Species of the week: Androids

[Sionnach Glic]

To answer your computer virus question I must ask: what makes you think a terrorist could do something 'professinal' hackers can't?

I don't, it was just an example. I was showing that there are incredibly powerful defense systems, that have not been broken in the modern day. What makes you think that an androids systems would be any less secure than a modern day version?
And how would this virus get into the android, anyway? In an instant, it could shut off its connection to the internet. In an instant, it could re-boot its systems. In an instant it could do a complete system restore. In an instant, it could simply shut down and isolate any infected parts.
Can a human do this if infected? Nope. Humans are far more vulnerable to virii than machines, which is an important point you seem to be ignoring.

And if we move into android bodies computer viruses will become even more common and deadly. I sure don't want to die because I had a system crash.

I sure don't want to die from any diesease. Too bad we have more than enough lethal ones in the modern world. And its just too bad we couldn't simply restore ourselves to life like a machine could.

And manufacturing sperm and reproductive organs? That's a little too inhuman.

So? Some people would say that turning yourself into an android or cyborg would be inhuman. Hell, some people say that homosexuality is inhuman. Unless there's an objective reason not to do it, there's no reason we shouldn't.

And from the way you put it the child in question wouldn't have a choice.

Fine. Let the kid mature naturaly, then let him have the choice,

Will Androids look down on their organic counterparts?

Probably. The same way smart people look down on idiots.

Will being a heavily upgraded android make him better then an android who can't afford it?

Will having a shiny car make rich people better than a poor one who can't afford it?

An android simply buys new components or downloads the right program, and it'll be like a kid who found his father's gun. They have no idea how to use it properly.

Unless they get instructions, or training with them. And you could quite easily restrict things like built-in weapons and such to military personel.

Creating a better body is one thing, creating a better human is the real problem.

It's also completely irrelevant, as that's not what this discusion is about.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

Computers have extensive support for those operations. A good virus would wipe out automatic anti-virus programs first. And as you brought up, many androids will probably want an internet connection. Anything that creates a direct link or download is capable of recieving a virus. That's why some high-security and criticle networks(CIA, FBI, ect.) don't have floppy or CD drives. And many secure networks have tech labs that keep the security up to date every minute, and the most advanced software available to defend it. I doubt everyone can afford that.

And are you suggesting that a person who is turned into an android is automatically better then a non-android. That non-androids are idiots? That's very close-minded.

And the gun was an example. Didn't you ever read or watch Jurassic Park? It doesn't take a weapon to be dangerous. And what defines a weapon anyway? I could do a lot of damage with a hammer, does that count as a weapon? Or is it okay because the guy being turned into scrap has a back-up copy? Crime or not it's too much like a video game for my approval.

And I know guys who've had extensive training on a forklift, yet that doesn't make them any more responsible(all fun and games until they caused an accident that almost killed me!).

[Sionnach Glic]

And many secure networks have tech labs that keep the security up to date every minute, and the most advanced software available to defend it. I doubt everyone can afford that.

Not now they couldn't. But in a time where the technology to download someone's mind into a computer is abundant and afordable, such a system might cost very little.

And are you suggesting that a person who is turned into an android is automatically better then a non-android. That non-androids are idiots? That's very close-minded.

Where did I say that? I pointed out that you are probably right when you suggest that androids may look down on 'inferior' non-androids, the same way that some smart people look down on idiots as being 'inferior'. It was an example, nothing more.

Didn't you ever read or watch Jurassic Park?

Yes. The book is far better, in my opinion.

It doesn't take a weapon to be dangerous. And what defines a weapon anyway? I could do a lot of damage with a hammer, does that count as a weapon?

No, it counts as a tool. You can kill someone with a tool, just as you could kill someone if you were an android. So, if you're suggesting we should stop people from becoming androids, shouldn't we also stop people buying hammers?

Or is it okay because the guy being turned into scrap has a back-up copy?

Of course not. It would fall under 'attempted murder'.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

But by then hackers will be creating even better viruses.

And the idiot comment was an analogy where idiots were replacing non-androids. I just read between the lines. A better analogy would be someone riding in a car looks down on someone riding a horse.

Is it attemted murder if he knew the guy had a back up and would survive? And anything can be a weapon, heck most people can kill a man with their thumb. Immagine the damage a person could do with android abilities.

And what about copies? A person could create a copy of themselves. Or simply download someone's memories. This brings up questions of privacy and individuality. I'd rather keep those intact then have 'immortality'.

[Sionnach Glic]

But by then hackers will be creating even better viruses.

And by then we will be creating better security systems. Just as we are nowadays.

And the idiot comment was an analogy where idiots were replacing non-androids. I just read between the lines. A better analogy would be someone riding in a car looks down on someone riding a horse.

Right, fine.

Is it attemted murder if he knew the guy had a back up and would survive?

Fine, assault then.

And what about copies? A person could create a copy of themselves.

Yes. Yes they could.

I'd rather keep those intact then have 'immortality'.

Well, that's a matter of opinion.

[Mikey]

Blackstar - how can you say that a point agaisnt androids is the lack of reproduction, and then discard the answer simply because you don't like it? ("That's too inhuman," I believe you said - well, you may not like it, but it answered your objection perfectly.) And continue to argue about the danger of computer viruses, but not answer the counterpoints mentioned about human diseases. In fact, you have yet to answer my point about subversion of human will being far easier than subversion of android will, which was why you brought up the virus argument in the first place.

We understand you are anti-android in this case, and we all respect your choice to feel so. However, if you want to bring up points ti support yourself, please respond when they are answered.

[Captain Peabody]

Okay; again, I have to say that Androids are still far, far, inferior to humans. Sure, they have plenty of flashy 'extras', but in general design, complexity, and adaptability, we beat them a hundred to one. Take an example; you say that an android would be just as capable of a human of adapting to a threat... Well, I've taken a few basic computer programming courses, and believe me: if you want a computer to respond to an input, you have to tell it exactly what to do... If you give it a screwy input, then it won't 'adapt' the program to it; it'll either crash, or, if you've created a contingency for it, say something like "retry."

But that's about today's computers: what we're talking about is a Data-like android. Presumably, Data's 'human' programming involves a series of extremely complex commands for various facets of human behaviour, which is in the end just a very, very complex computer program...and presumably, thus, the same limitations apply. Data, however, is a special case; he does seem to learn and adapt in almost human ways; he learns to understand human idioms and expressions, react to social situations better, etc, etc. So in theory, perhaps, this might make him better than people (but realize, we're making quite a leap here from modern-day computer systems and the pseudo-miracuoulous Data; in other words, we're not likely to see anything like Data anytime soon).

But, again, what is an android, basically? It's an attempt to recreate human life, using different tools (technological rather than organic)...so almost by definition, an android can not be 'better' than what it seeks to emulate. It's only a cheap imitation; a good imitation, perhaps, even a convincing one, but an imitation nonetheless.

[Captain Seafort]

You might as well say that a Ticonderoga-class cruiser is only an "imitation" of a Roman galley, and therefore inferior to it.

An android would be faster, stronger, and more resillient than a human. It can be repaired easier and quicker, and it wouldn't suffer from such things as pain, fear, shock and blood loss in the case of injury. It would be able to think hundreds or thousands of times quicker than a human. Even the points you raise regarding computers' inability to adapt to input they haven't been programmed for would not apply to a true Turing-passable AI.

[Sionnach Glic]

Sure, they have plenty of flashy 'extras', but in general design, complexity, and adaptability, we beat them a hundred to one.

No. We really don't.
Complexity is debateable, and isn't an advantage. Saying humans are more adaptable than a machine that can change itself on the go is just stupid. And the human body is rather patheticaly designed in comparison to other creatures, let alone a machine.

an example; you say that an android would be just as capable of a human of adapting to a threat... Well, I've taken a few basic computer programming courses, and believe me: if you want a computer to respond to an input, you have to tell it exactly what to do... If you give it a screwy input, then it won't 'adapt' the program to it; it'll either crash, or, if you've created a contingency for it, say something like "retry."

That analogy would be valid if the computers you worked with were sentient. Which is what we're talking about.

what we're talking about is a Data-like android.

Uh, no. What we've been talking about is downloading your mind into a mechanical body.

It's an attempt to recreate human life, using different tools (technological rather than organic)...so almost by definition, an android can not be 'better' than what it seeks to emulate. It's only a cheap imitation; a good imitation, perhaps, even a convincing one, but an imitation nonetheless.

That's just plain idiotic. How can something that's faster, smarter, more responsive, more durable, stronger, able to block out pain and emotion, and virtualy immortal possibly be inferior to a human? Just because it's an imitation of life, it most certainlt does not mean it is inherently inferior.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

to block out pain and emotion, and virtualy immortal possibly be inferior to a human?

if you block out pain and emotion you block out what makes you human. That ability eliminates what it means to be human.

Just because it's an imitation of life, it most certainlt does not mean it is inherently inferior.

An imitation may not be inferior, but it is still an imitation. Replicas are great if the original is unavailable but everyone I know prefers to have the original. Well, except for remakes, but that's a whole different issue.

[Mikey]

That ability eliminates what it means to be human.

Of course! Aren't we discussing android v. human? If they were the same, what the hell would we be talking about? Not being human isn't an argument against androids in this context, it's simply a definition of one of the sides of the debate.

Again, I have to ask respectfully: You have clearly stated your position, but in the interest of furthering debate, do you intend to answer the arguments posited?

[Sionnach Glic]

if you block out pain and emotion you block out what makes you human. That ability eliminates what it means to be human.

So? The fact remains, you'd still be far superior to a normal human.

An imitation may not be inferior, but it is still an imitation. Replicas are great if the original is unavailable but everyone I know prefers to have the original. Well, except for remakes, but that's a whole different issue.

And a remake is exactly what this is. If it was a replica, we'd be mostly the same (that's why its called a replica). What an android would be, is a superior object, in a humanoid form. Heck, it doesn't even have to be in a human form, it could look like whatever the individual wanted.

Also, as you have not answered any of the points put forward, I'm taking your silence as a concesion on your previous points.

So, your arguments are now down to:
You're not human anymore.
It's a replica, therefore it's inferior.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

I'm not conceding on many points, it's just that my computer is down and I've been using my Wii to type this(without a real keyboard) and I havn't found a copy and paste feature yet, and it's wearing out my thumb.

To keep this short I'll stick to the immidiate points and come back to the others on Monday.

Fact:Android bodys have many physical advantages.
Fact:Humans are freakin idiots(take our ages, subtract ten from it. Where we smart back then? No, we were freakin idiots. We just as idiotic now but it'll take ten years to realize it.)
Fact: Some peaple mistake a CD-ROM drive for a cupholder.
Fact: most people can't take care of their own computers.

Now even if you made an android body without the flaws we've been arguing about there's the very big issue of people not knowing how to use it or operate it properly. And don't say "we can train them" because most people tend to only half-listen at best. Like how Mikey hasn't figured out we're talking about putting humans into android bodies(At least that's what it seems like).

[Mikey]

Actually, I figured it out just fine on my own. I'm not the one who ignored all the arguments made against his stance. If, however, you're talking about somehow transferring the consciousness directly, with NO changes whatsoever to coincide with the transfer, then my question to you is, "What's the point?"

One of the larger advantages of the androids we've been talking about is brainpower/computing capacity/etc. If you don't modify the mind in order to take advantage of that, then why bother?

PS Rochey - I've agreed with you throughout, but an android DOES have to be human-shaped. The word "android" come from "andros" which means "man."

PPS Blackstar - Arguing agaisnt androids because you're afraid people can't figure out how to work them? You're arguing a practicable matter against a theoretical one, and it doesn't hold water.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

Wow, all this time I thought Andros was that evil emperor ape from the StarFox series.