Why are robots always immortal?

[Inu]

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

 

Reading some of the bits in Star Hero got me thinking about this a bit...

In a posteconomic high tech society, I can see the reasoniong behind semi-immortal robots...

I mean, no need for planned obsolescence, no need to skimp on materials, skills are at a premium as one of the few truely vauable things in the society, and science is a craft and art as much as a discipline...

So making something to last as long as possible might make sense.

 

just ramblin' here... move along.

Once again, The Culture.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

 

Once again' date=' The Culture. [/quote']

I really have to go get those books (or is it book?)

[Curufea]

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

 

I think it depends how you define intelligence in your setting - is it separate from the physical body?

Do you have "AI"s and can humans download their brains?

Is a robot merely the physical container for an "AI" that can transfer to a different body as needed?

[Ternaugh]

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

 

I think it depends how you define intelligence in your setting - is it separate from the physical body?

Do you have "AI"s and can humans download their brains?

Is a robot merely the physical container for an "AI" that can transfer to a different body as needed?

The brain/body connection is one that continually crops up in real AI research. Current research seems to point to a tight connection, where the software and hardware end up influencing each other in a type of feedback loop. Perhaps, it's one of the reasons that intelligence is so hard to identify in other species. It may truly be impossible to form a common point of reference.

 

For dramatic use, having something akin to a positronic brain (ie. a durable, transferable AI core) is extremely useful for telling the types of stories where we are looking for a mechanical "mirror" to our own behavior. It should be noted, however, that Asimov used the positronic brain almost exclusively in anthropomorphic robots, with the only non-humanoid examples being the huge, robot-created "brains"--basically supercomputers. And these had an intelligence incomprehensible to humans.

 

Plugging a human into a robot body (either as a brain-in-a-box or as a "braintape") would undoubtedly require a type of bridging to put the various inputs into a human frame of reference. Doing otherwise would probably drive the human intelligence mad. Perhaps, changing the body of an AI would create the same type of disjointedness, unless there were similar buffers to emulate the original body.

 

In the prospectus for the setting I mentioned, I assumed that the AIs were more of a "plug and play" arrangement, and didn't consider the ramifications for multiple bodies. The AIs were basically tools, and would not have been as autonomous as robots in other stories. Humans would not be able to switch bodies or braintape; their consciousness is firmly rooted in the hardware.

 

JoeG

[Inu]

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

 

I really have to go get those books (or is it book?)

The first one is Consider Phlebas, but a better starting point might be The Player of Games. Iain M. Banks is not famous for his happy endings. The Player of Games ends nicer than any of the other ones I've read.

 

Along the way in his books, be prepared for some real hideousness. However, due to the fact that he is a VERY skilled writer, none of it is merely for cheap thrills. It all has impact, it all has a place, and it's written for real impact instead of... well, cheap thrills.

 

But with most of his books, you will feel like you've been kicked in the head a few times. I love 'em all the same... or perhaps that's part of the reason I like them. Of course, I haven't read Use of Weapons, yet. I'm told that's the ickiest by far.

 

(Oh, btw, he's also a writer of contemporary horror. If the book is by Iain M. Banks, it's sci-fi, and most likely to do with the Culture. If the book is by Iain Banks - no M. - then it's contemporary horror.)

[Inu]

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

 

Oh yeah, and read this. It's a piece written by the author, talking a bit about the Culture and what it's about. If you plan on starting with the Player of Games, it might be better to read this first. If you start with Consider Phlebas, I recommend going in cold. It is heavily to do with the Culture, but you're introduced at a slower rate, and the 'wow' factor is better if you come in knowing nothing. In that case, read the article afterwards.

 

Alternately, read it now to decide if the concepts are interesting enough to get you into the books.

[Curufea]

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

 

I'm not sure which is uglier - Player of Games or Use of Weapons. However, both are really good.

 

I have heard bad reports about The Algebraist - I haven't got around to reading that one yet (I just finished Hamilton's Judas Unchained)

[Inu]

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

 

I'm not sure which is uglier - Player of Games or Use of Weapons. However, both are really good.

 

I have heard bad reports about The Algebraist - I haven't got around to reading that one yet (I just finished Hamilton's Judas Unchained)

I thought Player of Games was pretty tame, for Banks... but then, I started with Consider Phlebas. 'The Eaters' still leaves me shivering. O_O

[Cantriped]

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

 

You know, it occures to me that if the human mind is basicly a vastly complex series of interconecting synaps, Would it be possible to create a viable of mapping a persons brain structure at a specific moment? Sort of like taking an image of a Harddrive via Ghosting software.

Then you could Break that down into a 3d model that a program could reconstruct and recieve commands from/make modifications to based on imput from sensory devices much like the brain already does. Wouldn't that effectivly create a transferable Intelligence? Immortality would be achived though continual backups of the image, and when a body began to wear out, just "Ghost" the image to a new systems "hard-drive" and the person wakes up in a new body. given enough time a program might even be designed to account for the new hardware on boot-up, and install the appropiate "driver" before the mangled sensory input can accidently cause the "ghost" to become corupted.

By the way I didn't pull that from literature.

[Nyrath]

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

 

Why are robots always immortal? I always looked at it this way:

 

This is my Grandfather's Axe.

This is my Grandfather's Axe.

My Father replaced the axe-handle.

I replaced the axe-head.

This is my Grandfather's Axe.

[David Johnston]

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

 

Actually, what surprises me is that in sci stories that take place in the future that humans aren't immortal.

 

If there are scientist smart enough to create machines with sentient thought then there should be scientist smart enough to stop the aging process. Plus, I can tell you right now there would be a bigger push for that than making your iPod tell you, that you have horrible taste in music.

 

It's the old "if we can send a man to the moon, why can't we cure the common cold" mindset. It would probably be a good deal easier to make a machine that can think than it is to stop the aging process. Establishing a permanent dynamic equilibrium is very tricky when you are talking about something as complex as a lifeform, particularly a multicellular lifeform.

 

You know, it occures to me that if the human mind is basicly a vastly complex series of interconecting synaps, Would it be possible to create a viable of mapping a persons brain structure at a specific moment? Sort of like taking an image of a Harddrive via Ghosting software.

Then you could Break that down into a 3d model that a program could reconstruct and recieve commands from/make modifications to based on imput from sensory devices much like the brain already does. Wouldn't that effectivly create a transferable Intelligence?

 

It would create a copy. And I'm inclined to think that most likely the copying process would if for no other reason than quantum uncertainty, be inherently limited to a pretty good, but identifiably different facsimile.

[Curufea]

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

 

One of the main problems with copying the human brain (and I've said this before, but can't rememer which thread it was in) is to do it without destroying the brain. As synapses are molecular, we do not have the scanning technology to see beyond the outer layer of the brain. Unless you have some kind of rubber science scanner, you can't really scan a brain for that amount of detail.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

 

What makes this interesting is that I was watching Stand Alone Complex last night, which sells the idea of rubber-science-cum-modern-technology; so cybernetics are common, robotic AI tanks are military common, and all many people are left with are their 'Ghosts.' Often someone will say "I hear my Ghost whispering to me" which is another way of saying "I have a hunch about this."

 

During one of the early episodes (and the film) the idea of Ghost Dubbing is brought up; that you can, effectively, copy a human brain and implant it in a machine, or build a machine around the brain. Further, you can "SimEx" someone (original film) and utterly rewrite their world & experience within it. Which gives rise to the immediate and obvious questions; Am I real? Is what I experience tangibly real? Is it all a giant sim?

 

The Ghost in the Shell, then, is the remnants of the human soul within a machine form. It's only from having a Ghost, the show surmises, that are we capable of life in any state, and ultimately death. A robot, however, is limited - it can only achieve AI, not true 'life.' The show then explores how badly that line gets blurred. It's the crux of the ideas behind the original Ghost in the Shell (although Innocence was very good, it focused more on dolls & dogs). So Robots are immortal, it's reasoned, because their AIs are ultimately hyper complex programming routines; you can dub a ghost, but not without destroying it (as Curufea states).

[austenandrews]

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

 

It makes perfect sense to assume that the lifespan of any given machine will be different from the lifespan of a human being. Of course in almost all cases that lifespan is shorter than a human's, but then we haven't yet built machines with the capability of self-preservation. Many machines of the last century have, with proper TLC, remained quite functional using entirely non-rubber technology. If one posits a milieu in which robots have the will and resources to repair themselves for hundreds of years, I can't see a pressing reason to assume they won't do so.

 

I grant you, though, that assuming a robot can lie dormant for thousands of years and then work fine is not a very reasonable default assumption. Then again robot longevity is generally used as a plot device, which is also not unreasonable, as it's simple enough to extrapolate current machine lifespans into future technologies.

 

As for transferring the mind between hosts, I can readily imagine the technology for transplanting a living human brain into another body. With concerted effort, I expect we could develop the first steps of that technology within a decade. How much more straightforward, then, to imagine transplanting a machine's brain?

[Inu]

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

 

Apply the idea of 'my grandfather's axe' to the human animal. If I copy my brain to a computer, shortly before death... do I still die? Am I dead, with a copy running around thinking it's me, or am I still alive? Are there two mes, one alive and one dead, or is there only one me (alive) or one me (dead)?

 

Personally, I feel that if a copy of me survives I'm still dead. The copy is not me. From another person's perspective, I may still be alive. Or perhaps only a part of me is alive. That's up to them. But me, I'll be in the ground as wormfood.

 

Transplanting the brain as AA suggests is a completely different story, of course.

[Captain Emu]

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

 

The idea that machines are built for short-term exsistence is a pretty recent (last 50 years) thing in machines, electronics, etc. Most things now days are built cheap and disposable. You are unlikely to ever see electronics as hand me downs, like my grandfather's radio. It's simply not economically sound to build a machine that is meant to last, unless it is part of its function.

 

A military robot, might be given an operational life of several decades, keepign it in line with current military thinking on the servicibility of military weapons. If it was good enough at what it did, they might milk it along for several more (B-52 bomber, looking at 100 years of service if it keeps going as it is). More likely, they would be kept to a decade or two of service and then be replaced, phased out, by newer models. Any data they had would have long been archived and could easily be uploaded to a newer machine that would showcase the newest technology.

 

I think if anything - "serial" immortality is more likely for a machine but us humans are pretty much stuck taking a dirt nap after the brain fritzes out until our technology gets so advanced that the line between machine and biology is so slim it's pretty non-exsistent.

[Captain Emu]

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

 

Apply the idea of 'my grandfather's axe' to the human animal. If I copy my brain to a computer, shortly before death... do I still die? Am I dead, with a copy running around thinking it's me, or am I still alive? Are there two mes, one alive and one dead, or is there only one me (alive) or one me (dead)?

 

Personally, I feel that if a copy of me survives I'm still dead. The copy is not me. From another person's perspective, I may still be alive. Or perhaps only a part of me is alive. That's up to them. But me, I'll be in the ground as wormfood.

 

Transplanting the brain as AA suggests is a completely different story, of course.

 

This has been a big point of arguement with the theory of such wonderful toys as transporters. Once you pull somebody apart and move their molecules someplace else and re-arrange them, are they really still them? There have even been Trek episodes that dealt specificly with this question.

 

Another exercise that follows along with this is "Theseus' Boat" -

 

Imagine Theseus puts into port to have his boat repaired and it ultimately needs each and ever hull piece, mast, oar, tiller, everything replaced due to worm rot, etc. But, the man doing the repairs is secretly re-assambling the replaced parts in his back yard, which boat is really Theseus' boat?

[Lumbering Ox]

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

 

Apply the idea of 'my grandfather's axe' to the human animal. If I copy my brain to a computer, shortly before death... do I still die? Am I dead, with a copy running around thinking it's me, or am I still alive? Are there two mes, one alive and one dead, or is there only one me (alive) or one me (dead)?

 

Personally, I feel that if a copy of me survives I'm still dead. The copy is not me. From another person's perspective, I may still be alive. Or perhaps only a part of me is alive. That's up to them. But me, I'll be in the ground as wormfood.

 

...

 

I came to realize this with the use of Gold Cross in the game Car wars. Suppose you transfer your brain to another body, then wake up the other body, but you are still alive. Obviously you are still you, even though the clone will think it is you with equal passion. Why should this change if you are dead.

 

Of course anyone who believes in a soul would have other concerns.

 

Of course as far as too many roleplayers are concerned, the important thing about a person is his stats, equipment and killing potential, so it didn't really matter

 

Funny thing, with the teleportation idea, or with the brain transfer idea is that there would be no way to prove if the new person is really a clone or a continuation of concousness, as the clone will fully believe it is you.

 

 

One thing I have thought of is this

 

Suppose one starts replaceing small parts of the brain one bit at a time with mechanical parts. Copy over memories and the like each time.

If you were to replace 1% of the brain with an exact copy, when you wake up, you would still be you. Then another 1% and so on and so forth. Eventually you would have a whole new brain.

The only way I can't see this working is with the assumption that there is a part of the brain which governs the converns mentioned above which if replaced will result in a clone waking up. Again, if this does exsist we would never know as the person waking up would believe in total success of the transfer.

[David Johnston]

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

 

Hm. I just thought of the answer to the original question:

 

Robots have lifesupport versus aging, because they are immune to attacks with aging special effects. Sure, they'll actually wear out with use, and they may corrode with disuse, but they have no cells with preprogrammed self-destructs in them that work like the aging of human beings. In game terms therefore, they are immune to any attack that immunity to aging protects you from.

[Lucius]

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

 

I think robots tend to be immortal or long lived, hyperintelligent, superstrong, etc. for the same reasons that aliens are often long lived, hyperintelligent, superstrong, etc. - because both robots and aliens in fiction often reflect our own wish-fulfillment fantasies, showing us in the guise of the "other" what it is we really wish we could be.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Sometimes I wish I could be a palindromedary....

[Curufea]

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

 

Peter F Hamilton's books and Iain M Banks Culture series both deal with backing up memories, and "re-lifing" people.

To me - just like a transporter in Star Trek - you die. But for friends, family and legal reasons - there is now an exact duplicate that thinks it is you.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

 

I think robots tend to be immortal or long lived' date=' hyperintelligent, superstrong, etc. for the same reasons that aliens are often long lived, hyperintelligent, superstrong, etc. - because both robots and aliens in fiction often reflect our own wish-fulfillment fantasies, showing us in the guise of the "other" what it is we really wish we could be.[/quote']

 

Sounds about right.

 

I'm oddly remembering an issue of the Transformers comic (Simon Furman is the TF writing god), where Hot Rod was approaching some deserted, abandoned outpost wreathed in fog, which was making him nervous just by being there, and he was pondering how he'd never really pondered the concept of death since he was functionally immortal.

 

He also commented that the place scared him oil-less.

[Inu]

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

 

Peter F Hamilton's books and Iain M Banks Culture series both deal with backing up memories, and "re-lifing" people.

To me - just like a transporter in Star Trek - you die. But for friends, family and legal reasons - there is now an exact duplicate that thinks it is you.

Yah. It worked in The Culture, because they were pretty much post-human. Reference the protagonist's critiques of The Culture in Consider Phlebas. These fleshy human things were, in many ways, quaint and outdated.

[Curufea]

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

 

The humans of the Culture were pretty much the house pets of the Ships. And they didn't seem to mind that.

[Cantriped]

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

 

In responce to Thia's comment about my "theory" I belive that techniclly, since the program I sugests was capable of making modifications to the "ghost" based upon sensory data than it would not be a copy, as even the buffing process that would occure while new "drivers" are installed would mean making modifications to the ghost to allow for optimum function.

 

Now, as to the question of wether said continuation would still be "you" is another problem entirely. The thing that humans generally call "identity" is highly multifaceted, each facet being how another mind or entity remembers "you". For example, the "me" that exists in the minds of posters here is little more then a Handle and a few tidbits which can be assumed from profile information and my posts. Where-as the "me" that exists say, in my mothers mind, is far more complex, but dispite similarities is still very unique from the "me" that exists in my own mind.

Anyway I'm off track, my point is that if the person excepted that the continuation of himself through a copy was indeed "him" and if others accepted that as well, then for all intents and purposes it is still "him"