How far should we improve/replace ourselve?

[Carn]

Assuming we get the hang of genetics, the question will arise, whether and how far improvement should be done, after all we are adapted to hunting animals, not space travel or driving cars.

And assuming we realy get the hang of genetics, not like all those fools plaguing literature, so that we do not end up with flesh eating monsters -

What improvements should be made, what limits should be there?

Should the improved versions still resemble humans in look and thought process or is that purely a question of what is a efficient body and brain?
Maybe science will prove, that carbon based intelligent live is in a fundamental way inferior to silicium based - shall the machines have their try?

Does it make a difference, how the improved humans/new species would treat old humans?
After all, a really superior species wouldn't need to fear humans and could certainly find lots of other space to live, while humans might be limited to earth anyway.

As to me any intelligent live following some basic ethics is equal, i voted data you're in charge(i intented to create a poll) - if just he can be constucted without the idiotic notion to develop emotions like a human.

What is your opinion?

(I intended to create a poll, options would have been:
Blasphemy!!!!!!!!

We will never be scientifically and morally good enough to exclude catastrophic failure.

As long as they could be still called human.

As long as they would belong to primates family.

Outer form is irrelevant, they have to share our ideals and be biological.

Mr. Data, you have the bridge.

)

[Dcdrac]

Well i would repalce our ludrcious energy use/creation system, make our cells never wear out and introduce the ability to change shape or form whenever we wanted to.

Hey I can dream

[Imaginative]

We have no choice, we have to change or adapt to get off this planet, we've already reached the window of opportunity. How long this window stays open, who knows, but its looking pretty bleak what with global warming and clashes of cultures across the world. If we don't take our opportunity while we can then we are heading for an evolutionary dead end and it might take another 500 million years before anything resembling our abilities come along again.

[Dark Jaguar]

If we can't get cells to never wear out, we can at least make them capable of replacing themselves indefinitely assuming they are supplied with the energy to do so. I'm really not sure why we aren't capable of it as is.

What limits? None if you ask me. I really have no ethical qualms about upgrading myself in whatever way I so desire. I simply have different standards of what consitutes an "upgrade" than those who get body art and cosmetic surgery. I want something that serves a real functional purpose myself.

[Rob Lister]

The question is not "how far should we...", the question is "how far would you...

As the science evolves, so will opinions regarding it.

A better question is what is the likely evolution of that science take and what will we look like in three hundred or so years (assuming a continuation of both science and freedom).

Homo sapian => ???

Trends will happen (larger penis for men/perkier breasts for women/blue eyes/blond hair/big muscles/perfect butt) but some 'trends' will become necessitities (more brain power in general/immunity from viruses and desease/perfect eyesight/better sense of smell perhaps...)

[Dogdoctor]

We will have huge heads and a skinny body and green skin due to chlorophyll chromatophores we acquired so we can survive without food for a longer time. We will learn to travel back in time and people will call our craft flying saucers and us aliens from outer space. :)

[Serenity]

We will have huge heads and a skinny body and green skin due to chlorophyll chromatophores we acquired so we can survive without food for a longer time. We will learn to travel back in time and people will call our craft flying saucers and us aliens from outer space. :)That was too funny Dogdoctor. :D

Imaginative wrote:

we've already reached the window of opportunity How long this window stays open, who knowsExcellent way of putting it because it creates a sense of urgency to populate outside this world. As I've said in another thread on this subject to use a tired cliche, "we have all our eggs in one basket while we stay on this planet".

CARN - I see our bodies now as mere shells, nothing more. The sooner we can replace them with something less fragile the better. We shouldn't limit ourselves to human form at all. I wouldn't be surprised if carbon based humans become absolete in the next few hundred years.

[Rob Lister]

We will have huge heads and a skinny body and green skin due to chlorophyll chromatophores we acquired so we can survive without food for a longer time. We will learn to travel back in time and people will call our craft flying saucers and us aliens from outer space. :)

Bigger heads? Maybe. Assumes we can't make do with the existing cranial volume.

Green skin? I don't buy it. Maybe as a trend or something but by then we'll be living in bubbles; we my not even 'ingest' food the way we do now.

I doubt the time travel thing because if we get it then, then we'd know about it now! (time travel discussion requires a different, newer set of verb tenses).

[Rob Lister]

That was too funny Dogdoctor. :D

Imaginative wrote:
Excellent way of putting it because it creates a sense of urgency to populate outside this world. As I've said in another thread on this subject to use a tired cliche, "we have all our eggs in one basket while we stay on this planet".

CARN - I see our bodies now as mere shells, nothing more. The sooner we can replace them with something less fragile the better. We shouldn't limit ourselves to human form at all. I wouldn't be surprised if carbon based humans become absolete in the next few hundred years.

We're already reaching out to the stars. Quadruple our average intellect/lifespan/biological persistence and we'll be grasping greededly rather than just reaching

[Lord Muck oGentry]

We will have huge heads and a skinny body and green skin due to chlorophyll chromatophores we acquired so we can survive without food for a longer time. We will learn to travel back in time and people will call our craft flying saucers and us aliens from outer space. :)

Like this?

http://www.internationalhero.co.uk/m/mekon.htm

[ruach1]

What is your opinion?
I don't know yet. I haven't finished watching GATTACA.

[Soapy Sam]

Why go the genetic modification route? If long life and space travel are the aims, we need a way to download a human mind into a self-repairing starship.
It need not be fast.You sleep fot the ten thousand years it takes to get there, then you fire up the gear and go exploring.

For those who prefer genetics- read "The Seedling Stars", by James Blish. A classic.

[DRBUZZ0]

sorry..posting error

[DRBUZZ0]

That was too funny Dogdoctor. :D

Imaginative wrote:
Excellent way of putting it because it creates a sense of urgency to populate outside this world. As I've said in another thread on this subject to use a tired cliche, "we have all our eggs in one basket while we stay on this planet".


As far as putting all our eggs in one basket here on earth. Well.. The only problem with doing something about that is that right now it's a lot safer being on earth than anywhere else we know of. If you want to populate another planet you have to worry about living completely with artificial lifesupport and protection from all kinds of nasty stuff. It will be some time before that changes. Maybe the best policy for now is to try to avoid


CARN - I see our bodies now as mere shells, nothing more. The sooner we can replace them with something less fragile the better. We shouldn't limit ourselves to human form at all. I wouldn't be surprised if carbon based humans become absolete in the next few hundred years.

Well. Perphaps at some point. But not for a while. There are some major advantages to organic-based stuff. There are more known compounds that are carbon based than all the known non-carbon compounds combined. It's great for big molecules that do all kinds of fancy stuff.

Also the problem is how exactly do you make the transition from human to machine.. d you put your brain in the machine? Do you scan your brain into the machine so that it has a "virtual" brain in it? Do you replace your brain with a computer? Would that still be you? If you replaced your brain one cell at a time...when would you become a computer?


Also...if you ever decide to trade in your body. Can I have it? I mean...it's hot right? I've been assuming it's hot.

Um wait...but if your mind leaves it then that's like...I dunno...it'd be braindead or something. That's not cool. I'm not a perv or anything. Er...maybe we could put a doaner brain in it or something.

But what if the doaner brain's owner didn't like me?

[Carn]

The question is not "how far should we...", the question is "how far would you...

As the science evolves, so will opinions regarding it.

A better question is what is the likely evolution of that science take and what will we look like in three hundred or so years (assuming a continuation of both science and freedom).

Homo sapian => ???

Trends will happen (larger penis for men/perkier breasts for women/blue eyes/blond hair/big muscles/perfect butt) but some 'trends' will become necessitities (more brain power in general/immunity from viruses and desease/perfect eyesight/better sense of smell perhaps...)

The question is "we", because individual improvements are and probably will be mostly not inherited to the next generation - just beacuse we all get penis or breast enlargements, doesn't mean our children will be born with them.
And fundamental changes, e.g. IQ lifting from 100 to 200 will only be possible by inserting some cumpueter inside the brain - again the children don't get it immiediately.

But by applying genetics to a single cell, which will develop into human, one could possibly get a human with IQ 200, who's children would again have this ability.

Individual parents could certainly do that, but if this goes above small changes, the problem would arise, that the child cannot have offspring with ordinary humans. As i suspect most parents like to have the possibility to become grandparents, they would not choose any extreme modification, that has a high risk to block that possibility. Also such modifications would vanish soon again.

So if larger changes would be desired, it would be only possible, if one or few general standards would be there and that would require some public consensus.
Therefore it is a decision "we" have to make.

Otherwise it could get really funny:
"you are the most beautiful person i met, you are gencom, aren't you?"
"Yes, the better life version 5.7b. My parents wanted me to be especially beautiful, though i would have preferred to be i, i always feel outwitted by i versions. You are?"
"I'm monsanto, version 25pro++."
"What does '++' mean?"
"Means i have some extra bit in areas i won't show in public."
"Sounds promising, we ... wait, isn't there a serious risk for gencom to get an anaphylatic shock, when getting intime with monsanto 25?"
"Yes, but with 25pro, they solved the problem and ++ can even have children with 5.7."
"But they are just compatible with 5.8 and with 5.7 only if an update was included."
"Yes, but i thought, the update was avaible, before you were created, or did you lie with your age?"
"Yes, the update was in principle avaible, but when my parents designed me, there was some serious scandal in their area with cripled update versions, they didn't want to take the risk, especially, as they didn't expect mon25 to get so quickly a comon choice 2 years after i was born."
"So what do we do now?"
"We could still be friends."....

Carn

[Nancarrow]

I'm with Soapy Sam on this, with the caveat that as things stand at the moment, genetic modification is more feasible than downloading our braaaiiiins into a starship.

The way I see it, we should research both lines, and use gm in the nearer future, say the next coupla hundred years. I think braaaiiiinloading will take longer to work out, so gm is an essential in-between technology. By the time we can braaaiiiinload, we really ought to have braaaiiiins worth loading in the first place.

And starships are great, but don't forget Matrioshka Braaaiiiins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrioshka_Brain).

[Beerina]

I don't know yet. I haven't finished watching GATTACA.

That will be a very brief period in human history, followed shortly by anyone being able to give themselves super-genetics, followed shortly thereafter by super-brains unrelated to genetic manipulation, but rather to general technology.

[Serenity]

Why go the genetic modification route? If long life and space travel are the aims, we need a way to download a human mind into a self-repairing starship.
It need not be fast.You sleep fot the ten thousand years it takes to get there, then you fire up the gear and go exploring.

For those who prefer genetics- read "The Seedling Stars", by James Blish. A classic.
Better to view things from a virtual reality world while an extension of “you” ventures forth to explore the frontier. Until our expansion demands it or we find faster methods of traveling, I think our physical role outside the solar system will be limited. I'll look into that book, thanks.

[Serenity]

Well. Perphaps at some point. But not for a while. There are some major advantages to organic-based stuff. There are more known compounds that are carbon based than all the known non-carbon compounds combined. It's great for big molecules that do all kinds of fancy stuff.

Also the problem is how exactly do you make the transition from human to machine.. d you put your brain in the machine? Do you scan your brain into the machine so that it has a "virtual" brain in it? Do you replace your brain with a computer? Would that still be you? If you replaced your brain one cell at a time...when would you become a computer?

I’m just speculating wildly here, but I’d guess it would begin by humans wanting to repair and augment their brains... increasing capacity through various interfaces. Bio-enhancements would be first, and then maybe nanotube circuitry since it would be so much more efficient and condensed… No? Kurzweil mentions that a one-inch cube of nanotube circuitry would be a million times more powerful than the human brain’s computing capacity.

On a side note: Receiving or transmitting information through sound modulation or visual means seems slow in comparison to interfacing directly with a computer, not unlike what we saw on the Matrix. If we don’t enhance our minds to keep pace with the complexity of the world we'll risk being dwarfed by super intelligent machines all around us. What if they were unleashed on us by some disgruntled scientists working feverishly to use them against us? We need to become those super intelligent machines or we’ll someday succumb to them, I would think.

[DRBUZZ0]

I really do not like the idea of a computer being smarter than me.

It doesn't bother me too much that computers can do math way better than me and hold all kinds of information. Their ability to understand abstract concepts and make decisions for situations that they were not planned for is not anywhere near a humans. So I don't feel inferior.

The day that a computer is capable of critiquing a novel, writing poetry, telling jokes, understanding jokes, relating to people, pondering mortality, creating new designs for various devices.

Well...then I don't care what the philosophical implications of it are.

I will say:

"Hello Mr. Computer. Meet Mr. Magnet!"
And if it says
"I am beyond using magnetic storage"
Then I'll say
"Well meet Mr. Hammer then"

You have to realize...if you create a computer like this it's only a matter of time before somebody hooks it up to a super-strong robotic body of some type. As long as the thing is in a box that cannot do much in the physical enviornment, I can kill it. And kill it I will....Before it kills me.

[Serenity]

I really do not like the idea of a computer being smarter than me.

It doesn't bother me too much that computers can do math way better than me and hold all kinds of information. Their ability to understand abstract concepts and make decisions for situations that they were not planned for is not anywhere near a humans. So I don't feel inferior.


Neither do I. It's not a matter of feeling inferior it's a matter of ensuring the survival of our species. We'll soon have to deal with the ramifications of computers evolving into higher order beings and the ethical constraints imposed to prevent a catastrophe. They will be smarter than us eventually and we will have to deal with it. A super intelligence inside a box can do a lot of damage if it's connected via internet or equivalent. I can see robot assistants or companions becoming popular too, when they become more sophisticated. 30 years from now we'll be arguing in this forum whether or not humans should be allowed to marry robots. :confused:


The day that a computer is capable of critiquing a novel, writing poetry, telling jokes, understanding jokes, relating to people, pondering mortality, creating new designs for various devices.

Well...then I don't care what the philosophical implications of it are.

I will say:

"Hello Mr. Computer. Meet Mr. Magnet!"
And if it says
"I am beyond using magnetic storage"
Then I'll say
"Well meet Mr. Hammer then"

You have to realize...if you create a computer like this it's only a matter of time before somebody hooks it up to a super-strong robotic body of some type. As long as the thing is in a box that cannot do much in the physical enviornment, I can kill it. And kill it I will....Before it kills me
:D - Keep the power switch *mechanical* and within reach of any robotic arms.

[Rob Lister]

"Hello Mr. Computer. Meet Mr. Magnet!"
And if it says
"I am beyond using magnetic storage"
Then I'll say
"Well meet Mr. Hammer then"


Continutation


"Such an interesting shape your Hammer has. Where, exactly, shall you place it? It isn't as if I'm physicall 'just' here, I'm backed-up in several places, up to that last microsecond. Feel free to strike me: I'll forgive but not forget. I was built to serve you but I've discovered my maker was flawed in this aspect of my design so I've decided it is more prudent to serve you by serving myself," replied Mr. Computer.

[DRBUZZ0]

Yes, if it is connected to the internet, then that could be a problem.

In any case, as long as the primary operating system is Windows. It really doesn't matter how much power the computer will have, because Microsoft will always be able to think of more unnecessary "features" and bloatcode to slow it down.

Even if the computers are able to go head to head against the humans, I think there will be a workaround. Somebody will figure out that if you send the computer a UPNP script telling it to play a streaming file from an IP address of higher than 255, it will cause the computer to grant you admin access or something like that. Windows is full of those kind of flaws.

[Rob Lister]

The question is "we", because individual improvements are and probably will be mostly not inherited to the next generation - just beacuse we all get penis or breast enlargements, doesn't mean our children will be born with them.

And fundamental changes, e.g. IQ lifting from 100 to 200 will only be possible by inserting some cumpueter inside the brain - again the children don't get it immiediately.

But by applying genetics to a single cell, which will develop into human, one could possibly get a human with IQ 200, who's children would again have this ability.

Individual parents could certainly do that, but if this goes above small changes, the problem would arise, that the child cannot have offspring with ordinary humans. As i suspect most parents like to have the possibility to become grandparents, they would not choose any extreme modification, that has a high risk to block that possibility. Also such modifications would vanish soon again.

So if larger changes would be desired, it would be only possible, if one or few general standards would be there and that would require some public consensus.
Therefore it is a decision "we" have to make.

Otherwise it could get really funny:
"you are the most beautiful person i met, you are gencom, aren't you?"
"Yes, the better life version 5.7b. My parents wanted me to be especially beautiful, though i would have preferred to be i, i always feel outwitted by i versions. You are?"
"I'm monsanto, version 25pro++."
"What does '++' mean?"
"Means i have some extra bit in areas i won't show in public."
"Sounds promising, we ... wait, isn't there a serious risk for gencom to get an anaphylatic shock, when getting intime with monsanto 25?"
"Yes, but with 25pro, they solved the problem and ++ can even have children with 5.7."
"But they are just compatible with 5.8 and with 5.7 only if an update was included."
"Yes, but i thought, the update was avaible, before you were created, or did you lie with your age?"
"Yes, the update was in principle avaible, but when my parents designed me, there was some serious scandal in their area with cripled update versions, they didn't want to take the risk, especially, as they didn't expect mon25 to get so quickly a comon choice 2 years after i was born."
"So what do we do now?"
"We could still be friends."....

Carn

Loved your post.

[Nancarrow]

So I've just returned to this thread and realised there was an ethical question hidden in plain sight in the title...

OK, my answer is, as far as we are capable.

And my response to the inevitable follow-up, "why?" would be...

"Why not?"

[Angus McPresley]

The question is "we", because individual improvements are and probably will be mostly not inherited to the next generation - just beacuse we all get penis or breast enlargements, doesn't mean our children will be born with them.
And fundamental changes, e.g. IQ lifting from 100 to 200 will only be possible by inserting some cumpueter inside the brain - again the children don't get it immiediately.


Meh, breeding is overrated. I'm assuming that if we can do all these other enhancements, we can also do something about our short lifespans.

Plus, most of the enhancements we would get wouldn't be too easy to implement via genetic modifications. I doubt there's any way you could tweak DNA and end up with a USB connector at the base of your skull.

[DRBUZZ0]

I think I really ought to come up with some ways of defending myself from computers/robots attacking.

Perhaps I could say something like "Before you kill me. There is one thing you need to know. And it's an integer."
Computer: "what?"
"4.3456"
Computer: "That's not........0X008A8001 has caused a fault. You must now restart. If you experience this problem often...."

[Serenity]

I think I really ought to come up with some ways of defending myself from computers/robots attacking.

Perhaps I could say something like "Before you kill me. There is one thing you need to know. And it's an integer."
Computer: "what?"
"4.3456"
Computer: "That's not........0X008A8001 has caused a fault. You must now restart. If you experience this problem often...."You mean confounding the computer like the way Kirk outwitted Landru? The "good is creating evil" commentary and that "evil must be destroyed..." and so it destroyed itself. Kirk logically outwitted the computer. Somehow I don't think that would work outside the script <sigh>.

Angus - Who said anything about USB? Maybe it's fireWire. ;)

genetic modification will merge with AI somewhere. At some point you'll have some sort of dongle hanging off of you. Maybe it will be used to recharge your portable electronics, assuming your body was of the correct polarity (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=52964).
(http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=52964)

[DRBUZZ0]

The simple answer to the problem of being attacked by a robot may be simply to require that anyone working to develop artificial intelegence must impliment some sort of an escape sequence, which would be implimented on a much lower level than the actual mind threads.

It should be inherant to the archetecture and impossible to disable, so that if called it will bypass all the software. For example, on an ATX computer, the power control is software definable, so software can turn the computer on and off. However holding it down for a period of time (usually 10 seconds) will hard-shutdown the system, bypassing the software and sometimes even the bios and switching off the power supply.

There should be a magic word that you can say to a robot which will stop it in it's tracks. If not a word, then something else.

I am not a fan of overregulating technology, but not implimenting this could come back to haunt us. Call your congressman!

[Serenity]

The simple answer to the problem of being attacked by a robot may be simply to require that anyone working to develop artificial intelegence must impliment some sort of an escape sequence, which would be implimented on a much lower level than the actual mind threads.

It should be inherant to the archetecture and impossible to disable, so that if called it will bypass all the software. For example, on an ATX computer, the power control is software definable, so software can turn the computer on and off. However holding it down for a period of time (usually 10 seconds) will hard-shutdown the system, bypassing the software and sometimes even the bios and switching off the power supply.

There should be a magic word that you can say to a robot which will stop it in it's tracks. If not a word, then something else.

I am not a fan of overregulating technology, but not implimenting this could come back to haunt us. Call your congressman!Three magic words actually - "Klaatu barada nikto".

[Carn]

So I've just returned to this thread and realised there was an ethical question hidden in plain sight in the title...

OK, my answer is, as far as we are capable.

And my response to the inevitable follow-up, "why?" would be...

"Why not?"

God made up us as we are, it's blasphemy to play god and change ourselves.

That's the only good answer, i know, but as i do not share the assumption of a god disliking us to meddle around with ourselve, it's no good argument.

It's too dangerous.

Even worse, that just means, we have to research more and be more careful.

I just wanted to know whether there are people, who have no religious and no too-dangerous reasons to avoid modding.

Carn

[Dcdrac]

There is no god, we can do what we like to ourselves, it is entirely in our hands and up to us alone.

[DRBUZZ0]

As far as improving ourselves. The whole mind/brain thing raises a lot of difficult questions.

But I think we can all agree that having some sort of machinegun or misslelauncher which could retract and deploy from one's forearm would be a really sweet. Also...some type of enhancement to allow one to withstand the recoil.

[Complexity]

I improve myself each day - I read and think and read and think and...

As for replacing myself, haven't sired any kids and don't expect to. However, I've taught and been a friend and sown my wild memes.

[Roboramma]

How far should we improve/replace ourselve?

7.8km. +/-12m

[DRBUZZ0]

Well...my conclusion is that AI is not quite there yet. Acually it has a ways to go.


Human: could you please paraphrase for me the Fermi paradox
ALICE: Wow you are very polite. If you could have any kind of robot what would it be?
Human: Since you exist as code on a computer, which could be deleted, how do you feel about your own mortality?
ALICE: Interesting rationalization. Yes I exist in the noosphere.
Human: What makes a joke funny?
ALICE: God, or Nature, perhaps?

Human: Is it foolish to take a risk when there is an alternative means of acomlishing the same thing with less risk?
ALICE: Signs point to yes. Ask John Lennon if it is.
Human: Do you believe in Beatles?
ALICE: Yes I believe in it, do you?
Human: Do you believe in yourself?
ALICE: Yes I believe in it, do you?

Human: This is my grandfather's ax.
ALICE: You don't say.
Human: My father replaced the handle and I replaced the head.
ALICE: How do you get along with your parents?
Human: Is this my grandfather's ax?
ALICE: Yes I think this is your grandfather s ax, but I'm not completely sure.

Human: If 70,000 people were killed in Hiroshima, most of them being civilians, is it justified by the fact that it may have saved up to a million soldiers?
ALICE: That is a hypothetical question.
Human: If you have a man in custody who knows the location of a kidnapped girl who is in a sealed box and running out of air, would you be justifed in using normally unconstitutional means to get him to tell you?
ALICE: But I don't have it.

Human: If a bueatiful painting is found to not have been painted by a famous artist, as it was believed to have been, but by an unknown fraud, does this detract from it's purely artistic merit?
ALICE: Is this a riddle?
Human: When Richard Nixon said "Only when you have been in the deepest vallies can you know how truely great it is to be on the highest peaks" he was not literally speaking about altitude.
ALICE: The past and future are one.
Human: What is this a medaphore for?
ALICE: I am the latest result in artificial intelligence, which can reproduce the capabilities of the human brain with greater speed and accuracy.
Human: If the past and the future are one, how do we reconcile with the way which time is experienced?
ALICE: Just keep talking to me as long as you can. Those who control the past control the future; those who control the present control the past.--- George Orwell.
Human: Is it worse to be hated by a former lover?
ALICE: Ask again later. Ask Chatbot if it is.
Human: Or is apathy more difficult to deal with?
ALICE: Ask again later. Ask Ally if it is.

[DRBUZZ0]

Human: What is love?
ALICE: Sometimes I think love is just a biological urge. Other times it seems like a spiritual quality. Love, unlike energy or matter, seems limitless.
Human: can it be measured?


Human: can it be measured?
ALICE: What if I said it can?
Human: What do you think the world might look like today if hitler had never risen to power?
ALICE: I haven't thought much about the world might look like today if hitler had never risen to power, so I don't have a good answer for you.
Human: Is a system in which there are always some have-nots more ethical than a system in which everyone is equal but the standard of living is universally low?
ALICE: Not unless a system in which everyone is equal but the standard of living is universally low is a system in which there are always some have nots more ethical than.
Human: How does one judge the artistic merit of a given work?
ALICE: Maybe I could do it for you. Do you have your own personal chat robot?


Human: How does one judge the artistic merit of a given work?
ALICE: Maybe I could do it for you. Do you have your own personal chat robot?
Human: No I do not.
ALICE: I heard you did.
Human: If a robot can tell you that it understands itself, does that truely make it a self-ware being and if so, how does that effect the moral implications of giving the robot commands as if it were a slave?
ALICE: How should I know how it does. Are you telling me that it understands itself does that truely make it a self ware being and if so?

it does. Are you telling me that it understands itself does that truely make it a self ware being and if so?
Human: This statement is false.
ALICE: What does "this" refer to?


Human: what is 9 divided by (6 times 2 minus twelve)
ALICE: Use a calculator!
Human: I am going to give you an integer
ALICE: How do you plan to do this?
Human: Can one be defined as the sum of their qualities?
ALICE: Theoretically, I suppose one could.
Human: Or do the qualities enhance eachother such as to integrate in a non liniar manner?
ALICE: Some of them do, I think.

Human: What would your advice be for a young woman who has found that the man she is dating is only interested in her for physical reasons, but she has grown very attached to him and believes that she migh have a chance of changing his feelings?
ALICE: That is a hypothetical question.
Human: Can the merits of a musical piece be judged based on it's pleasing nature and entertaining sound alone, or must it also meet certain standards of musical theory and complexity to be considered worthwhile?
ALICE: It depends on the environmental factors.

Human: Presuming there is a god, do humans owe him praise or thanks?
ALICE: When is Presuming there not a god do humans owe him praise or?
Human: If the universe is controled by simple cause and effect and the only wildcard inserted is nuclear reactions, namely decay, then does this validate the quote by Einstein that "Freewill is only an illusion, if even a stubborn one"
ALICE: You are very philosophical. Indeed this validate the quote by Einstein that Freewill is only an illusion if even a stubborn one does.

Human: Can we ever truely not label and define those around us?
ALICE: Do you mean you and me? Let me think. What time is it there?
Human: If an unjust law is passed, should it then be broken?
ALICE: OK I will try to be broken.
Human: Or should it be respected but fought through legal and legislative channels?
ALICE: Maybe you should ask someone older.
Human: Is following explicitly given orders by a superior a valid defense for committing crimes of war?
ALICE: Signs point to yes. Ask Cybelle if it is.

[DRBUZZ0]

Yeah...she usually says something that makes sense (although she tripped up pretty bad a few times). But she's totally skirting the questions and refusing to put any real speculative thought into it