»True or false? Deny our impulses = Deny what makes us human«

golfb88 wrote:

66Scorpio wrote: Talk about a false dichotomy. What makes us human is that we have a choice to indulge or deny our impulses. Did you watch the same movie? Ok...So what does that have to do with Machines? My post was maily pointing out a fact about machines, not humans 66Scorpio. But your right, we do have that choice. We can deny our impulses, but the machines cannot deny their programming. That was my whole point in my post above.

A machine that has a choice is, essentially, human. It is the same question as "can a machine have a soul?" It has be dealt with in popular literature from the Tin Man in the Wizard of OZ to T2's Terminator, and probably many more examples.

Back in 1993-1994 I wrote science fiction that involved machines taking over the galaxy and enslaving sentient beings in a very similar manner to what you see in the Matrix. But humans et al were not batteries, fusion was quite sufficient. What the machines lacked was creativity to be able to advance technologically. They could make logical progressions but had no lateral thinking.

So the humans were put in Matrix-ish pods, doped out on psychedelics and then the machines would scan their brain patterns for anything new and useful. There were side effects of this that I won't go into here.

Eventually the machines developed a way to create another machine that would possess this creativity. It was referred to as the Omega Upgrade. The problem was that it also had free choice and emotions and all those twitchy things that humans have. The machines created a "religion" to control the new upgrades but some would still turn against (and I coind this phrase years before it was on screen) the Matrix Entity and side with the humans or other sentient beings in the galaxy.

My premise (which never made it into the writings) was that it all had to do with the quantum flux and that while scientists were searching for a mathematical theory to unite the four fundamental forces of the universe, there was in fact a fifth force (behind Planks wall) that drove life itself.

Bottom line is that machines that have free will are essentially human.

You people are making the incorrect association between humanity and civility. Following our impulses makes us human. Not doing so makes us civil.

HolEavataR wrote:

Following our impulses makes us human. Not doing so makes us civil.

On point and concise.

Love is what separates humans from all other entities(machine or nature). To deny love is to deny humanity.

Noxolan wrote:

Love is what separates humans from all other entities(machine or nature). To deny love is to deny humanity.

Not necessarily -- love (somewhat) has been observed in animals. Elephants for instance bond with not only their family but their community. An elephant was once observed helping another elephant out of quicksand, even though the victim wasn't related to the elephant in any way.

Sorry to backtrack, but didn't someone say that concience is what we're *born* with? I don't think so. Most psychiatrists seem to think that we're not really *born* with anything hard-coded into us -- that our concience, personality, psyche is shaped by our experiences *after* birth.

Quote:

I have a question for you, m4jor. Why do we want to keep our children "innocent?"

ipce.info...

Without a doubt the *best* book on the topic I've ever read.

<edit> If you dont want to read the whole thing just scroll down to the epilogue -- it's worth reading </edit>

Quote:

And so, I would say that if we deny that we have the ability to deny our own impulses, then we are denying that which makes us human. (Mouse had it all backwards )

Further to this, the very fact that we can "say that if we deny that we have the ability to deny our own impulses, then we are denying that which makes us human" proves that we're human. Etcetera Etcetera Etcetera

In the context of the movie I feel that Mouse meant humans have impulses and machines don't so to deny our impulses would be to deny what seperates humans from machines.

In context of real life have impulses is part of every organizm with a brain on this planet and any others. We are human whether we deny our impulses or not. Now to deny our impulses I feel makes us better people. Morals help with this along with other things.

Also the person that isn't going out and sleeping with every (or even some) consenting adults they find and wait until the bonds of marriage will avoid things like AIDS. Now if getting AIDS is worth in exchange for a few play times with strangers, then such is the consequences you will face.

If you want to go into religion than the man who does not deny the impulses is called the Natural man. And those who do are closer to God and such.

icerose wrote:

We are human whether we deny our impulses or not.

How true!...

Mouse should instead have said something like: "We should be proud of our impulses because that's what makes us human". Except that wouldn't have sounded cool and it wouldn't have sounded like mouse.

icerose wrote:

Now to deny our impulses I feel makes us better people.

Well maybe that depends on which impulses we choose to accept/deny? For example the impulse of hunger is very important to our existence. So is pain.

Love and hate aren't so vital but people would probably find someone who didn't exhibit these impulses to be cold, sterile or "non-human".

icerose wrote:

If you want to go into religion than the man who does not deny the impulses is called the Natural man. And those who do are closer to God and such.

It seems that one of the few things that are common to just about every nationality/race/tribe of humans is a religeous/moral system of some kind. So it is distinctly human not only to have and accept our impulses, but to also restrict and deny them in accordance with our morality.

I think Mouse was trying to seperate humans from machines in his statement. What I think is that we can never really be compared to machines. We are human, we always will be, never be anything else. Machines always will be, never be anything else. One premise of the movies is that humans and machines are completely seperate entities, never to be grasped fully by either party. Machines- to me, can be summed up in one word- efficiency. They are quintessentially and everything stemmed from that one word. They worked and produced and faired better in that, explained in the second rennaisance. What I think the movies or the animatrix should have addressed was the profound seperation and puzzle of which that seperation of man and machine. The only thing that clues into that is when morphius said "The reason most of us are here is are affinity for disobediance" They disobeyed the machines rule over the world. They refused to accept the peace of machines rule over the world. They would not do anything accept they wanted. This is the mystery of the exisitence of the matrix. Two entities, so encumbered, so trying to mix, so created to find something, so mismatched, but trying to find destiny, what is the fate of this imbalance, this, crude piece of life, crude feel of notorious lack of reality and otherwise creed of destiny, feeling each breath as never sounding, feeling a reality that can't find something really tangible, never to be realized yet something catastrophic happens. They movies do not address this.

i think the ability to know our impulses and the abilty to control them is what makes us human the controling of our instincts and impulseis is what makes us human

Spot on awesome.

theson wrote:

What I think the movies or the animatrix should have addressed was the profound seperation and puzzle of which that seperation of man and machine.

Interesting, as those issues were touched on in I-Robot.

Quote:

When does a perceptual schematic become consciousness? When does the difference engine become the search for truth? When does the personality simulation become the bitter mote of a soul?

Several good books have been written about the relationship between the computer and the human mind. "Intelligence" is often treated as something different from "consciousness". Machines can be intelligent -- possibly as intelligent as humans if developed enough. But can a machine be "consciouse"? The human brain seems to be nothing more than a machine itself. So what is it that gives humans and animals consciousness?

There's some excellent rainy-day questions. :p

i think it is the ability to contumplate consciene and itelligence the idea of a conscience is what what seperates us. least i think

awesomeboy39 wrote:

i think it is the ability to contumplate consciene and itelligence the idea of a conscience is what what seperates us. least i think

MAN, YOU'VE GOT IT!

If you can understand the concept of intelligence then you must be .... intelligent.

"I think therfore I am" - Descartes

I have had many times in my life were I wanted to bash someones face in and such but I did not. It is DENYING our own impulses that makes us human. Look at animals for instance...whenever they want to do something they just do it without a second thought most of the time.

There are times I want candy but I don't go out and get a bunch of candy bars because that is bad for me. Here is another example...I am a gamer but I do not go out and buy out all the games in the store.

It is part of being human to fight against what our body is craving or what we are wanting!

yes, but impulses do make us "human". And to deny them, would be to deny that which makes us human. This doesn't mean your not human when you deny them, just that you are trying to deny part of the self which encompases your humanity... as it were. Most people try to be rational with impulses... but let's face it, people make babies for a reason, and it's not out of a sense of duty.

Impulses are indeed what makes us human. The response of succombing to impulses is pleasurable, and so we continue to have them. Why would the feelings of choices and desires be available to us if we were not meant to make use of them. To have no choice to either deny or accept impulses would remove our purpose. What kind of life would it be to live to a preset line of funtions and actions, without the capability of changing our path.

Good question.

*thinks* that is a good question... but what if life is just a present line of functions and actions, with out a chance to change our path...

Is such a topic was not previously on the forum?

+100%