you shouldn't just think that because someone posts on the internet, that they only want humor. Humor is great, but in this case do you really think I want someone to be cracking jokes and having those people think that they are really funny and so original for doing so? No. I don't laugh at those jokes, I think they are poorly timed and not well thought out. The question is... Why would I ask this to this community which I have obivously alot more respect for than my friends or family. Why? Because I enjoy the thoughtful conversations that can come from here. If you say you came to the wrong place, then you are only apart of the problem that we are facing right now in this thread. So stop making it a problem and help me talk about this. This isn't some stupid rant or something like that. Its about me trying to understand one thing. What is it to be human? What ought I to do? WHat ought I to do in this situation?

I did an experiment a bit ago, where I asked dakka dakka about whether they would accept immortality or stay mortal. It was an experiment done by me to see if I could post musings I have or questions I just find that I would like to share. If I really wanted to I would keep it to myself and not share it, and keep it bundled up, and keep my opinion to myself and just let my ignorance take over. If you think I am being ignorant in anyway for trying to find others opinions then I don't think you have right in this case.

Lets begin!

One day you discover that you are not a human being, but a machine. Your life so far was real, no-one controlled you or programmed you to behave in some specific way; your physical and mental capacities are identical to those of an organic human being. But you were created in a lab.

No-one except you knows about this. Your family, your friends, they all think you are a regular human being like themselves. You could continue to live your life the way you have before and nothing would change.
How do you react?
Pay specific attention to these questions:
a) Does your concept of yourself change? Are you the same person you thought you were?
b) Does your understanding of the world itself change?
c) Do you reveal the information to others, or do you keep it to yourself? Why?
d) (make something else up that you would personally do...)

(This comes directly from the Talos Principle, it was an excellent thought and one I would like to share. Previously my other philosophy questions here have been quite controversial such as the Immortality one, and the topic on whether you would kill a few traitors to save a whole town, or would you refuse to and let the whole town die)

Please take this with a grain of salt and think hypothetically, and discuss intelligently! And enjoy!

 Asherian Command wrote:
Apparently in everyones world they would clearly be intelligent enough to find out in the past if they were a robot. Because you know this a daily thing that happens.

No, the point you keep refusing to acknowledge is that there are many obvious ways in which a robot is different from a human. The only way out of this problem is to assume that the "robot" has absolutely nothing to do with our current understanding of what "robot" means, and therefore any discussion of "what would it be like to be a robot" is meaningless. You're essentially asking "assume that one day someone tells you 'you are exactly identical to a human, but you're magically not a human in some vaguely-defined way that only makes sense to me', how would you react?".

If an organization is just able to boom plop someone create a fake life and everything and trick people into thinking you are a normal human being, then it goes without a shadow of a doubt that is what goes on.

So then your original premise is a lie:

Your life so far was real, no-one controlled you or programmed you to behave in some specific way;

If this all-powerful organization has been altering everything in your life to convince you that you are a "real person" then your life so far hasn't been real.

I am not asking you to prove me or it how it couldn't work.

And that's the problem. You've invented a hypothetical scenario that doesn't make any sense, and you're asking what people would do in that situation. It's like asking what people would do in a world where X and NOT-X are both simultaneously true. You can ask the question, but you aren't going to get any useful answers.

So stop making it a problem and help me talk about this.

Why? If you post bad ideas why shouldn't we criticize them? This is a forum for open discussion, not feeding your ego and telling you how smart you are.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
If a group what rich/powerful enough to create an something that appeared to be outwardly human to it'self and others and create fake records and family, I don't see how they couldn't just arrange for doctors are stuff you see to give you fake results, ect.

You would think so. But apparently that is outlandish and considered the least important bit of information by people.

Again, the organisation that wields such power is a bigger problem even for me personally than being a robot capable of living exactly as I have. Also, what part of those fake memories doesn't make my past a lie and totally destroy the point of your OP?

Apparently in everyones world they would clearly be intelligent enough to find out in the past if they were a robot. Because you know this a daily thing that happens.

Are you suggesting people would not find out they are nonhuman robots? Unless the "robot" part is essentially meaningless (see skinjobs), only a complete shut in would fail to notice.

But you certainly have a poor opinion about everyone who isn't you. I wonder if this attitude of yours creates pushback when you would rather discuss legal rights for nonhuman intelligences or somthing. Still not clear what you expected to gain from this thread.

But yeah I like that reasoning.

If an organization is just able to boom plop someone create a fake life and everything and trick people into thinking you are a normal human being, then it goes without a shadow of a doubt that is what goes on.

For reference to those who are saying I did. Here it is....
SNIP

Because you know I would just think of this randomly.

I find it easier to believe you thought of this randomly than to believe it came from a product that a company actually published. I guess I owe you an apology. That is still one inane scenario.

I am not asking you to prove me or it how it couldn't work. I really don't care what your opinion is on that. (Not pointed at you, Co'tor shas.)
You can try to prove it and waste valuable time. But thats up to you.

I think answering your OP is a bigger waste of time until you try to establish what YOU are trying to get at here. I might as well start a thread asking everyone to try to understand the New York TImes' effect on man.

Making a lot of assumptions here.

What that humanity will die out one day? A very real possibility? You are trying to point fun at me when the facts lie around us everyday.. At any moment the human race could be wiped out. And none of them would survive.

You make assumptions about how, why and when humanity will die out, if it even will. You make assumptions about the singularity and how it will play out. You make assumptions about how AI would or would not develop. You make assumptions about other people's outlook, which comes across like some sort of kneejerk reaction to comments most likely made in jest.

First of all, a monkey that could breed with humans and pass medical tests as a human would be human. Second, your bizarre reference to evolution raises questions about your understanding of science. Third, are you just trying to start a conversation about sapience? About the legal and moral rights and responsibilities for sapient creatures? It kind of seems like you're rambling. I don't see what not wanting to be like your parents has to do with someone waking up and discovering he is a robot.

Impossible. As they monkeys would still be unable to reproduce with humans. they aren't even in the same species, nor will they ever be. Your understanding of science stands on more of a pseudo bit.

Notice I said "a monkey THAT COULD breed with a human." It's a reference to you saying that a robot that can breed with a human, one of the best examples of what makes a human being a human being, would not be similar to a human. Plus, I did not say evolution would make monkeys more like us (although never human)--you did. Evolution is not a build tree or ladder. So, to recap, you completely misunderstood pretty much everything about what I was saying.

Let's try it again.

If __________ can breed with humans and live a human life among humans and pass human medical tests, then _____________ is functionally human by any reasonable metric.

Do you have a problem with that?

And legal moral rights that is everything. That is the basis of this discussion. This not about how you became a robot. Is what you do as a robot.

If that's what you wanted to discuss, why didn't you start out with that instead of quoting that stupid video game?

Are you proposing any kind of test or threshold for what constitutes sapience or true intelligence? Is there some kind of social requirement? How do we keep from extending full legal rights to every chatbot or dolphin? Or is that a goal?

Who cares about the how it just is. You can keep trying to fight that. And keep on trying to say that is impossible but that is just ignorance and willing to only see one way of thinking.

Are you fething kidding? "Who cares"? Really? Don't you think the being who just discovered his whole life was a fabrication might care? Do you really think that most human beings would find "How did I become a goddamn robot" a trivial concern?

I think you are the one with the problem seeing how others think.

You are shutting down a conversation before it even begins.

No, the conversation is unfolding in a natural way. That's what conversations do. When someone says something so ridiculous it draws comments, that is what the conversation will be about. If you want it to go somewhere else, change the subject.

I tend to think Asimov was closer to the mark. As we improve ourselves with enhancements as prosthetics, and as our robots advance and are better engineered to work for and alongside humans, there will be a serious blurring of the lines.

Unless you're poor and your family is poor. No upgrades for you!

Not true. If you are talking about the bit where humanity will slowly start to replace itself with cybernetics it holds little weight as most people probably won't go down that road. Not every rich person will replace their normal bodies with cybernetics there might be a split but it won't just be between the rich and poor.

Without knowing how the technology will work, there is no decisive answer here. However, in your OP, someone has clearly found a way to bridge human experience and robotics...

If you want us to consider these questions, ask them. Don't provide a poorly-worded fictional framework that will only appeal to the philosophically minded people with no attachments and responsibilities. If my body is swapped for a robot's, why in the hell would I sit there thinking about what it means to be human when I have much more personal and pressing questions to answer? If I was always a robot and only just found out, then why should that change much when I clearly lived a very human life?

Why would I ask them. If I knew about the xenophobic look on robots. Why would I talk about it? When before I did, on my facebook, I only faced adversory and xenophobia. What would that change?

What are you talking about. The few "Kill all humans" comments were in jest, mostly responding to the very shallow parameters of the OP. If you want a serious discussion, you need to lay a serious groundwork.

Also, calling it xenophobia is a bit weird. As someone who loves technology and thinks only bright things about robots and AI, I find your comments about anti-robot xenophobia a bit bleep-bloop creepy. Do you post on SDN, by any chance?

I gave you the frame work you work with it. I already have an opinion on it. Why would I need to share my opinion? I don't need to feel validated, I just think it is the best answer I can come up with on those subjects. I don't think they are perfect but I will not share those questions or my opinions for that matter on them. Because I don't think my opinion is important not in this case.

No idea what you're going on about.

PS: you did not give a good framework. You quoted a stupid game.

I posted a not very serious reply early in the thread because it is what your OP warranted. Your scenario was not very clear or well thought out. After reading your wall of ignorance against peregrine, and your hilariously hypocritical dismissal of him given your own blind spots, I decided to add my voice. But condescension and arrogance on your part will surely bring this thread where you want it to go. Nevermind people aren't responding how you hoped they would, pointing out your errors. Don't bother rethinking yout initial position and tweaking it to get the discussion you want; just blame everyone else. The fault lies with them, clearly.

And are you trying to bring in solipsism or just quote a fortune cookie?

I was quoting Aristotle and Socrates.

Right, I was familiar with the quote. However, in this context it was a non sequitur. Like, did you know there's a learning disability that is very hard to identify because the children with it are very good at parroting phrases in response to certain stimuli, so it takes a long time for teachers to discover the children don't actually understand what the phrases mean or why they are used?

Hmm. It doesn't clearly state that. It leaves that bit ambigious it doesn't say how. It just says you are now a robot. Identical but not the same. It even states you are not a human being. firing that whole idea that you are basically a human being. The question literally tells you that is not what happens.

Make it unambiguous, then. As has been pointed out, the original phrasing is not coherent.

If you want to joke and you want to have fun, then maybe you shouldn't be thinking I want your silly opinion on it. I even said. Take this with a grain of salt. I am telling you right now, you shouldn't just think that because someone posts on the internet, that they only want humor. Humor is great, but in this case do you really think I want someone to be cracking jokes and having those people think that they are really funny and so original for doing so? No. I don't laugh at those jokes, I think they are poorly timed and not well thought out. The question is... Why would I ask this to this community which I have obivously alot more respect for than my friends or family. Why? Because I enjoy the thoughtful conversations that can come from here. If you say you came to the wrong place, then you are only apart of the problem that we are facing right now in this thread.

You did not start a thoughtful thread. You quoted a video game. If you want to guide the discussion into certain areas of discussion, the onus is on you. Otherwise, how should we know what you wanted to discuss?

So stop making it a problem and help me talk about this. This isn't some stupid rant or something like that. Its about me trying to understand one thing. What is it to be human? What ought I to do? WHat ought I to do in this situation?

Do you mean morally? If you are concerned over the most moral course of action, I suppose you have the moral responsibility to take careful notes of everything that makes you not human, all your experiences and thoughts, and then donate your body to science after you die. There's more to discuss if that is where you want the conversation to go.

If there were an easy answer to "what is it to be human?" then we'd all probably have learned it in high school alongside the Pythagorean Theorem and how to parse a sentence. In this case, it might be more important to ask "what is it to be not human?"

I did an experiment a bit ago, where I asked dakka dakka about whether they would accept immortality or stay mortal. It was an experiment done by me to see if I could post musings I have or questions I just find that I would like to share. If I really wanted to I would keep it to myself and not share it, and keep it bundled up, and keep my opinion to myself and just let my ignorance take over. If you think I am being ignorant in anyway for trying to find others opinions then I don't think you have right in this case.

It sounds like you asked a direct question last time instead of quoting some smarmy text that doesn't hold up and expecting that to do the heavy lifting. How about you ask directly the questions you want to hear answers for?

Lets begin!

One day you discover that you are not a human being, but a machine. Your life so far was real, no-one controlled you or programmed you to behave in some specific way; your physical and mental capacities are identical to those of an organic human being. But you were created in a lab.

No-one except you knows about this. Your family, your friends, they all think you are a regular human being like themselves. You could continue to live your life the way you have before and nothing would change.
How do you react?
Pay specific attention to these questions:
a) Does your concept of yourself change? Are you the same person you thought you were?
b) Does your understanding of the world itself change?
c) Do you reveal the information to others, or do you keep it to yourself? Why?
d) (make something else up that you would personally do...)

(This comes directly from the Talos Principle, it was an excellent thought and one I would like to share. Previously my other philosophy questions here have been quite controversial such as the Immortality one, and the topic on whether you would kill a few traitors to save a whole town, or would you refuse to and let the whole town die)

Please take this with a grain of salt and think hypothetically, and discuss intelligently! And enjoy!

Any answers to these questions depend on background left vague or ambiguous. There are contradictory statements, which open the doors to all kinds of responses you might find superfluous. Please take some responsibility for your thread and give it some direction.


But seriously, whether you're a mother or whether you're a brother, what is the New York Times' effect on man?

I think I've got it sussed, guys...

Asherian is an AI, and he just failed the Turing Test.

Or maybe Asherian should be watching the BSG reboot and Caprica, because those shows (especially Caprica) are LITERALLY about the topic he wants to discuss (I assume... it's hard to figure out from his deliberately obtuse posts, but I think that's what he's asking after).

 Peregrine wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Apparently in everyones world they would clearly be intelligent enough to find out in the past if they were a robot. Because you know this a daily thing that happens.

No, the point you keep refusing to acknowledge is that there are many obvious ways in which a robot is different from a human. The only way out of this problem is to assume that the "robot" has absolutely nothing to do with our current understanding of what "robot" means, and therefore any discussion of "what would it be like to be a robot" is meaningless. You're essentially asking "assume that one day someone tells you 'you are exactly identical to a human, but you're magically not a human in some vaguely-defined way that only makes sense to me', how would you react?".

If an organization is just able to boom plop someone create a fake life and everything and trick people into thinking you are a normal human being, then it goes without a shadow of a doubt that is what goes on.

So then your original premise is a lie:

Your life so far was real, no-one controlled you or programmed you to behave in some specific way;

If this all-powerful organization has been altering everything in your life to convince you that you are a "real person" then your life so far hasn't been real.

I am not asking you to prove me or it how it couldn't work.

And that's the problem. You've invented a hypothetical scenario that doesn't make any sense, and you're asking what people would do in that situation. It's like asking what people would do in a world where X and NOT-X are both simultaneously true. You can ask the question, but you aren't going to get any useful answers.

So stop making it a problem and help me talk about this.

Why? If you post bad ideas why shouldn't we criticize them? This is a forum for open discussion, not feeding your ego and telling you how smart you are.

Someone hasn't been reading.

I invent. I invented. I swear that everytime I read someone blaming me for inventing the scenario are more blind than those who justify calling me an idiot.

You make assumptions about how, why and when humanity will die out, if it even will. You make assumptions about the singularity and how it will play out. You make assumptions about how AI would or would not develop. You make assumptions about other people's outlook, which comes across like some sort of kneejerk reaction to comments most likely made in jest

It is a basic assumption based on science every day there is a slight chance of a meteor hitting the planet and killing everyone on it.

Or there could be a discovery of a super virus and we could all die.

The fact is that extiniction is a very real possiblity in this day and age. Like it has been for a long long time. There will always be a chance that humanity could die out at any moment.

Its less an assumption more of a known fact. IT is a real possiblity and to ignore it is insane. Especially my questions when I have asked reputable doctors and scientists in the past one of the questions I always ask is what is the liklihood of humanity becoming extinict. Most times they get awkward and then say very sadly. "Its very likely."

Ask any scientist about how close humanity has gotten to complete extinction

You quoted a video game. You quoted a stupid game.

You just insulted my daily job. Now why would I want to continue my conversation if you have insulted what I do for a living? Why would think that would be good for a conversation. Does it really matter where a quote comes from or what medium presents. No. It doesn't. It is only ignorance that proclaims that only certain mediums be quoted. And can be talked about. If a movie can bring up a good point. Then why can't a video game? obviously its because people. In general don't think of video games in that way. They don't believe video games are 'mature' because they like you, believe that games are just stupid and are for only children.

Why would I talk to someone that has made it out to be that the work I do is childish, this insinuation just makes me want to drop this entire conversation. You have showed to me in the way you talked about this game, that you have no respect for the work I do and the work others do. Even if you did not mean to do that. There is no reason for me to talk about this subject. Why would I want to. There is no reason for me to continue. If you show no respect for my medium and the work I want to do. Then I shouldn't even be continuing this conversation.

So please. Tell me what is the difference between a book and a video game. Because I know you can't. Because they are exactly the same. They are both written to entertain. Books and games, movies etc. They are all made to entertain. They are not made just to make a point. Just because games are interactive does not mean it loses its purposes or its point because it is presented through that medium. You can think that. But that is very shallow.

I won't discuss anymore due to that. IT may seem shallow on my part, but I refuse to speak to people who have no respect for the field I am in. If you only show to me hostility and not criticisms but insulting me and my medium. There is no reason for me to continue this conversation.

You can think its stupid and all that. But I don't think it is. I think alot of other people don't really care about the how. In fact this is the only time it has been brought up. Maybe its because of the anonymity of the internet. And that people believe they can criticize without a filter, and knowing full well there is someone behind a computer. Maybe its more. Maybe its something to deal with my reputation on here. But I don't care.

The fact is that when I have quoted Aristotle and Socrates, and then you think I am making those quotes up. Is more evidence to me. That you don't know underlying principles under questions that are asked. They are the beginning part of a discussion. I was going to introduce later on. But no, someone had to attack it and think they are smarter than me. What other reason would someone criticize me. They are not here to help me. Otherwise they would have communicated in a much better way.

Keep thinking I am ranting and keep thinking they way you are if that suites you. I won't stop you from doing that. But I don't care what you think of me. I have only proved a point, and one that my colleagues have been telling me for ages. And I will leave it at that.

NOTE - I have not read this thread past the OP before replying, normally a bad thing to do and one to avoid. This is a deliberate exception, so my answer is my own.

So I find I am an android....

Pay specific attention to these questions:
a) Does your concept of yourself change? Are you the same person you thought you were?

Obviously not. I cannot be the same person because I thought i was something else, however I am who I am and that hasnt changed. What has happened is that I am now more aware of my identity. This is painful but ultimately liberating.
The above is theory though, not everyone can sit back an view life philosophically and dispassionately, it is vain to say that I would be emboldened by the truth, humans dont work that way, a psychosis is equally likely if not more.

b) Does your understanding of the world itself change?

t raises the inevitable question how many more androids there are out there.

c) Do you reveal the information to others, or do you keep it to yourself? Why?

I must assume my android status is concealable, I am more redux Cylon and less Terminator. I would keep it to myself, I could prove nothing without external assistance.
Declaring my true nature is likely to cause distress, people wont believe me and will question my sanity. Except for those alreasdy in the know, who would consider me a security risk.

d) (make something else up that you would personally do...)

I would check my sources first and then sit back and take no action until later. Secrets once exposed cannot be recovered, it would pay to say little and not react. It is evident that my identity raises questions, and is locked in secrecy, perhaps I am not meant to know what I am, perhaps it was revealed force a course of action, only by keeping my own council will I be free of those influences.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will take a look at the other replies later.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howe could I forget:

d) (make something else up that you would personally do...)

I would attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.
I would watch C-beams glitter in the darkness over Tannhauser Gate.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I invent. I invented. I swear that everytime I read someone blaming me for inventing the scenario are more blind than those who justify calling me an idiot.

I love how the only response you can come up with is to nitpick about the difference between "your hypothetical scenario" and "the hypothetical scenario you copy/pasted from somewhere else and asked us to discuss". I guess this means you're conceding that the substance of my criticism is correct and you have no response to it?

Ask any scientist about how close humanity has gotten to complete extinction

And the answer is "nowhere near it". Humanity has come close to suffering major disasters that would significantly change human civilization, but that's well short of complete extinction. I don't know why you're talking about science fiction plots like a "super virus" that are so incredibly unlikely that they might as well be impossible.

rant

Yes, we get it, you think that gamers are some kind of persecuted minority and any criticism of a game or gaming in general is the cruelest kind of oppression. Perhaps you could stick to addressing the topic of this thread instead of going off into a "VIDEO GAMES MUST NOT BE CRITICIZED" tangent? Maybe it would help to step away from this thread for a while until you've calmed down a bit?

And the answer is "nowhere near it". Humanity has come close to suffering major disasters that would significantly change human civilization, but that's well short of complete extinction. I don't know why you're talking about science fiction plots like a "super virus" that are so incredibly unlikely that they might as well be impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_event

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimicrobial_resistance

Chances of humanity becoming extinict is well known. A virus being released either by melting icecaps or by accident is very likely.

An impact event is extremely likely. The chances of us being wiped out in a single day. Extremely likely.

Are you a scientist? No. Have you asked a professional before? No. So you have no right to say. "well you see."
I don't care what you say. The chances of humanity being wiped out is extremely high.

You think nukes are bad. Try getting hit by a meteor those things could destroy all of humanity.

Yes, we get it, you think that gamers are some kind of persecuted minority and any criticism of a game or gaming in general is the cruelest kind of oppression. Perhaps you could stick to addressing the topic of this thread instead of going off into a "VIDEO GAMES MUST NOT BE CRITICIZED" tangent? Maybe it would help to step away from this thread for a while until you've calmed down a bit?

What. You didn't read it at all. Its clear to me that you didn't even read what I said. Not at all. You just ignored it and you wonder why I disregard your opinion. Because so far you have only tripped over yourself.

Infact what did I say? I think I said that games don't get respect just because they are games. I think games should be criticized like anyother medium. But they shouldn't be disregarded just because they are games.

So far you have only proven to me as I did not write a single thing about gamers in that entire 'rant'. Showing to me you hold anger at me and this just you trying to get at me. Or trying to prove to me your opinion to be better than my own. When so far you have only been rude and not very kind at the slightlest. So remind me why would I accept your opinion if you are not a games critic, a gamer, or a Game industry professional or have studied games at all? What makes your opinion more valuable than one of my colleagues. Your opinions thus far have only proven to me you don't know jack about the industry.

I love how the only response you can come up with is to nitpick about the difference between "your hypothetical scenario" and "the hypothetical scenario you copy/pasted from somewhere else and asked us to discuss". I guess this means you're conceding that the substance of my criticism is correct and you have no response to it?

Nope. I won't concede to you. Because your opinion is completely bonkers.

Why would I respond to someone who has thus far proven to not read my thoughts?

And acts like an elitist and has never conceded their opinion ever.

 Asherian Command wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimicrobial_resistance

I guess you don't understand the difference between bacteria and viruses?

A virus being released either by melting icecaps or by accident is very likely.

...

No, it really isn't. Please stop treating plots to bad science fiction movies as if they were fact.

An impact event is extremely likely. The chances of us being wiped out in a single day. Extremely likely.

Extremely likely, if you're willing to wait around for a few million years to have a reasonable chance of seeing one. And the huge extinction-level threats are also the ones that are most likely to be seen far in advance and allow an opportunity to stop it.

The chances of humanity being wiped out is extremely high.

Only because you keep talking about time scales that are absurdly long compared to the entire existence of human civilization. The chances of humanity surviving the heat death of the universe are literally zero, but that doesn't mean that we should pay any attention to the problem.

more off-topic ranting

That's nice. I'm glad you have an opinion.

Nope. I won't concede to you. Because your opinion is completely bonkers.

Oh really? I have yet to hear any kind of coherent response to my criticism. All you've posted so far is some desperate handwaving of the problem and some nitpicking about how it isn't really "your" hypothetical scenario because you copy/pasted it from somewhere else.

Why would I respond to someone who has thus far proven to not read my thoughts?

I don't need to read your thoughts when I have your own words to criticize. Whatever your hidden intentions might be the premise in your OP is broken. And you're doing a terrible job of defending it.

It makes no difference.
I'm already a machine, albeit organic in nature.

Feth it, I'd take a page out of Ultron's book. You're all meat-sacks, and you need to be exterminated.

@Asherian Command-

Can't answer due to too many variables. What others are nitpicking as fatal flaws are just the expression of a thought process limited by assumptions. Assumptions are often a default goto when people are faced with a question with so many variables that any honest answer would be pages long or require a specific scenario qualifier.


@Peregrine & Bob-
As the hypothetical situation has been presented, there are scenarios where it would be quite likely that ones robotic nature would go unnoticed.

Asherian Command never put an age at which this would have/could have occurred. A child could easily have lived a life where there was no need for an in depth medical exam. There is no requirement in the hypothetical situation for you to be an adult when you discover such about yourself.


Now that would be a discussion. The brains and intelligence are there in raw form but," How would one handle such news at a younger, less emotionally mature level of development?".

 Captain Avatar wrote:
Asherian Command never put an age at which this would have/could have occurred. A child could easily have lived a life where there was no need for an in depth medical exam. There is no requirement in the hypothetical situation for you to be an adult when you discover such about yourself.


Now that would be a discussion. The brains and intelligence are there in raw form but," How would one handle such news at a younger, less emotionally mature level of development?".

1) Even a child would still have noticed things. Children have a habit of suffering minor cuts/scrapes/etc, and it would be pretty obvious when they don't bleed or heal normally. So you're back to the problem of either having to edit memories and have a fake life to hide the fact that the person is a robot, or having such ridiculously advanced technology that the term "robot" or "machine" becomes meaningless. And that's ignoring things like eating food vs. charging from a wall socket.

2) Now you're essentially asking "how would you react to learning that you're a robot if you're too young to understand what it means to be a robot instead of a person". The really boring answer most people are going to give (at least if they're honest about their level of understanding as a child) is going to be "wow robots are really cool, I'm going to tell all of my friends and get a laser sword and kill all the monsters just like my favorite tv show!!!!".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Captain Avatar wrote:
Asherian Command never put an age at which this would have/could have occurred. A child could easily have lived a life where there was no need for an in depth medical exam. There is no requirement in the hypothetical situation for you to be an adult when you discover such about yourself.


Now that would be a discussion. The brains and intelligence are there in raw form but," How would one handle such news at a younger, less emotionally mature level of development?".

1) Even a child would still have noticed things. Children have a habit of suffering minor cuts/scrapes/etc, and it would be pretty obvious when they don't bleed or heal normally. So you're back to the problem of either having to edit memories and have a fake life to hide the fact that the person is a robot, or having such ridiculously advanced technology that the term "robot" or "machine" becomes meaningless. And that's ignoring things like eating food vs. charging from a wall socket.

2) Now you're essentially asking "how would you react to learning that you're a robot if you're too young to understand what it means to be a robot instead of a person". The really boring answer most people are going to give (at least if they're honest about their level of understanding as a child) is going to be "wow robots are really cool, I'm going to tell all of my friends and get a laser sword and kill all the monsters just like my favorite tv show!!!!".

1) For someone working so hard to prove that they have no imagination, you have outdone yourself with this scenario. Your scenario requires quite a bit of imagination to think that all children would have to, at some point, be subjected to invasive diagnostics.
Many people make it to their adult years without ever having to undergo emergency care, X-rays, MRI's, EEG's, EKG's or any other brain or body scan.

Also, a couple of sub-points

First, Kids see, think and feel things differently all of the time. The default reaction from adults to this is a tendency to minimize or use the lump them all in one broad and poorly defined category.

Imo, The tendency to minimize or find a quick fix diagnosis have lead to the current trend of lazy parenting and lazier science.
Example- Young child shows odd organizational tendency. Boom, kid is labeled as having an Autistism spectrum disorder. No MRI's, No x-rays just a quick fix lump solution diagnosis. The problem could be something else or could even not be a problem. Kid could just be gifted, but few take the time to find out.


Second, Who said such a person would not bleed? Not I nor the OP. That is an arbitrary restriction that you have added. Why?

My theory is that you are being overly literal and nor making the natural intuitive connection between robot and android/cyborg. Robots, cyborgs and androids are all still robots.
True, it would have been more appropriate for the OP to have used one of the more descriptive terms like cyborg or android. The term robot brings to mind inorganic machines like drones and remote control bomb disposal rovers.

Third, Creating realistic looking androids has already happened in Asia. Check out the weather girl/news girl android.
We are also seeing great advancements in the fields of cybernetics, stem cell research and tissue engineering.

Point is that such an engineered thing/being could have a biological covering that bleeds when cut. Who is to say that in the next 50-100 years that we can't achieve an engineered stem cell grown body with a computer brain. .....Such a creation would not need fake memories as you insist......though it would quite likely have a pre-programmed purpose.


And now for point:

2) I strongly disagree with your "honest" assessment of how the child would behave.
Children want to fit in. If they feel that they are different they tend to hide such while they try to come to grips with / figure out what it is.
I find it odd that in your reply number one you are touting the kids as being highly perceptive and understanding and in your second point you use an erroneous summation of my proposed idea for discussing by having the kids unable to understand that they are different.

Please note that I suggested that such a child creature has come to "understand" that they are different and how. They just are not fully developed emotionally and due to such would react differently than an adult.



Edit spelling and spacing