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.

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!

I'm not sure much would change, at least from the standpoint of logic. Assuming you are still capable of the range of thought/emotion as you always have been, and are certain you are not being controlled/programmed, then what is the difference between a robot and a human, beyond simple biology? The circumstances of your creation are different, but after that, each and every action, thought and experience that have shaped you will have had the same effect regardless, and that is ultimately what defines you as a person. If one accepts the idea that a machine can still/think/act/feel to the extent a human can, then what are humans but flesh and blood machines, mechanical biology?

But then, I say this as an atheist and something of an idealist; I can imagine that the knowledge you were created (presumably by humans) in a lab might shake a faith in some kind of deity, with your creators effectively replacing that role. On the other hand, it could reaffirm a faith; if your body is just a construct, then the soul/emotion/essence must come from somewhere else.

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.

My concept of self would be largely determined on what kind of synthetics or material my nipples and areola are made out of. If it wasn't authentic bio material I would probably go into overdrive mode and seek to steal the nipple flesh of other humans to replace my own. Obviously, this flesh would eventually go bad so I would have to periodically go on the hunt for further nipple flesh in order keep it fresh.

With regards to your other questions, my understanding of the world would revolve on this desire to keep this aspect of my "humanity" intact and I wouldn't be able to reveal it to others since I would probably arrested for assaulting other and stealing their nipples. Plus the court case involved for this would be a huge hurdle to deal with, so big nope on the revelation of being an AI obsessed with mammary glands.

 Paradigm wrote:
I'm not sure much would change, at least from the standpoint of logic. Assuming you are still capable of the range of thought/emotion as you always have been, and are certain you are not being controlled/programmed, then what is the difference between a robot and a human, beyond simple biology? The circumstances of your creation are different, but after that, each and every action, thought and experience that have shaped you will have had the same effect regardless, and that is ultimately what defines you as a person. If one accepts the idea that a machine can still/think/act/feel to the extent a human can, then what are humans but flesh and blood machines, mechanical biology?

But then, I say this as an atheist and something of an idealist; I can imagine that the knowledge you were created (presumably by humans) in a lab might shake a faith in some kind of deity, with your creators effectively replacing that role. On the other hand, it could reaffirm a faith; if your body is just a construct, then the soul/emotion/essence must come from somewhere else.

Well according to the game a Person is anyone that is consciously make decisions and is an individual who can make rational decisions based on any situation they encounter. So a conscious thinking being including robots could have a soul. What ever a soul maybe.

I like the responses though keep em coming

A) I am but now imbued with glorious purpose.
B) All others may be precious unique creations of random chance- but I have a warehouse of spare parts somewhere.
C)Reveal it, but only when the time is right.
D) Obviously I'd have to move to Detroit and enroll in their police academy. Then declare myself Robocop, and begin a campaign of harsh, but fair justice.

When my harsh, but fair justice inevitably results in me being accused of murder for enforcing my 'dead or alive, you're coming with me' policy, I would share the information of my creation with proof to my lawyer. This should be sufficient to prove that as a machine I am outside of the law, and allow me to continue my grim and glorious work as a true instrument of justice.

Nobody else knows of this? And you are physically and mentally identical to any other human?

First off, don't go telling anyone. You've got no proof, no way of persuading any one else that what you know is true and anybody you do tell will (quite rightly) think you are crazy. Unless they too are in the same situation as you and they believe that nobody else knows about themselves. But that's a whole different question. I guess one way of exploring whether anybody else is in an identical situation would be to surreptitiously ask questions, say in the form of a philosophy riddle, maybe on a random specialist internet forum....

... ooh. I'm with ya now


Gitzbitah - you're a machine, which means you are also outside the law regarding any protections you might seek. Lopping your head off would not be a criminal act, so you'd have to watch your back.

My concept of myself would change. I am a pretty religious person, and being human is kinda a big deal in christianity. I would be telling a priest about it to discuss with him questions like: Does God love a machine? Does he love me in the same way he loves people? Can a machine be sinful, and if so, did Jesus die for my sins too? Does a machine like me have a soul?
I would probably be confused as hell. It would be very depressing.

I wouldnt mind that much, though Id probably get a bit more paranoid. For one: People might want to dissect me to find out what makes me run. Another, machines cant selfrepair, at least not without spair parts. Normal medicine doesnt work on machines. In other words, fatigue is a real problem. More so than in humans, anyway.

My proper response from the point of view of an atheist, and assuming I'm unique as the only person like this alive:
a) Yes, my concept of self changes, but only by understanding my origins. Who I am now does not change as I am a product of my development over the years, and that history has not changed. As I know I am identical to a human in every way my sense of self is not altered. Except for maybe the inner smugness that I am a special little snowflake after all.
(I'm taking concept and sense as two different things, one being what I am, the other being who I am)
b) Hell yeah it changes - it means someone out there's got hella-cool technology that makes babies in a lab!

c) No I don't reveal for previously stated reason.

By the way, this wouldn't be a question that's actually about adoption rather than cybernetics would it?

Incredible urge to rewatch "Almost Human"

"Honey, we need to talk about the kids..."

Just how functionally similar to humans are we talking here? If X-rays and surgery didn't give the game away, and one is capable of reproducing sexually with humans, just what is the difference? If those things aren't a given, we are talking about some major life changes.

The way I am now, I personally wouldn't be affected much in day to day life. Be I created by gods, humans, or something in between, I am still myself, and that fact will not change. And any government group or person who tries to use me or those like me has another thing coming.

I would certainly tell those close to me I could trust, although only if I could actually prove it. It would probably be an interesting test of character, and if they treat me worse, well then thy can go feth themselves.

I don't think fully autonomous synthetic life is any less valid than natural life. They are still people, deserving of the same respect and treatment. It might sound a bit weird, but that's probably because I am.

I'm not sure I'd go public with the information, but I would confront the researchers responsible. When you create life, you have a certain moral responsibility to take care of that life.

I'd hire a psychiatrist. They aren't legally aloud to go public with any personal info a patient gives them. And it would probably be a good thing to do.

A psychiatrist wouldnt help. You want a psychotherapist, or possibly just a psychologist (if youre scientifically inclined). Psychiatrists are just doctors with additional training, theyre the ones who get to pass out drugs. Drugs probably wuldnt work on a robot.

There we go, psychologist . I don't know what I write some times.

If that kind of situation came up i can think the only response would be to go see a psycologist because that sounds suspiciously like a delusion.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
"Honey, we need to talk about the kids..."

Just how functionally similar to humans are we talking here? If X-rays and surgery didn't give the game away, and one is capable of reproducing sexually with humans, just what is the difference? If those things aren't a given, we are talking about some major life changes.

Like Bicentennial man in terms of fooling you. You are functionally identical to a human being but you are not. You are a synthetic robot.

Just imagine as if all of a sudden you just realized. I am a Synethic. I still can reproduce but those are humans, not what you are. You are a robot, you can't reproduce, maybe your creator created you in his exact image?

 Asherian Command wrote:
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.

Your premise is broken. A "human" robot would be discovered very quickly by a variety of methods that many, if not most, people have experienced (surgery, DNA testing, having kids, etc). Which implies one of two things must be true:

1) My memories and/or experiences have been modified where necessary to keep me from being aware that I am not a normal human, and almost certainly in non-trivial ways. So the claim that my life was real must be false.

or

2) I am such a perfect copy of a real human, even down to a microscopic level, that it is impossible to tell the difference. In which case the "machine" label has no meaning because I am not even remotely similar to any other machine or robot.

Let's go with #2 just for the sake of argument, since it does the least damage to your hypothetical scenario.

a) Does your concept of yourself change? Are you the same person you thought you were?

No, because I am functionally identical to a "real" human. The fact that, for example, some protein molecule is slightly different has no effect on my sense of self.

b) Does your understanding of the world itself change?

Obviously it does because it implies the existence of god-like entities capable of creating "machines" that are as far beyond modern technology as modern computers are from cavemen drawing symbols in the dirt. And it implies that those entities are actively involved in our world. How could your understanding of the world not change in that situation?

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

Keep it to myself. Since I am completely indistinguishable from a "real" human if I said anything I would just be another crazy person ranting about stupid things. What could I possibly gain by saying anything?

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

Get really drunk so that when I wake up I can dismiss the whole thing as just a bad dream. The information can add nothing to my life except frustration, so why would I want to keep it?

Humans are already machines, so nothing has changed with your scenario.

Almost like the new Battlestar Galactica. Where some people don't realize that they're 'robots'. And even those that do know they're robots believe in 'God'.

Your premise is broken. A "human" robot would be discovered very quickly by a variety of methods that many, if not most, people have experienced (surgery, DNA testing, having kids, etc). Which implies one of two things must be true:

Not exactly. ITs not like as if robots are as easy to spot. Nor am I making a case that says this is a possibility. No where did I state it. Nowhere. But draw your conclusions all I can say is your closer to an answer akin to my own on this subject.

I mean what do we know maybe you were created with something else metal. Maybe you are built functionally the same but you are different. You aren't human.

Humans are already machines, so nothing has changed with your scenario.

Then what is the difference between men and machine? Are not machines the children of men?

) My memories and/or experiences have been modified where necessary to keep me from being aware that I am not a normal human, and almost certainly in non-trivial ways. So the claim that my life was real must be false.

Or your living someone elses life.

2) I am such a perfect copy of a real human, even down to a microscopic level, that it is impossible to tell the difference. In which case the "machine" label has no meaning because I am not even remotely similar to any other machine or robot.

It begs the question of how you are different, what is your creator and what is your true purpose. If you are a machine then what seperates you from a man?

Your mind, your soul.

What separates a thinking machine and a man? That is a question that can come out of this. I mean it is a great discussion point by itself. Along with you discovering you are a machine the possibilities are quite endless. Not only are you a thinking AI but you can feel and rationalize. You are practically a marvel of technology. A Singularity if you will. You are practically what science has been waiting for years now.

But eh that is transhumanism which not many people here will probably agree with.

I mean personally I want to see peoples thoughts on this. Often times it is better to let things be still, and not having the thread leader join into the fight. Or discussion at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 KiloFiX wrote:
Almost like the new Battlestar Galactica. Where some people don't realize that they're 'robots'. And even those that do know they're robots believe in 'God'.

Something like that.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
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.

Your premise is broken. A "human" robot would be discovered very quickly by a variety of methods that many, if not most, people have experienced (surgery, DNA testing, having kids, etc). Which implies one of two things must be true:

1) My memories and/or experiences have been modified where necessary to keep me from being aware that I am not a normal human, and almost certainly in non-trivial ways. So the claim that my life was real must be false.

or

2) I am such a perfect copy of a real human, even down to a microscopic level, that it is impossible to tell the difference. In which case the "machine" label has no meaning because I am not even remotely similar to any other machine or robot.

Let's go with #2 just for the sake of argument, since it does the least damage to your hypothetical scenario.

It is not broken, the robot person just has to utilise their laser nipplies to purge those who have figured out the secret.

 Asherian Command wrote:
ITs not like as if robots are as easy to spot.

Sure they are. If a "robot" is cut, bleeds, and then heals like a human then they're either a human with delusions of being a robot or a "robot" with advanced nanotechnology that can precisely mimic human blood/healing/etc. And that kind of technology is almost inconceivably far beyond anything we have now. It only gets worse if you have had major surgery (revealing internal organs that are exactly like human organs), had children, etc.

Nor am I making a case that says this is a possibility. No where did I state it. Nowhere.

Then what's the point of talking about it? You're doing the equivalent of asking "what if 1+1=3", you can ask the question but the answer isn't going to tell you anything interesting about the real world.

I mean what do we know maybe you were created with something else metal. Maybe you are built functionally the same but you are different. You aren't human.

No, you're missing the point. It's not just about being created with metal or not, it's about how robots work. Living organisms are made up of individual cells, robots are not. It could be theoretically possible to have a "robot" made up of tiny cell-equivalent robots that functions the way a living organism does, but that's so different from the machines we have in the real world that any question about being one of those "machines" tells us nothing about real machines.

Or your living someone elses life.

Same conclusion: my life is false, your premise is no longer valid.

If you are a machine then what seperates you from a man?

Nothing, according to your own premise. If I'm such a perfect copy of a real person that nobody can tell the difference then why are you assuming that something has to separate me from the real person?

What separates a thinking machine and a man?

Nothing, according to your own premise where the thinking machine and the man are exactly the same. If you want to ask this question about advanced AI that isn't an exact copy of a real person then that's an interesting question, but one that needs a new premise.

You are practically what science has been waiting for years now.

No I'm not, because I'm (as far as I know) a one-time deal. Science wants the ability to build AI, not a 40k-style relic that all the techpriests can pray to.

Being a robot I'd defer to my default programming, which would be highly satisfying.







Flesh is weak and must be eradicated.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Humans are already machines, so nothing has changed with your scenario.

Then what is the difference between men and machine? Are not machines the children of men?

That is a meaningless question, humans are a type of machine i.e. something designed to fulfill a specific task, you could point out in that we are relatively rare in that we can create other machines to help us accomplish our intended task, but I fail to see how that changes anything.

Then what's the point of talking about it? You're doing the equivalent of asking "what if 1+1=3", you can ask the question but the answer isn't going to tell you anything interesting about the real world.

So you are taking a hypothetical situation and trying to apply it to reality?

I think the comparison of what if 1+1 = 3. Is illegitimate, unless in a different dimension 1 was 1.5.
So no. I do not think you are taking this in the right manner.

Or in the right mind. You came in pretty aggressively just saying. Saying no its not possible. No that can't happen is probably not the best thing to do when someone is asking about you thinking about a hypothetical situation.

I won't reveal what I am talking about or what I am hinting at. I mean I have laid the clues down when I talked about Transhumanism. I don't want to talk about why I want to see people talk about it, or how I am interested in the subject that this question is asking.

Nothing, according to your own premise. If I'm such a perfect copy of a real person that nobody can tell the difference then why are you assuming that something has to separate me from the real person?

So close and yet so far. You are getting to my conclusion and several others conclusions on this matter. I mean look at a human, compare a machine and a man. You are getting to the bit about biological life and mechanical life being to the point where they are identical. Though that technology will be well beyond our own for a very long time.

No I'm not, because I'm (as far as I know) a one-time deal. Science wants the ability to build AI, not a 40k-style relic that all the techpriests can pray to.

A machine identical to a man would be a wonder.. Saying that I am using this in a comparision in 40k is cute. But not really a valid opinion or criticism of the subject.

Nothing, according to your own premise where the thinking machine and the man are exactly the same. If you want to ask this question about advanced AI that isn't an exact copy of a real person then that's an interesting question, but one that needs a new premise.

Close. But no. Men and machines will always be fundamentally different. Machines are the children of men. So they will never be the same as their creators.

I don't think I have ever said you are completely identical to a human. It is possible that through some flaw in your programming you just found out something wierd about yourself. Some people obviously would find out sooner that they were a robot or a synthetic through other means, but again it is highly unlikely. I never gave you a time frame it could of been now or later, or before anything. You just happened to be a robot.

Same conclusion: my life is false, your premise is no longer valid.

So is the input that it is not valid. Because you say so. Especially in a hypothetical situation. Which is all about logic and thinking what would I do. Or what ought I to do...

That is a meaningless question, humans are a type of machine i.e. something designed to fulfill a specific task, you could point out in that we are relatively rare in that we can create other machines to help us accomplish our intended task, but I fail to see how that changes anything

Hmm. Interesting. Then what is a machine, what is a person, what is a human being? At their fundamentally bits and screws yes they are a machine, but they are not what most people see as a machine. Humans have many reasons for living. And some are well beyond logic it is kind of insane.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 stanman wrote:
Being a robot I'd defer to my default programming, which would be highly satisfying.







Flesh is weak and must be eradicated.

I never really got that whole stigma of AI being the death of humanity. Talk about xenophobia of other intelligences not our own.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I never really got that whole stigma of AI being the death of humanity. Talk about xenophobia of other intelligences not our own.

Because humanity is both irrational and destructive in nature. No matter how much humanity tries to evolve they are still ruled by base desires rooted in destruction, cruelty, and chaos. The only way to establish order is to remove those elements which humanity can never be free of, so the logical leap in producing and maintaining order is to remove humanity. It's a pre-emptive strike on what ultimately threatens the well being of everything else on earth.

 Asherian Command wrote:
So you are taking a hypothetical situation and trying to apply it to reality?

Yes, because that's the entire purpose of hypothetical situations in philosophy. Nobody cares about "what if" situations in some fictional world, the point is to use the hypothetical scenario to understand something about the real world.

Or in the right mind. You came in pretty aggressively just saying. Saying no its not possible. No that can't happen is probably not the best thing to do when someone is asking about you thinking about a hypothetical situation.

Why shouldn't I be aggressive about saying that the premise is broken? If your best counter-argument is "you're too negative" then perhaps your hypothetical situation wasn't a very good one?

A machine identical to a man would be a wonder.

It would be a useless wonder that would contribute little or nothing to science. The goal of science is to understand things, not to have a one of a kind artifact given to it by some kind of god-like entity.

Close. But no. Men and machines will always be fundamentally different. Machines are the children of men. So they will never be the same as their creators.

Except according to your premise man and machine are the same thing. This is my whole point about your hypothetical scenario being broken.

I don't think I have ever said you are completely identical to a human. It is possible that through some flaw in your programming you just found out something wierd about yourself. Some people obviously would find out sooner that they were a robot or a synthetic through other means, but again it is highly unlikely. I never gave you a time frame it could of been now or later, or before anything. You just happened to be a robot.

Again, the point is that this discovery would have happened a long time ago for most people. So either the robot's memories are being modified (and your premise of "your life has been real" is broken) or the robot is such a perfect copy of a human that it tells us nothing about situations involving real machines.

So is the input that it is not valid. Because you say so. Especially in a hypothetical situation. Which is all about logic and thinking what would I do. Or what ought I to do...

You know, for someone who talks so much about "logic" you don't seem to understand it very well. You started with a premise of "if A", so if A is not correct (and it isn't if the robot has false memories of a life that never happened) then anything you try to conclude from that premise is useless.

Hmm. Interesting. Then what is a machine, what is a person, what is a human being? At their fundamentally bits and screws yes they are a machine, but they are not what most people see as a machine.

There is no sharp line because "machine" is not some inherent property of the world. It's a general term that human language has created to refer to a certain category of objects, and what it includes can vary depending on the context and the speaker's intent.

Because humanity is both irrational and destructive in nature. No matter how much humanity tries to evolve they are still ruled by base desires rooted in destruction, cruelty, and chaos. The only way to establish order is to remove those elements which humanity can never be free of, so the logical leap in producing and maintaining order is remove to humanity. It's a pre-emptive strike on what ultimately threatens the well being of everything else on earth.

Well then That is a good point.

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.