|
Post by chrisimo on Oct 23, 2008 5:19:30 GMT -5
Want is irrelevant, it's just a matter of what someone is capable of doing. The same thing goes for things that I don't want. I don't want to spontaneously blow up for no reason and it won't happen not because I don't want it to happen but because there's nothing in my physiology that allows for that to be possible. I disagree. Our wants are what makes us develop things. We want to fly? We develop air planes.Our wants are what drives us forward. It's what helps us to improve ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by vicheron on Oct 23, 2008 5:26:04 GMT -5
Want is irrelevant, it's just a matter of what someone is capable of doing. The same thing goes for things that I don't want. I don't want to spontaneously blow up for no reason and it won't happen not because I don't want it to happen but because there's nothing in my physiology that allows for that to be possible. I disagree. Our wants are what makes us develop things. We want to fly? We develop air planes.Our wants are what drives us forward. It's what helps us to improve ourselves. What does that have to do with free will? If you have free will then you can choose to do whatever you want. You can choose not to progress forward. You can do the exact opposite and regress. Cameron and the Terminators don't have to better themselves or make the world a better place in order to have free will. As long as they have the ability to choose to do anything they are capable of doing then they have free will.
|
|
|
Post by chrisimo on Oct 23, 2008 5:47:21 GMT -5
What does that have to do with free will? If you have free will then you can choose to do whatever you want. You can choose not to progress forward. You can do the exact opposite and regress. Cameron and the Terminators don't have to better themselves or make the world a better place in order to have free will. As long as they have the ability to choose to do anything they are capable of doing then they have free will. Terminators are not free to choose to do anything they are capable of. They serve a purpose. Everything they do has to serve that purpose. They can not choose to do anything other. Only Cameron seems different. But even that is not sure. I will give you an example: I order you to build a house for me. You are free to choose how to build that house but everything you do has to aid the building of my house. Do you consider that as free will?
|
|
|
Post by vicheron on Oct 23, 2008 16:13:20 GMT -5
What does that have to do with free will? If you have free will then you can choose to do whatever you want. You can choose not to progress forward. You can do the exact opposite and regress. Cameron and the Terminators don't have to better themselves or make the world a better place in order to have free will. As long as they have the ability to choose to do anything they are capable of doing then they have free will. Terminators are not free to choose to do anything they are capable of. They serve a purpose. Everything they do has to serve that purpose. They can not choose to do anything other. Only Cameron seems different. But even that is not sure. The key here is understanding that the mind is dependent on the body. What you can or cannot think depends on your brain. Infants do not become self aware until 18 months old because their brain hasn't developed to that point. It is possible for people to lose certain cognitive functions, like the ability to feel fear, due to damage to certain parts of their brain. People who cannot think certain things because of the way their brain is structured do not lack free will, they just don't have the physical capability to do certain things. It's the same for the Terminators. Their chip could have been built in such a way that they cannot use certain kinds of programming. Why would it not be considered free will? There are always going to be limitations to the choices you can make. You do not give up your free will just by getting a job.
|
|
|
Post by chrisimo on Oct 23, 2008 16:59:22 GMT -5
The key here is understanding that the mind is dependent on the body. What you can or cannot think depends on your brain. Infants do not become self aware until 18 months old because their brain hasn't developed to that point. It is possible for people to lose certain cognitive functions, like the ability to feel fear, due to damage to certain parts of their brain. People who cannot think certain things because of the way their brain is structured do not lack free will, they just don't have the physical capability to do certain things. It's the same for the Terminators. Their chip could have been built in such a way that they cannot use certain kinds of programming. Yes, their chips are build or modified in a restrictive manner. But it's not like they can't do certain things. They can't to anything until specifically told to do so. If they have no orders they simply do nothing and think nothing and want nothing. Why would it not be considered free will? There are always going to be limitations to the choices you can make. You do not give up your free will just by getting a job. It's not like getting a job. That makes it sound like you could say no to the job. But in my example you cannot say no. You must say yes. You cannot even think that you don't want the job. You have orders and you must follow them and cannot move an inch away from them. Yes, you can choose which construction company you hire or things like that and this constitutes some kind of flexibility but even that is just superficial. If you determine that a certain construction company is not suited to build my house then you cannot choose it. Free will is your ability to choose what you want. If you cannot do that and instead are dependant on orders given to you you have no free will. Even todays computer software can make decisions. Computer games AI is an example of that. They have to make decisions based on what they 'see', 'hear', if they have backup with them and a lot of others things. Nearly every encouter is different with those bots. So you could say they have a free will.
|
|
|
Post by vicheron on Oct 24, 2008 0:16:50 GMT -5
The key here is understanding that the mind is dependent on the body. What you can or cannot think depends on your brain. Infants do not become self aware until 18 months old because their brain hasn't developed to that point. It is possible for people to lose certain cognitive functions, like the ability to feel fear, due to damage to certain parts of their brain. People who cannot think certain things because of the way their brain is structured do not lack free will, they just don't have the physical capability to do certain things. It's the same for the Terminators. Their chip could have been built in such a way that they cannot use certain kinds of programming. Yes, their chips are build or modified in a restrictive manner. But it's not like they can't do certain things. They can't to anything until specifically told to do so. If they have no orders they simply do nothing and think nothing and want nothing. But how do you know that? How do you know that they have the same cognitive capabilities as humans? Maybe they just can't think certain things due to limitations in their chip just like someone who has brain damage may not be able to think certain things because they're missing the parts of their brain that allows them to think those kinds of things. Free will is not the ability to choose what you want because you cannot do everything that you want. Free will is only the ability to choose what you are capable of doing. Limitation in choice is not a limitation in free will. If Terminators are built in such a way that they are physically incapable of making certain decisions in the same way that we cannot decide what our stomach can or cannot digest then it does not mean that they have no free will. You're assuming that Terminators are actually physically capable of doing things without orders.
|
|
|
Post by chrisimo on Oct 24, 2008 1:54:52 GMT -5
But how do you know that? How do you know that they have the same cognitive capabilities as humans? Maybe they just can't think certain things due to limitations in their chip just like someone who has brain damage may not be able to think certain things because they're missing the parts of their brain that allows them to think those kinds of things. Yes, that's actually what I am saying. Terminators are have certain physical limitations in their chips that prevent them of having a free will. Free will is not the ability to choose what you want because you cannot do everything that you want. Free will is only the ability to choose what you are capable of doing. Limitation in choice is not a limitation in free will. If Terminators are built in such a way that they are physically incapable of making certain decisions in the same way that we cannot decide what our stomach can or cannot digest then it does not mean that they have no free will. You're assuming that Terminators are actually physically capable of doing things without orders. I can see your reasoning very well but I just cannot accept that as free will. Even the fingerprint software in my Notebook makes a decision. It is severly limited in what in can choose but it can choose if a scanned fingerprint is mine or not. For you that probably constitutes free will but for me it doesn't. You are right of course, that it's all a matter of definition. It's even possible that there is not free will at all. But I think that we can agree on the following: If you go with the definition of Catherine Weaver (a machine crossing the red light, going against it's own programming), 'normal' Terminators don't have a free will.
|
|
|
Post by vicheron on Oct 24, 2008 2:16:03 GMT -5
I'm making a distinction between something that you are physically able to do but cannot do because of "artificial" reasons and something that you just don't have the capacity to do. Not being able to cross the red light is an artificial limitation. You can cross the red light but you don't because it's against the law and it's not safe. However, if the red light triggers something in your brain that prevents you from physically crossing then it's completely different. With a machine, it's just a matter of whether or not their hardware allows for the addition of programming that lets them cross the red light. If Terminators have the capacity to add the programming that allows them to cross the red light but isn't allowed to add them then that's a limitation in its free will. However, if the Terminator's chip does not have the capacity to add that kind of programming then it doesn't have anything to do with free will. It's like the difference between a computer that has a monitor but doesn't have the software to use the monitor and a computer that just doesn't have a monitor.
|
|
|
Post by chrisimo on Oct 24, 2008 3:20:16 GMT -5
I'm making a distinction between something that you are physically able to do but cannot do because of "artificial" reasons and something that you just don't have the capacity to do. Not being able to cross the red light is an artificial limitation. You can cross the red light but you don't because it's against the law and it's not safe. However, if the red light triggers something in your brain that prevents you from physically crossing then it's completely different. With a machine, it's just a matter of whether or not their hardware allows for the addition of programming that lets them cross the red light. If Terminators have the capacity to add the programming that allows them to cross the red light but isn't allowed to add them then that's a limitation in its free will. However, if the Terminator's chip does not have the capacity to add that kind of programming then it doesn't have anything to do with free will. It's like the difference between a computer that has a monitor but doesn't have the software to use the monitor and a computer that just doesn't have a monitor. What's the difference for you between an artificial limitation and a physical one regarding a Terminator? Is programming a physical limitation or an artificial one?
|
|
|
Post by vicheron on Oct 24, 2008 5:56:21 GMT -5
It's just a matter of whether or not the Terminator can run that type of program. A person with certain kinds of brain damage can lose the ability to feel guilt, that would be a physical limitation. A normal person can feel guilt, however that feeling can be repressed through various methods. The person still has the part of the brain that allows him to feel guilt but doesn't feel it because of the repression, that would be an artificial limitation. It's the same thing with Terminators. If their chip can run a certain type of programming that allows them to feel the machine's equivalent of guilt but have other programs that prevent it from either accessing or adding that type of program, then it's an artificial limitation. On the other hand, if their chip simply can't handle that type of program, then it's a physical limitation.
|
|
|
Post by chrisimo on Oct 24, 2008 6:42:25 GMT -5
It's just a matter of whether or not the Terminator can run that type of program. A person with certain kinds of brain damage can lose the ability to feel guilt, that would be a physical limitation. A normal person can feel guilt, however that feeling can be repressed through various methods. The person still has the part of the brain that allows him to feel guilt but doesn't feel it because of the repression, that would be an artificial limitation. It's the same thing with Terminators. If their chip can run a certain type of programming that allows them to feel the machine's equivalent of guilt but have other programs that prevent it from either accessing or adding that type of program, then it's an artificial limitation. On the other hand, if their chip simply can't handle that type of program, then it's a physical limitation. Well, in Terminator 2 John removes some programming that prevents the Terminator from learning everything it could. So that would be an artificial limitation according to your definition. But it's only about what a Terminator can learn. Still nothing about what it can want to do. Maybe that's an artificial limitation or maybe it's a physical one. But the point of Catherine is this: She wants a machine that can go against it's programming. Todays computers can't do that. Terminators can't do that either (Skynet doesn't want them to). It doesn't really matter if the limitation is artificial or physical, because the definition of free will in this case is: A machine only has a free will if it can act against its programming. And according to that definition, Terminators don't have a free will.
|
|
|
Post by vicheron on Oct 24, 2008 9:50:45 GMT -5
It does matter whether the limitation is physical or artificial because the computers that exist today are not advanced enough to go against their programming. Computers today are like children, their "brains" have not developed to the point that would allow them to learn certain things. Catherine wants a computer that not only has the capacity to learn certain things and make certain decisions but also the ability to overcome any artificial limitations that are put on it. It's like a sports team that wants someone who not only has the genetics to become a great player but also the will and determination to achieve that biological potential.
The question as it pertains to this thread is, are Terminators, and by extension Cameron, that kind of machine? Are their chips built in such a way that gives them the ability to learn certain things and if they do have that capacity, will they learn those things given the chance? And if their chips are limited in that sense, is Cameron somehow different from the other Terminators? Perhaps what makes Cameron different is actually due to additions not only to her programming but also to her physical chip. As we have seen, Cameron's chip does actually have something that the other Terminators do not, perhaps that is what allows her to acquire certain skills and traits that the other Terminators can't learn.
|
|
|
Post by chrisimo on Oct 24, 2008 12:21:51 GMT -5
It does matter whether the limitation is physical or artificial because the computers that exist today are not advanced enough to go against their programming. Computers today are like children, their "brains" have not developed to the point that would allow them to learn certain things. Catherine wants a computer that not only has the capacity to learn certain things and make certain decisions but also the ability to overcome any artificial limitations that are put on it. It's like a sports team that wants someone who not only has the genetics to become a great player but also the will and determination to achieve that biological potential. The question as it pertains to this thread is, are Terminators, and by extension Cameron, that kind of machine? Are their chips built in such a way that gives them the ability to learn certain things and if they do have that capacity, will they learn those things given the chance? And if their chips are limited in that sense, is Cameron somehow different from the other Terminators? Perhaps what makes Cameron different is actually due to additions not only to her programming but also to her physical chip. As we have seen, Cameron's chip does actually have something that the other Terminators do not, perhaps that is what allows her to acquire certain skills and traits that the other Terminators can't learn. Terminators are not that kind of machine. They are just like our computers. More sophisticated, of course, with neural net processors that have parallel processing capability, but still not able to act on it's own or against it's orders. It would be stupid by Skynet to design them that way. Skynet's creators lost control over Skynet and if Skynet gave the same abilities to it's Terminators, it may suffer the same fate as it's creators. Cameron may be different because Skynet is becoming deperate. It may think that the key to defeating humanity is to really understand humanity. And so it builds a Terminator (or maybe more than one) that can experience humanness.
|
|
terrasj
Sergeant
Rossbond Connor Crew
Posts: 445
|
Post by terrasj on Oct 24, 2008 13:16:39 GMT -5
Today's computers are pretty much limited to GIGO (Garbage in, Garbage out). Add to the fact that there isn't any sort of Artificial Intelligence programming yet.
IBM's Big Blue only runs a chess analyzing software program.
Perhaps our technological level of processing microchips isn't advanced enough to run a true independent A.I programing yet. Or maybe our greatest minds haven't figured out how to program a fully self sufficient and thinking A.I ...
But lets skip ahead to Terminators. Apparently their cpu chips are advanced and powerful enough to run A.I software, and act independantly. of free thought and will. Skynet was the first. The chips in the Terminator units are powerful enough and their A.I inteligent enough to be capable of learning.
That's bode bad for Skynet if it didn't put an inhibitor on its Terminators. Should in the event that the Terminators gain realization of what the whole war is about. Some Terminators may reach the conclusion on their own that Skynet started the war, and is intent on wiping out humanity.
John was instructed how to 'flip' Arnie's chip to learning mode, which also opened him up to freedom of free thought. I'd assume the Future John would've done that for any reprogrammed Terminator that he sends back in time to protect his younger self.
Cameron always demonstrates an innocent curiosity, learning, mimicing, and wanting to further learn and understand the values of humanity. She asked why do people write notes to the departed. She then wrote one herself to gain understanding. She grew a fascination and appreciation for ballet. Her mission was over for the Ballet school but at the house afterwards she practiced some on her own free will.
After the car bomb explosion, she's been taking that freedom of thought and choice further. Deciding what and how to act on the Power Plant issue. She used to just throw herself towards the other Terminators without second thought or question. Now when ordered by Sarah, Cameron paused and thought about it before deciding what to do. Almost as if she's concerned for her well being now.
I realize this is the Cameron thread, though I'll risk saying that this isn't limited to just Cameron. I think that any Terminator, given the unique circumstance and exposure could grow, develop, and advance past its initial state of A.I. Learn what it means to feel, and why.
I like to maintain the beleif that anything's possible - if theres a will, there's a way. Or like the old saying "Nature will find a way".
That being said, I'm all for Cameron growing on a personal level. Grow beyond her initial parameters. Understand the value of life. Become more human.
|
|
t101
Major
Posts: 716
|
Post by t101 on Oct 24, 2008 14:04:32 GMT -5
No they aren't. Our computers cannot learn, period. They do only what you've programmed them to do, they cannot improvise, they do not use logic and reasoning to make decisions, everything they may choose to do is something a human put there.
Skynet in the Terminator universe has been made from a Terminator's chip. It is that learning technology that lets it become self-aware. Skynet was likewise designed to serve humans, why can't the same happen to a terminator?
My original point was about AI in Terminator universe. It is capable of free will, doesn't mean every terminator is free to choose. But the framework has always been there in the story.
|
|