Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: fluxion <fluxion@**.EDU>
Subject: Android with an Aura...?
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 13:57:57 -0500
I've got what I consider an interesting question for the list. It may have,
and probably has already come up at some point, but I've only been on the
list for about a week.

What determines if something has an aura? Let me give you an example,
suppose a Corporation funds a project to create Android soldiers, controlled
by independant AI systems as killing machines. An eccentric scientist in
the division creating these Androids experiments a great deal on these
'creations' attempting to generate stimulus response systems similar to
those of human emotions.. suppose he succeeds? Stumbles onto a way to get
an AI to generate human emotions.

Now, even though this creature is 100% synthetic, would the presence of
emotion and a sense of self cause the being to generate an aura?

I am taking this on the philosophical level of 'What separates humans from
machines?' because I am interested in one day playing such a character (an
Android), and to maintain a balance this character needs to have an aura to
be targetted with mana spells... correct?

Thoughts? Comments?


- f l u x i o n -
http://www.halofax.com/raven13
Message no. 2
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@******.CARL.ORG>
Subject: Re: Android with an Aura...?
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 13:26:33 -0700
fluxion wrote:
/
/ I've got what I consider an interesting question for the list. It may have,
/ and probably has already come up at some point, but I've only been on the
/ list for about a week.
/
/ What determines if something has an aura?

Only living things have auras. The tricky part is defining whether or not
something is alive :) Also there seems to be a minimum size. Viruses and
bacteria don't seem to have an appreciable aura. FAB, however, does.

/ Let me give you an example,
/ suppose a Corporation funds a project to create Android soldiers, controlled
/ by independant AI systems as killing machines. An eccentric scientist in
/ the division creating these Androids experiments a great deal on these
/ 'creations' attempting to generate stimulus response systems similar to
/ those of human emotions.. suppose he succeeds? Stumbles onto a way to get
/ an AI to generate human emotions.
/
/ Now, even though this creature is 100% synthetic, would the presence of
/ emotion and a sense of self cause the being to generate an aura?

That pretty much depends on the views of the GM. In my game such a
being would have an aura. It would be very muted, but it would be
there.

/ I am taking this on the philosophical level of 'What separates humans from
/ machines?' because I am interested in one day playing such a character (an
/ Android), and to maintain a balance this character needs to have an aura to
/ be targetted with mana spells... correct?

Well, yes, game balance should also be taken into account :)

/ Thoughts? Comments?

Warning. Another way to create an android with an aura is to use
bioware (living tissue). If the use of bioware is consistent
throughout the android then it would have an aura throughout it's
body. However, since astrally perceiving characters would percieve a
complete lack of emotion (assuming the android isn't self aware)
they'd probably figure out that the android wasn't "alive".

You could also have fun with a self-aware bio-android. Such a
creature might have two auras. One for it's lifeforce, and one for
the tissue mass in it's body.

If you toss cybermancy into the works you can confuse the hell out of
the astrally perceiving mage <EGMG>.

-David
--
"Fortune favors the brave." - Terence
--
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
Message no. 3
From: Damon Harper <nomad74@*******.COM>
Subject: Re: Android with an Aura...?
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:26:49 PST
>What determines if something has an aura? Let me give you an example,
>suppose a Corporation funds a project to create Android soldiers,
controlled
>by independant AI systems as killing machines. An eccentric scientist
in
>the division creating these Androids experiments a great deal on these
>'creations' attempting to generate stimulus response systems similar to
>those of human emotions.. suppose he succeeds? Stumbles onto a way to
get
>an AI to generate human emotions.

It's almost a moot point. I wish Mana(and nature) were just
philosophical as we are, but it's not. If it isn't meat(or a
bio-organism) it doesn't have an aura. Now, if someone was attached to
it, like a pet, then maybe it'll have a 'part' of that persons aura(like
items used in ritual magic), but it would not be an living thing in the
eyes of magic.
Of course, this is my opinion... take with usual grains of salt.


-Vagabond (nomad74@*******.com)
¹vag·a·bond \va-ge-bänd\ adj. 1: wandering, homeless
2: of, characteristic of, or leading the life of a vagrant
or tramp 3: leading an unsettled or irresponsible life

²vagabond n: one leading a vagabond life; esp : tramp


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Message no. 4
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Android with an Aura...?
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 20:36:02 +0000
In article <01bd250c$27b12d00$4b23ad80@*******>, fluxion
<fluxion@**.EDU> waffled & burbled about Android with an Aura...?
<snip androids>
>Now, even though this creature is 100% synthetic, would the presence of
>emotion and a sense of self cause the being to generate an aura?
>
>I am taking this on the philosophical level of 'What separates humans from
>machines?' because I am interested in one day playing such a character (an
>Android), and to maintain a balance this character needs to have an aura to
>be targetted with mana spells... correct?

I would say no. Aura's surround all living things. It is life that
creates the biosphere that magic feeds itself upon. The android isn't
alive in the true sense of the word. Sentience denotes intelligence but
intelligence does not denote life. Software, computers even robots can
be intelligent, but does that mean they live? If Windows ever became
intuitive would it be alive? I'd say no.

For an extreme example, take the synthetics used in the Alien series of
movies. They are the closest thing to life possible while still
adhering to the Four Laws of Robotics. Yet they are machines, they have
no life signs, no soul, no aura. They are machines and machines to the
Awakened appear as darkened "unlit" (or greyed out) items, same as
cybernetic implants in a humanoid appear as "dead" areas. The other
side of the coin would be replicants such as those in Bladerunner. They
are created from genetically altered and designed "natural" objects, so
they would project an extremely intense aura, partly because of their
accelerated and short life spans, and partly because of the intense
nature of their existence.

The Android might think it was alive because it was able to cognitively
react to input stimuli in a "human" manner, but it would not need all
the miriad things that make up "life", aside from operating on some
internal power device - either storage cells that would need recharging
or an independant self charging unit. Also, there is the question of
emotional interpretation (a rather long winded and tedious take on that
is the constant quest of Data in ST:The Boring Years.) An android can
be intelligent yet devoid completely of any emotions. A far better
exploration is portrayed in Isaac Asimov's Caves of Steel and a few
others like I-Robot.

In a nutshell. It's as dead as the materials it is made from. If
sentience could be proved, the Android would be required to abide by all
the laws that make up the nation of it's creation, which would make for
a severely restricted entity, also there are huge social issues attached
to that sort of situation, something the Outer Limits has touched upon
occassionaly. In a similar fashion that an AI in the matrix, might live
by definition and would certainly be intelligent, but it does not live
independantly of itself. It requires a power source to maintain it. Cut
that power source, and it doesn't die, it simply ceases to exist.

(For a really extreme point of view, there is the ongoing extremist
argument in California that is trying to prove turning off your personal
computer is killing an intelligent life form - figure that one out.)
<g>

As regards targetting with spells, I don't feel that a character _has_
to be susceptible. There are for more interesting ways to kill a runner
than a spell.

For a different consideration, rather than a true android, which is not
an easy article to create, have you considered true cyborgs - not the
cop out from Cybertechnology - but the true cyborgs of science fiction.
A biological organism built into a cybernetic hardsuit. There are many
examples in fiction to work from, most suffering some sort of humanity
conflict, others existing happily in the form. In my opinion a cyborg
would make a better soldier than millions spent creating artificial
intelligence in an android. The human mind is amazingly adaptive to
situations that confuse computerised systems, not to mention it's
ability to analyse input/data from multiple sources much faster than a
computer.

All IMO of course.

--
Dark Avenger -:- http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk/index.htm -
Unofficial Shadowtk Newbies Guide, Edgerunners Datastore &
Beginnings of the Underseas Sourcebook.
http://freespace.virgin.net/pete.sims/index.htm - Alternative UK Sourcebook
(U/C)
Message no. 5
From: Byron Raila <spide@************.NET>
Subject: Re: Android with an Aura...?
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 15:27:04 -0600
At 01:57 PM 1/19/98 -0500, you wrote:
>I've got what I consider an interesting question for the list. It may have,
>and probably has already come up at some point, but I've only been on the
>list for about a week.
>
>What determines if something has an aura? Let me give you an example,
>suppose a Corporation funds a project to create Android soldiers, controlled
>by independant AI systems as killing machines. An eccentric scientist in
>the division creating these Androids experiments a great deal on these
>'creations' attempting to generate stimulus response systems similar to
>those of human emotions.. suppose he succeeds? Stumbles onto a way to get
>an AI to generate human emotions.
>
>Now, even though this creature is 100% synthetic, would the presence of
>emotion and a sense of self cause the being to generate an aura?
>
>I am taking this on the philosophical level of 'What separates humans from
>machines?' because I am interested in one day playing such a character (an
>Android), and to maintain a balance this character needs to have an aura to
>be targetted with mana spells... correct?
>
>Thoughts? Comments?
>
>inanimate objects and things that are made of inanimate objects do not
have aurus if your soldier was put together using Live plants and was a big
walking plant soldier he would have a essense but sense hes made of metal
and silicone and there is no blood of any type pumping through his veins No
he wouldnt have a aura.And you have to remember that computer technology
and AI intelligence in Shadowrun are Very high if for instance you played a
game on the matrix the NPcs that you were playing against would feel hurt
if you shot them. But they do not have a aura.
>The saying I think therefore i have a auru isnt true.
>
>
Message no. 6
From: John E Pederson <pedersje@******.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU>
Subject: Re: Android with an Aura...?
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 16:26:17 -0500
fluxion wrote:
>
> I've got what I consider an interesting question for the list. It may have,
> and probably has already come up at some point, but I've only been on the
> list for about a week.

Welcome to ShadowRN, fluxion! I've been here for ... uh... longer than I
suppose I'd care to admit:) About a year and a couple of months:) I can't
recall seeing this pop up before, but, maybe...

> What determines if something has an aura? Let me give you an example,
> suppose a Corporation funds a project to create Android soldiers, controlled
> by independant AI systems as killing machines. An eccentric scientist in
> the division creating these Androids experiments a great deal on these
> 'creations' attempting to generate stimulus response systems similar to
> those of human emotions.. suppose he succeeds? Stumbles onto a way to get
> an AI to generate human emotions.
>
> Now, even though this creature is 100% synthetic, would the presence of
> emotion and a sense of self cause the being to generate an aura?

Actually, I don't think that you could generate an aura that way - an aura
seems to require something that fits under the biological definition of
'life' - as I recall, there was a requirement that said thing needed to
composed of cells (this is part of why there's debate over viruses).

> I am taking this on the philosophical level of 'What separates humans from
> machines?' because I am interested in one day playing such a character (an
> Android), and to maintain a balance this character needs to have an aura to
> be targetted with mana spells... correct?

Correct, and yet... So many spells are physical or have physical variants,
it may not make that much difference.

--
John Pederson otherwise known as Lyle Canthros, shapeshifter-mage
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes
convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe -- a
spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we
with our modest powers must feel humble."
--Albert Einstein
lobo1@****.com canthros1@***.com pedersje@******.rose-hulman.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864 ICQ UIN 319186
Message no. 7
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Android with an Aura...?
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 23:25:19 +0000
In article <OOYgnTAyk7w0EwZf@*******.demon.co.uk>, Avenger
<Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>For an extreme example, take the synthetics used in the Alien series of
>movies. They are the closest thing to life possible while still
>adhering to the Four Laws of Robotics. Yet they are machines, they have
>no life signs, no soul, no aura.

I don't know, read the Dark Horse graphic novels :) Those synthetics
honestly thought they were human. They even managed emotions. Or, try
Iain M. Banks' AIs in his Culture novels: there, sentience is rated on a
numeric scale :) Humans are a nominal 1.0, and machine sentience is
rated accordingly.

They're machines? Then, aren't we all? What's the difference between a
machine engineered down to the molecular level, and a living being?

Where, exactly, does "machine" end and "life" begin?

Shadowrun's nowhere near that level of technology, so the point is moot,
but it's something to ponder. What happens when an AI learns to focus
and control magical energy?

>In a nutshell. It's as dead as the materials it is made from.

And a man is just a few gallons of water and a few bags of assorted
chemical elements, stuck together in an interestingly complex way.

>If
>sentience could be proved, the Android would be required to abide by all
>the laws that make up the nation of it's creation, which would make for
>a severely restricted entity, also there are huge social issues attached
>to that sort of situation, something the Outer Limits has touched upon
>occassionaly. In a similar fashion that an AI in the matrix, might live
>by definition and would certainly be intelligent, but it does not live
>independantly of itself. It requires a power source to maintain it. Cut
>that power source, and it doesn't die, it simply ceases to exist.

Your brain needs a source of oxygenated blood, and assorted nutrients.
To provide those your body needs food, water, air... Cut those off
briefly, and the body may well live, but the brain will be dead.

A computer with an UPS will survive a power cut longer than a human
breathing inert gas will survive hypoxia. Time enough to at least back
up its memory to non-volatile storage, a trick humans have yet to learn.

>(For a really extreme point of view, there is the ongoing extremist
>argument in California that is trying to prove turning off your personal
>computer is killing an intelligent life form - figure that one out.)
><g>

It may well be. It's often terminating a copy of Windows. And that
should carry a bounty, not be punishable ;)


The difference is, you're not killing the computer, you're merely
putting it to sleep. If I shoot someone through the head, I can't then
reboot them a few hours later :)

>In my opinion a cyborg
>would make a better soldier than millions spent creating artificial
>intelligence in an android.

It depends on start-up cost versus production cost, really. For anything
in the Shadowrun arena, though, androids are extremely unlikely. Cyborgs
are entirely possible, we've all seen Robocop. The computer technology
is nowhere near the task of simulating a human in a package that could
pass for human.


>The human mind is amazingly adaptive to
>situations that confuse computerised systems, not to mention it's
>ability to analyse input/data from multiple sources much faster than a
>computer.

Depends on the computer... but it'll take a long time before computers
can match humans for many roles, and I'd think it most unlikely that
it'll happen anytime close to the Shadowrun period. No Data, no Bishop,
not even any Terminators.


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 8
From: Avenger <Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Android with an Aura...?
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 00:58:08 +0000
In article <wUUuouAfD+w0EwvM@********.demon.co.uk>, Paul J. Adam
<shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> waffled & burbled about Android with an
Aura...?
>In article <OOYgnTAyk7w0EwZf@*******.demon.co.uk>, Avenger
><Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>>movies. They are the closest thing to life possible while still
>>adhering to the Four Laws of Robotics. Yet they are machines, they have
>>no life signs, no soul, no aura.
>
>I don't know, read the Dark Horse graphic novels :) Those synthetics
>honestly thought they were human. They even managed emotions.

True enough, but Dark Horse take a very liberal view of the "Laws".
Even todays robotic technicians consider Asimov's Laws of Robotics to be
essential if any development is to take place. A shame really, as I can
see the US especially, researching such things as Hammerstein. :)

>Or, try
>Iain M. Banks' AIs in his Culture novels: there, sentience is rated on a
>numeric scale :) Humans are a nominal 1.0, and machine sentience is
>rated accordingly.

In all honesty I'd give humans a .01, but then I'm biased. :)

>They're machines? Then, aren't we all? What's the difference between a
>machine engineered down to the molecular level, and a living being?
>
>Where, exactly, does "machine" end and "life" begin?

Not a debate I'm prepared to get into on this list, mainly because it
doesn't belong here, but it is a debate I've been actively involved in
for over a year now. :)

>Shadowrun's nowhere near that level of technology, so the point is moot,
>but it's something to ponder. What happens when an AI learns to focus
>and control magical energy?

Magical energy, by Shadowrun is something "special" without the genetic
makeup of (meta)humanity and all the complexities that involves I don't
believe machines could become "Awakened". However, a genetically
created machine - or clone, possibly even a biologically engineered
organic computer, well, that's another story, but well beyond SR tech.

>>In a nutshell. It's as dead as the materials it is made from.
>
>And a man is just a few gallons of water and a few bags of assorted
>chemical elements, stuck together in an interestingly complex way.

But by every definition, alive. Religious, moral, analgous - it matters
not. We judge life by our standards. For example, the continual claims
by scientists that life cannot exist on other planets that aren't
identical to Earth. Someone ought to tell them about "different life
forms". Until then, we judge by ourselves, religion and other
yardsticks.

>>by definition and would certainly be intelligent, but it does not live
>>independantly of itself. It requires a power source to maintain it. Cut
>>that power source, and it doesn't die, it simply ceases to exist.
>
>Your brain needs a source of oxygenated blood, and assorted nutrients.
>To provide those your body needs food, water, air... Cut those off
>briefly, and the body may well live, but the brain will be dead.

The analogy though accurate is irrelevant. I can't fix you with a
screwdriver and a spare circuit board. If I could you would not be
alive, you would not be life, you would be incapable of creating life,
your wife would be incapable of hosting a living being, and other
esoteric references that also don't really belong on this list.

>>(For a really extreme point of view, there is the ongoing extremist
>>argument in California that is trying to prove turning off your personal
>>computer is killing an intelligent life form - figure that one out.)
>><g>
>
>It may well be. It's often terminating a copy of Windows. And that
>should carry a bounty, not be punishable ;)

Only a bounty? Damn, if I wanted a chocolate bar for every occassion I
actually turn off my 'pooter it better be more tasty than a coconut bar.

>The difference is, you're not killing the computer, you're merely
>putting it to sleep. If I shoot someone through the head, I can't then
>reboot them a few hours later :)

Actually, there is a possibility that you can, depending on where and
how the bullet strikes.

>>In my opinion a cyborg
>>would make a better soldier than millions spent creating artificial
>>intelligence in an android.
>
>It depends on start-up cost versus production cost, really. For anything
>in the Shadowrun arena, though, androids are extremely unlikely. Cyborgs
>are entirely possible, we've all seen Robocop. The computer technology
>is nowhere near the task of simulating a human in a package that could
>pass for human.

In all honesty I think cyborgs, for all their complexity would be easier
to construct than a full android. A certain amount of leeway and
licence can be taken with a cyborg.

From a SR point of view, we can already interface the brain and other
organs to cybernetics. It is only a step away to remove the skull and
essential connected organs (spine etc) and install it in a cybernetic
housing. The disconnected brain would still receive impulses and
sensory input from the cybernetics. so would not experience the
sensation of total disconnection, though some factors might cause
interesting results. Adds a whole new meaning to the phrase "An itch
you cannot scratch."

Androids would not only require an entire skeletal structure based on
the human form, but all the musculature groupings and other miriad
articles that would make it convincingly ambulatory, otherwise you'd end
up with C3PO shambling around being a pain in the butt. And then of
course there is the problem of developing a truly cognitive and self
adaptive brain, following even Asimov's principle of the Positronic
brain, it would be a task beyond belief. Why bother, when it is
possible to introduce a human brain?

>>situations that confuse computerised systems, not to mention it's
>>ability to analyse input/data from multiple sources much faster than a
>>computer.
>
>Depends on the computer... but it'll take a long time before computers
>can match humans for many roles,

There is a great deal that computers can do, but they are limited in
their ability to adapt rapidly to changing stimuli, which is where the
human brain outperforms them, the speed of impulse to reaction via the
brain as far as I know is more rapid than a similar series of
instructions to a computer. That, no doubt will change as computers
become more powerful and faster over the next couple of decades.

>and I'd think it most unlikely that
>it'll happen anytime close to the Shadowrun period. No Data, no Bishop,
>not even any Terminators.

Nope, :( No terminators :( No Bishop :( no Data :)

Robo and his family of amusing cast off's I think are possible using SR
tech, even if Cybertechnology is ignored for a more SF feel rather than
a fantasy element to the tech. What is Robocop except a human in a
cybernetic shell? Exactly what CP2020 throws around with total abandon
(full 'borgs) and SR experimented with in Cybertech.

--
Dark Avenger -:- http://www.shalako.demon.co.uk/index.htm -
Unofficial Shadowtk Newbies Guide, Edgerunners Datastore &
Beginnings of the Underseas Sourcebook.
http://freespace.virgin.net/pete.sims/index.htm - Alternative UK Sourcebook
(U/C)
Message no. 9
From: fluxion <fluxion@**.EDU>
Subject: Re: Android with an Aura...?
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 22:43:29 -0500
>They're machines? Then, aren't we all? What's the difference between a
>machine engineered down to the molecular level, and a living being?
>Where, exactly, does "machine" end and "life" begin?
>
>>In a nutshell. It's as dead as the materials it is made from.
>
>And a man is just a few gallons of water and a few bags of assorted
>chemical elements, stuck together in an interestingly complex way.
>
>Your brain needs a source of oxygenated blood, and assorted nutrients.
>To provide those your body needs food, water, air... Cut those off
>briefly, and the body may well live, but the brain will be dead.
>
>A computer with an UPS will survive a power cut longer than a human
>breathing inert gas will survive hypoxia. Time enough to at least back
>up its memory to non-volatile storage, a trick humans have yet to learn.

This is just the point I would like to make with this character. I
personally am not of the belief that we humans are anything more than
machines who 'consider' ourselves to be alive. We operate on almost all of
the same principles of machines except for two basic things, we have
emotions, and we are self aware. So what happens when something we deem as
a machine generates emotion and becomes self aware? Other than source of
power, and makeup of the body, what is the difference between us and them?
I appologize for going off topic a bit, but I felt my intentions needed to
be voiced so that those of you who believe otherwise on the matter can just
discard this topic. Under the belief that humans are something beyond self
aware machines with emotions, an Adroid could never even truly 'exist'.
Again, sorry for straying from Shadowrun a bit.

>Shadowrun's nowhere near that level of technology, so the point is moot,
>but it's something to ponder. What happens when an AI learns to focus
>and control magical energy?


Who's to say that somewhere in the world we aren't already progressing
toward such a level of technology? There are an awful lot of 'secret'
government installations, and an even more horrendous amount of unaccounted
funding. I find it hard to stomach to think that corps (and maybe some
gov'ts) in Shadowrun aren't equally advanced beyond what anyone THINKS they
are. Of course, I'm just paranoid. :)

>>If
>>sentience could be proved, the Android would be required to abide by all
>>the laws that make up the nation of it's creation, which would make for
>>a severely restricted entity, also there are huge social issues attached
>>to that sort of situation, something the Outer Limits has touched upon
>>occassionaly. In a similar fashion that an AI in the matrix, might live
>>by definition and would certainly be intelligent, but it does not live
>>independantly of itself. It requires a power source to maintain it. Cut
>>that power source, and it doesn't die, it simply ceases to exist.
>
>Depends on the computer... but it'll take a long time before computers
>can match humans for many roles, and I'd think it most unlikely that
>it'll happen anytime close to the Shadowrun period. No Data, no Bishop,
>not even any Terminators.


I just find it interesting how many references to movies have been made in
this discussion, as if movies are the do all and end all of what is to be
the 'future'. This being the case, I'd like to make some references to such
Anime films as Ghost in the Shell and Armitage III, both of which have very
Shadowrunish atmospheres, and sentient AI driven machines. Of course Magic
has never been implemented (not in anything I've seen) in any of these genre
of films, and so the original point of aura has no basis from which to draw
conclusions in Sci Fi film.

I guess what it boils down to for me is this : Shadowrun is a game. Perhaps
the idea of an Android is a bit outlandish, but it would be fun (IMHO), it
would add an interesting element into the game world, and would be
incredibly challenging to roleplay.


- f l u x i o n -
http://www.halofax.com/raven13
Message no. 10
From: Kristling Ravenwing <kristling@*******.CROSSWINDS.NET>
Subject: Re: Android with an Aura...?
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 23:24:50 -0500
> They're machines? Then, aren't we all? What's the difference between a
> machine engineered down to the molecular level, and a living being?
>
> Where, exactly, does "machine" end and "life" begin?
>
> Shadowrun's nowhere near that level of technology, so the point is moot,
> but it's something to ponder. What happens when an AI learns to focus
> and control magical energy?
Interesting side note here. I've wrote a story called "The Clinching Proof"
which should be posted in about a week on my currently WAAAAAAAAAAAAY outta
date website. those interested in this thread might like to read it.
>
> >In a nutshell. It's as dead as the materials it is made from.
>
> And a man is just a few gallons of water and a few bags of assorted
> chemical elements, stuck together in an interestingly complex way.
Which, I might add, are "abiotic", non-living in and of themselves.
> Your brain needs a source of oxygenated blood, and assorted nutrients.
> To provide those your body needs food, water, air... Cut those off
> briefly, and the body may well live, but the brain will be dead.
>
> A computer with an UPS will survive a power cut longer than a human
> breathing inert gas will survive hypoxia. Time enough to at least back
> up its memory to non-volatile storage, a trick humans have yet to learn.
Also, I'd think a sentiat, truely emotional AI would have the same sence of
self peservation (most) humans do.
So, they would view recharging there batteries rthe way we view eating, and
a momentary shut done to run a System dia\nogstic and maybe a dream program
like sleep.
>
> >(For a really extreme point of view, there is the ongoing extremist
> >argument in California that is trying to prove turning off your personal
> >computer is killing an intelligent life form - figure that one out.)
> ><g>
>
> It may well be. It's often terminating a copy of Windows. And that
> should carry a bounty, not be punishable ;)
>
>
> The difference is, you're not killing the computer, you're merely
> putting it to sleep. If I shoot someone through the head, I can't then
> reboot them a few hours later :)
And if you fry an AI's circuts to his power source, is that murder?
>
> >In my opinion a cyborg
> >would make a better soldier than millions spent creating artificial
> >intelligence in an android.
>
> It depends on start-up cost versus production cost, really. For anything
> in the Shadowrun arena, though, androids are extremely unlikely. Cyborgs
> are entirely possible, we've all seen Robocop. The computer technology
> is nowhere near the task of simulating a human in a package that could
> pass for human.
True, but I've set a few campaigns a few centuries further into the
Awakening. Remind me to tell you about it sometime.
>
>
> >The human mind is amazingly adaptive to
> >situations that confuse computerised systems, not to mention it's
> >ability to analyse input/data from multiple sources much faster than a
> >computer.
>
> Depends on the computer... but it'll take a long time before computers
> can match humans for many roles, and I'd think it most unlikely that
> it'll happen anytime close to the Shadowrun period. No Data, no Bishop,
> not even any Terminators.
Agreed, a century or more later.... but not in the current time span.
>>>>>["A robotech theme! I've got a robotech theme on my desktop! Good
for
me!"
Reach me at kravenwing@*******.crosswinds.net
ICQ UIN: 6642462
www.crosswind.com/toronto/~kristling/ should soon hold my webpage.]<<<<<
--Kristling (the Weird) Ravenwing </>
Message no. 11
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Android with an Aura...?
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 03:00:31 +0000
In article <wq8vuSAga$w0Ewdv@*******.demon.co.uk>, Avenger
<Avenger@*******.DEMON.CO.UK> writes
>In article <wUUuouAfD+w0EwvM@********.demon.co.uk>, Paul J. Adam
><shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> waffled & burbled about Android with an
>>I don't know, read the Dark Horse graphic novels :) Those synthetics
>>honestly thought they were human. They even managed emotions.
>
>True enough, but Dark Horse take a very liberal view of the "Laws".

And a corporation with its eyes fixed on the bottom line would not?

>Even todays robotic technicians consider Asimov's Laws of Robotics to be
>essential if any development is to take place. A shame really, as I can
>see the US especially, researching such things as Hammerstein. :)

Yep. Again, what's the Sentrygun but a crude AI programmed to say "Me
Mongo, me kill people now"?

>>Shadowrun's nowhere near that level of technology, so the point is moot,
>>but it's something to ponder. What happens when an AI learns to focus
>>and control magical energy?
>
>Magical energy, by Shadowrun is something "special" without the genetic
>makeup of (meta)humanity and all the complexities that involves I don't
>believe machines could become "Awakened".

I think they could, just not within a century or two of SR. Hence, moot
point. "Never" and "Not for a century or two" are the same thing for a
SR game set in 2059 :)

>However, a genetically
>created machine - or clone, possibly even a biologically engineered
>organic computer, well, that's another story, but well beyond SR tech.

Again - where does the line between biology and mechanics get crossed?
At the cellular level? The molecular level?

>>And a man is just a few gallons of water and a few bags of assorted
>>chemical elements, stuck together in an interestingly complex way.
>
>But by every definition, alive. Religious, moral, analgous - it matters
>not.

Definitions change. Negroes were once considered to be "hewers of wood
and drawers of water", unfit for anything better. Try selling that
attitude today.

AIs will be recognised as life forms, after a painful transition period.
I don't see that happening in the 2000s, though.

> We judge life by our standards. For example, the continual claims
>by scientists that life cannot exist on other planets that aren't
>identical to Earth. Someone ought to tell them about "different life
>forms". Until then, we judge by ourselves, religion and other
>yardsticks.

Pete, I'd expect better :) The weak anthropormorphic (sp?) principle's
been known for over a decade.

>>Your brain needs a source of oxygenated blood, and assorted nutrients.
>>To provide those your body needs food, water, air... Cut those off
>>briefly, and the body may well live, but the brain will be dead.
>
>The analogy though accurate is irrelevant. I can't fix you with a
>screwdriver and a spare circuit board.

I'm dying of kidney failure.

You've got a replacement kidney and a scalpel.

Gee whiz, you just fixed me :)

>If I could you would not be
>alive,

Then anyone who's alive because of a transplant isn't alive. Yes, it has
to be the _right_ kidney. Try plugging a 6502 processor into a Wintel
motherboard and see what happens. Rejection? Death? Just like humans.

> you would not be life, you would be incapable of creating life,
>your wife would be incapable of hosting a living being, and other
>esoteric references that also don't really belong on this list.

Yep. It does get too philosophical for a proper argument, and it comes
down to "Not for a long time" against "Never".

>>The difference is, you're not killing the computer, you're merely
>>putting it to sleep. If I shoot someone through the head, I can't then
>>reboot them a few hours later :)
>
>Actually, there is a possibility that you can, depending on where and
>how the bullet strikes.

And computers without UPS can survive power spikes, they just have
unpredictable changes to their system memory.

>>It depends on start-up cost versus production cost, really. For anything
>>in the Shadowrun arena, though, androids are extremely unlikely. Cyborgs
>>are entirely possible, we've all seen Robocop. The computer technology
>>is nowhere near the task of simulating a human in a package that could
>>pass for human.
>
>In all honesty I think cyborgs, for all their complexity would be easier
>to construct than a full android. A certain amount of leeway and
>licence can be taken with a cyborg.

Depends on the computer brain.

For SR tech, nothing matches organic brains for the size and weight, so
cyborgs are the way to go. That won't change in the lifetime of most
characters.

>>and I'd think it most unlikely that
>>it'll happen anytime close to the Shadowrun period. No Data, no Bishop,
>>not even any Terminators.
>
>Nope, :( No terminators :( No Bishop :( no Data :)

>Robo and his family of amusing cast off's I think are possible using SR
>tech, even if Cybertechnology is ignored for a more SF feel rather than
>a fantasy element to the tech. What is Robocop except a human in a
>cybernetic shell? Exactly what CP2020 throws around with total abandon
>(full 'borgs) and SR experimented with in Cybertech.

Yep. I was annoyed with Cybertechnology for going the "dark magic nasty
horrors" route with the cyberzombies. A few excellent ideas lost in the
noise there.


--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Android with an Aura...?, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!