Dauntless

Re: Other ways of modeling "side effects"? Actually, a thought occurred to me for a way to simulate a Juicer or Spawn type of Side Effect. I'm not sure if this is legal though. You can define the "Susceptibility" as a Drain on BODY with the advantages of Cumulative, Delayed Effect and Trigger. There are actually two triggers...one each time the power(s) is used, and one for when a cumulative threshold is released. Each time a power is used, the trigger is activated and has its cumulative affect applied. The Delayed Effect means that this Cumulative damage is "stored" until the second trigger is reached...when the cumulative effect is greater than BODY (at which point the character will die due to having -BODY). By storing the Drain in this manner through the Delayed Effect, accumulating all the uses via Cumulative and defining the Triggers, you essentially make a ticking time bomb against the character.

Re: Other ways of modeling "side effects"? One problem I'm seeing with modeling this as a Susceptibility that can do more than just damage is in converting the points. A 2d6 Drain has 20 Active Points, and a 2d6 Transform is 30 compared to a 2d6 EB's Active Point cost of only 10. Obviously that's not fair. Furthermore, how would you define the condition's rarity? That's up to the character's control, not external factors. Moreover, what if the points per disadvantage category is not high enough to allow the power? The biggest problems I'm seeing with just declaring this as a subtraction against a power's cost is 1) what happens if the side effects are worse than the main power, 2) building defenses to counter the side effects and 3) calculating how dehabilitating the side effect really is. How exactly would you calculate the disadvantage cost of a power that blinds your character's visual senses if he buys another Targeting sense to compensate? How would you calculate the cost of a power that triggers a random teleportation (it could be good or bad)? I'm still not seeing a way to model how to build Spawn or a Juicer. Would it be a cumulative Transform into a dead person (which you specifically can not do with Transform)? It can't be defined as a cumulative Killing attack either, because any offensive power with cumulative has to be applied against a defense (not to mention that the damage will heal over time). Susceptibility doesn't cut it either because 1) in a juicer or Spawn's case, the damage is hidden...it's a cumulative type effect and 2) the damage incurred by susceptibility will heal.

Re: Other ways of modeling "side effects"? Just because something has more disadvantages that advantages doesn't mean someone can't or won't use it. Just ask a druggie. However, I do agree this can be abused. Sometimes you may be willing to put up with a penalty in order to get a gain. What if you have a pill that grants you massive powers for a short time, but slowly kills you? Depending on how heroic you are, you may be willing to take that risk in order to do the greater good. Or what about that random teleportation thing? Maybe you absolutely have to get out of the way and are willing to trade the damage it does for something that might be worse (like a bolt from Dr. Destroyer). I suppose one way to eliminate the "get free points by never using the side effected power" is to simply say that you can't get free points. At best, it can reduce the Power's cost to zero. But like I said in the example above, I do think there are situations where everytime you use your power, something worse than the power itself happens (or perhaps cumulatively adds up to something "really bad"....like Spawn using his power). In fact, as I see it, there's no way to model the Spawn. Every time he uses his power, in essence he is killing himself (again). I don't see a way to create an Achillean type of character that burns twice as bright but half as long. Another example would be trying to model a Juicer character from the Rifts setting. I'm open to suggestions on how to model these kinds of characters.....

Re: The Future of Small Arms I think the question might be rephrased as, what are the pros and cons of firearms? Or maybe another way of asking it might be, "what would the pinnacle of kinetic slugthrower technology be?" Let me list the disdadvantages first: 1) Maximum practical kinetic energy You can only put so much energy into accelerating a slug. If you have binary propellant gases which cause an explosion or gunpowder that sublimates to cause gas expansion to propel the bullet...the chamber has to be strong enough to withstand that force. Even railgun type weapons will have the limit of the EMF it can generate along the rails or coils (unless superconductors are around...I'm no EE, but I know there is a limit to the current that a specific material per volume can contain....and if superconductors DO exist, energy weapons will have a huge advantage to be explained later). If you posit super strong material to contain the blast in the chamber, that means there will be super strong materials for body armor too. 2) Not very accurate Compared to energy weapons. For one, kinetic weapons, even railguns, will throw projectiles at velocities orders of magnitude slower than lasers or particle accelerators or other EMF type weapons. This means that the firer will have to account for wind, bullet drop, etc. This can be alleviated by "smart" bullets, but smart bullets would have their own drawbacks. And recoil will also be an issue compared to energy weapons unless you want to add on bulky gyrostabilization equipment. 3) Limited ammunition What happens if you run out of bullets? For energy weapons that require only energy, all you have to do is roll out a nano-solar cell array or hopefully by that time we'll have fusion power. Energy weapons will probably have lower ammunition weight. If superconductors or near superconductors exist then the efficiency in power to weight/ratio will go to energy weapons. Why? Because in a gas expansion slug thrower, think of all the energy wasted by the gasses as the bullet exits the barrel and how the direction of the gasses will not all directly "push" on the bullet. And don't forget friction (this might be offset by new nanomanufactured materials that could be almost frictionless, although if you want to impart spin to the bullet, you'd either need some friction, make it fin stabilized, or have a weird bullet back end shaped like a propellor to make it spin against the pushing gas). Even railguns which have near zero friction will have the attenuation of kinetic energy due to air drag (though admittedly, gauss guns will be far far more efficient than regular firearms). One may argue that lasers will shed energy from dispersal by the atmosphere...but this can be mitigated by using different wavelengths of light to punch through air particles and even to some degree reflective chaff. Nanofactories to produce bullets? First off, what are the nanites going to eat? Even molecular dissasemblers can't change rock to lead as it would have to have enough energy to overcome the strong nuclear forces to rip out protons (people have funny notions about what nanotechnology can do). So the nanites would have to eat lead, or some other material. But that would change the characteristics of the weapon (the bullet might shatter under the force...though this could be accounted for by metering binary gasses or EM acceleration. 4) Not very stealthy Guns go boom. Not only do they go boom, they create flashes (if it's a gas expansion slug thrower, or a huge EMP signature if it's a gauss gun). Silencers decrease the efficiency if a gun, though flash hiders can actually improve them (if they can vent the gasses through a good muzzle brake along the length of the hider). Energy weapons may or may not be stealthy. X-ray lasers would be invisible (they might ionize the air though, especially depending on the makeup of the air at the time). Ditto for particle accelerators. Here are some advantages 1) Easy to produce All kinetic slug throwing weapons except gauss type weapons will be relatively easy to manufacture. It will be well understood technology and lower tech societies will have them around for a long time. 2) "Smart" bullets Pretty much useful only as sniper weapons, you could have gyro assisted projectiles with limited course correction capabilities. They won't be able to shoot around corners as bad sci-fi will tell you, but they could help negate "leading" a target and correct for windage and bullet drop. The disadvantage to this is that the gryo-assist will take up more bullet mass, meaning less rounds to carry per weight. It will also make the bullets more "fragile". 3) Different payloads Not really applicable to firearms, but kinetic slug throwers can vary the kind of projectile it throws. It could be HE, AP, APFSDU, HESH, Sabots, etc. In firearms, you could have flechette rounds, discarding sabots, dum-dums, frangibles, etc. As for the argument about whether kinetic firearms would be more rugged, I think each would have advantages and disadvantages, so neither would win. People think energy weapons would be more fragile...but I disagree. The reason many electronic components are fragile is because they must be precise to work...not to mention that usually the only parts on electronic equipment that fails are the mechanical ones (and usually capacitors which can overload). DVD players are fragile because if you drop it, you knock the laser out of alignment and it can no longer read the spiral in the DVD. Ditto with hard drives. Does that mean a laser weapon would be fragile? No. It's aim might be off, but you could recalibrate it. It would have a focusing element that could be fragile (I'm thinking it could be made of metallic crystalline structure however). And in some ways, energy weapons could be more rugged. Other than the trigger, there would be no moving parts subject to wear and tear. If there are superconductors, there will be no molecular fatigue in the circuits. All in all though, there will come a point where the advantages of energy weapons will outweigh the usefulness of kinetic weapons. Will it be in 300 years? I dunno. Will we have safe man portable nuclear (fusion) powerpacks ala the Ghostbusters in 300 years? If we can make hand held particle accelerators in 300 years then I'd definitely say a big and unequivocal yes.

Re: Other ways of modeling "side effects"? Well, I was thinking more of circumstances in which the use of a power directly affects the character. Maybe "affects" is the wrong word. It should impose some kind of harmful change on the character. "Does not affect women" restricts how the power works, but it doesn't make the power itself have any deleterious affects. I was thinking of specific cases in which the use of one power triggers another power that directly affects the character. In effect, it's like saying, "useable only on self" and "linked". Normally you don't want to EB or RKA or Drain yourself, but as I understand the rules, there's no way to do this. And yet there are many cases in fiction or real life in which this happens. Drug effects is a real life one, and many super-heroes suffer some kind of feedback if they use the power in a certain manner (like the Molecular Man or Firestorm). The reason I don't like side effects always as a limitation is because I think it's possible that you could have a "power" that's more of a disadvantage than an advantage, but limitations can never make the cost of something negative. So I would propose a new category of Disadvantages....maybe call it a Curse (or something, so not to confuse it with the Side Effects limitation). The Disadvantage would be defined as a power with the automatic limitations of "useable only on self" and "linked" applied to it...but those limitations would not be applied to the cost of the power. The major drawback I see to this approach is that you could define a "Curse" disadvantage that doesn't really create a drawback. For example, let's say I define a 10d6 EB, with a 2d6EB as feedback. Trouble is, if you have 12 or more ED or PD, then effectively, the feedback doesn't harm you at all. I would therefore suggest that if you define such a disadvantage, you either have ZERO defenses against the side effect power, or you must calculate the "average damage" versus the defense to determine how harmful the side effect is. In my first example about the Super Steroid pill, let's say a character has enough Power Defense of 10, and the Drain is defined as a 3d6 BODY and EGO. Half the time, this Drain is useless, and therefore the 3d6 Drain should have a -1 limitation applied to the cost. But calculating how "effective" a side effect is can get tricky. Ohh, I forgot to add...some may ask, "why not just make it a 'susceptibility' disadv"? Because you may want specific affects, like Adjustment powers to various powers or characteristics that isn't handled by a "Suceptibility to own power use". The Side Effect Limitation can handle things for which the side effect could be useful sometimes...say for example a power that Transports you randomnly everytime you use it (it could help or hurt.....badly). But I think there are more specific cases that could be modeled by a better implementation. I don't see how saying that applying a Drain, EB, or RKA against yourself is ever helpful.

For some reason, I just don't like the way the Side Effects limitation is implemented. It can handle general case situations, but wouldn't there be a more direct way of doing this for specific cases? For example, let's say I want to build a super-steroid as an Aid that boosts your STR, SPD ,CON and PD, but simultaneously drains your BODY and EGO. Instead of saying it's a -1/2 or -1 limitation, why don't you actually build the Drain for BODY and EGO, and directly subtract it from the point cost of the power? In other words, I see a "Side Effect" as less of a limitation...which only reduces the cost of a power....and more of a disadvantage. If you create an Energy Blast that affects you just as much as your opponent, should you even pay any points for it? In fact, it might be worse...you could miss your target but the feedback will always hit you. Now, this could be abused. In the above example, someone might have enough Power Defense to avoid the Drain, thus negating the Side Effect. But in some ways this makes sense, at least in the example above, because the Steroid Pill is not intrinsic to the character. Any other advantages/pitfalls to making certain Side Effects as subtracting points from a power (perhaps even giving points like a disadvantage) rather than multiplying the cost of the power by a fraction as in a limitation?

Re: Post-Apocalyptic Anime I don't think anyone has mentioned, Grey: Digital Target yet. Unfortunately, the link doesn't work properly... at least not on Firefox 2.0 (probably stupid frames). Click on the sci-fi link at the bar running along the top, and then one of the frames will change on the left and scroll down and find Grey. Can't go wrong with an 80's made Apocalypse story (noticed how post-apoc or apocalypse was all the rage in the US from the 50-80's, died with the defeat of the Cold War, and is now starting to come back again? Must be the revenge of the zeitgeist or something). I barely remember the story, but I remember it having a sort of Logan's Run/Appleseed quality to it (I read the manga...I didn't see the Anime). IIRC, the main characters were trying to gain citizenship into some kind of utopian society...the last of its kind after the dehabilitating wars.

Re: Religion Hero?? I don't claim to be an expert in any religious system....but I think it's fair to say that I know more than the average joe. In fact, I try NOT to specialize in any one religion as I like studying various religious systems. So while my depth in any one particular religion is not spectacular, I do think my breadth of knowledge is fairly good. And I'll admit, Judaism is one of my weaker subjects (I know a little more about Islam actually thanks to my mom). Trust me, I am quite aware that especially in a subject like religion, "a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing". I'm definitely not arrogant enough to not concede to someone who's spent a good portion of their life studying and practicing a religion, or someone who's been to some kind of theological/divinity school. But if there's one thing I've discovered, it's that I have come to appreciate an old Chinese saying: "if you know only one religion, you know none". I do know enough to know the vast amount of differences in interpretation between groups even of the same religion. If anything, that's what makes it all the more fascinating. And when you consider that the word religion itself is from the latin root "religiere" which means to "bind together", then you can appreciate the common root despite the differences even more. I wish I had more time to read the Talmudic laws, the many various schools of Kabbalah, the hadiths and fatwas of the 4 major schools of Fiqh, and learn Greek, Hebrew, Latin and Arabic. Alas, I can not not. Heck, I wish I could learn Pali, Sanskrit, and Chinese and read some of the original Hinayana and Mahayana sutras. If a philsophy major could make money, I would have done that instead of computer science. But it's nonetheless a passionate hobby of mine to study religions. While I may not know any one particular religion greatly, I think I do have a fair grasp of a "big picture" role of religion and how it has affected society.

Re: Religion Hero?? Well, it's always dangerous to try to pidgeonhole a religion as having a certain "standardized" set of beliefs or practices, and I admit I'm guilty of doing that too. Look at the differences between Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodoxy, or Sufism, Wahhabism, and Shia "Twelvers", or between say Lurianic Kabbalah, and Marrano (a somewhat derogatory term historically speaking...it means "pig"...so forgive me) Jews. All religions are like this. Even in Buddhism you've got branches that believe in divine intervention (Pure Land), and those that don't even really pay attention to reincarnation (Chan and Zen). So it's very possible for many Jews (and even some Christians) to take offense at a God who directly intervenes in worldy affairs. Afterall, it was a mortal offense to even utter Jehovah once upon a time. But then again, that was in the days before Rabbinic Judaism had taken hold (which really happened after the two incredibly destructive Jewish-Roman wars of 68AD and 132AD...if I remember the dates correctly. Look up Bar-Kohkba revolt). But I think it's precisely knowing all these differences that is interesting from a gaming perspective, and educational from a real world one. It's also interesting that Jewish culture was the first in Europe to embrace secularism and even an early form of Atheism/Agnosticism. Because of the Sephardic exodus of Jews from Spain at the end of the 1400's (btw, Sephardic comes from Sefarad....or Spain...it does not mean only Semitic Jews) and some Jews rather faking getting converted than leave, these Marrano Jews lost some of the true meaning of Judaism. When some of these Jews had to leave and then experienced "real" Judaism in other areas, many could not understand or accept it. Benedict (Baruch) Spinoza was an example of this. Now, with all this said and done, I do think that gaming or even writing a Religion Hero book is fraught with many pitfalls, and these should be examined carefully. First and foremost is understanding your audience. If the book was written too scholarly, it might seem boring, though it might have an edge in seeming unbiased. Another problem is that some religious gamers might take offense at information about various religions and their practices, history or beliefs....even if said information is factually correct. For example, I have incensed many Christians who could not believe that A) God would order a people to commit genocide (read Numbers or Deuteronomy for some examples) or That Jesus not once spoke out against slavery, and that in fact, some writings in the New Testament actually talk about proper rules and punishments for slaves. The trouble is when we try to examine these religions and their teachings, practices and beliefs from our modern day standpoint. We have to look at things in context from an ancient people's point of view. In fact, a Religion Hero book which failed to take into account history, and how religious teachings have evolved would be a disservice. The plain fact of the matter is that religions do evolve...even fundamentalist groups. So yes, Religion Hero would be very difficult to pull off. And doing it wrong could alienate customers from Hero Games, not to mention cause rifts between the playing group. But if the cost of failure is that high, I think the rewards are equally high. It would I think deepen faiths of some players by giving them a better understanding of their religion, it may enlighten those players who are irreligious to better understand what religion offers, and for all involved, it could lead to better tolerance and acceptance of other religions. But I could definitely understand why Hero Games would not want to take the risk of publishing such a book. But I think a homegrown resource would be a good idea...and in fact, I'd be more than happy to help build one if enough folks are interested. And just for the record, I was baptized Catholic. But two grandfathers were Catholic, one grandmother Protestant (Lutheran) and one grandmother Muslim (Sufi). But I consider myself mostly Buddhist, with a dash of Taoism and esoteric Sufism thrown in for good measure.

Re: Religion Hero?? Well, depending on what religion you practice, having "God" or a prophet played as an NPC would definitely be sacreligious. Islam comes readily to mind. Allah is not an anthropomorphic being (unlike how he is often portrayed in Christianity), and neither Allah nor Muhammed should be iconified or depicted in any way (for that matter, neither is the 12th "Hidden" Imam for the Shiia). Allah is not seen as manifesting his presence in the physical world to make things happen...that is the job of human beings. Humans are just trying to fulfill Allah's covenant, which is why Muslims call Jews and Christians "people of the book", and in ancient times, accorded far more tolerance and protection than Christians afforded Jews or Muslims. Rather Allah is a presence within (even Muhammed never "saw" Allah, he only received the "recitations"...which btw is what Koran means). But to a Jewish or Christian player, I don't foresee this as a problem. Afterall, the New and Old Testament (Torah) are rife of examples of God (El, Yahweh, Jehovah, Shaddai, etc) directly intervening and being in the presence of humans. And since my examples were particularly in regards to Christianity, I don't think they'd find it so odd or irregular. While it's true that God usually works by proxy (Moses, Jesus or various angels....or even disembodied presences like the burning bush...or in Nicene terms, through the Holy Ghost), there are enough examples in the Bible to not find it too odd that God would directly intervene in some manifestation. But in some ways, it's this revelation that the GM should think about such issues is why I think a Religion-based game would be interesting. I have studied many religions as a hobby and have discovered many interesting things which they have in common and in which they are different. Being aware of these commonalities and differences is what is not only fascinating, but important even in today's ever more polar society. For example, Christianity (Protestants and Catholics mostly, lesser to a degree the Eastern Orthodoxy) is very concerned about orthodoxy...or "straight thought". They want to make sure everyone has the same core beliefs (heretic btw in Greek meant "free thinker" or "one who goes his own way", thus a heretic was someone who was not an orthodox thinker). Islam and Judaism on the other hand are more concerned with orthopraxy....the correct mode of practice and worship. What you think and believe about Yahweh or Allah is not as important as the rituals and worship of Him. This is why the mystic branches of Judaism and Islam survived and even flourished (Kabbalah and Sufism respectively) while in Christianity it did not (for example the Gnostics). And then of course there's the non monotheistic religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and various shamanistic/animistic or ancestor worship religions. These in turn have their own idea of what is divine, spiritual or worldly, profane, etc.

Re: Why are robots always immortal? zeropoint- Yeah, knowledge in and of itself doesn't seem to constitute intelligence, but in a sense, it is. Actually, that's the argument of Intelligent Design when it comes to DNA. DNA mathematically speaking is a formal language. Languages are not just expressions of intelligences but requirements of intelligence (AFAWK). Thus, random mutations to produce a language are meaningless without something to "understand" it. As for the subjectivity of consciousness, that's exactly why we can't figure it out I also think therefore it's possible that there might be other forms of consciousness that we have no ability to relate to. We think other people are conscious because their experiences and thoughts mirror our own. But I don't see why it's not possible for something else to have consciousness that is totally alien from our own and be just as subjective in its own right.

Re: Why are robots always immortal? Well, we can't simulate non-locality on a computer, it's just no physically possible. It's the only thing quantum computers can do that classical computers can not. The cool thing about non-locality is that when you measure one point of a set, you in effect measure all possible permutations of that set (the power set). If our brains have a non-local component to them, then I'd say pretty much all bets of classical AI are off. Quantum Mechanics is so bizarre because it describes everything (except gravity) but we have no idea HOW it works. It just does. You've got your copenhagen intrepetation, your many worlds advocates, the holographic universe proponents, the "universe is a quantum computer" theory, and the one I lean towards, monistic idealism.

Re: Why are robots always immortal? In a sense, you've hit the nail on the head. What are we exactly? Our bodies? Our memories? Our thoughts? Our feelings? This is where the roleplaying aspect comes into play. What are we exactly? I think this is why Transhuman genres have a small fan following (small because it's very deep and philosophical...something many gamers have a problem grasping enough to wrap a roleplaying handle around). If we are solely our memories, then am I merely a storehouse of information? My experiences? In a way, you are right, we are different everytime we wake up. In fact, we are different from moment to moment. Moreover, memories are only half the battle, for all a memory is is stored knowledge. How one acts on that stored knowledge (intelligence and emotions) is something different altogether. As I'm trying to point out, our mind, consciousness, emotions and other mental states are (probably) not purely deterministic classical states described by atoms (they are partially determined by it, but not solely). Thus I am not purely my memories, though my memories may help shape how I evaluate and judge things. Thanks to chaos theory, even the tiniest differences can lead to huge changes. Since you can not perfectly copy something, they will be different. But, I can already hear the argument, we can make exact digital copies. As I mentioned earlier, there's a difference between a Shannon bit and a Qubit. Classic computers work with discrete Shannon bits. I'm not sold on the idea that computers lack true creative intelligence and consciousness simply because they aren't complex enough. The majority of Computer Scientists (who believe Strong AI is possible in the first place) think that if we can just create enough neural networks, a gestalt connectionist intelligence (consciousness) will emerge using our current classical Shannon bit based computers. However, such a system would by necessity be a purely deterministic one. Richard Feynman proved that classical computers can do anything a quantum computer can (albeit eponentially slower) except one....simulate non-locality. If our own brain operates on non-local (and thus quantum) principles, then classical computers will never be able to have consciousness (at least human consciousness...it's possible there's other types of consciousness, but since consciousness is a personal and subjective experience, one can define consciousness as having human qualities). Many have heard of Alan Turing's intelligence test (where if you are chatting on a computer, and you can't tell if the thing responding back is a human or not then it's intelligent). However, there's a difference between intelligence and consciousness. Firstly, John Searle came up with a good argument that invalidates Turing's test called the Chinese Room experiment. In essence, Searle says, a computer is just an algorithm machine...it requires no understanding, creativity or leaps of logic. I for one believe that intelligence does have a quantum basis, as do a couple of other researchers (Penrose, IIRC has found structures in neurons called microtubules which could be the basis for quantum mechanics in the brain). We are thus not just our memories, but the thing that acts on those memories. So, if our brain operates on QM principles, we are all unique and thus uncloneable. It wasn't until I started studying Quantum Computation that I realized that physics and information are the same thing. Ask a physicist to look at a tank filled with gas, and he will think pressure, temperature, entropy and thermodynamics. Ask a computer or information scientist what he sees, and he will see a structure of objects that represent information. Reality is quantum in nature and so it's not just physics, or physical objects that it governs, but information as well. Mind you, this is just my own thoughts and theories. There are others who believe in Strong AI from purely classical machines. If you're into such stuff, check out www.kurzweilai.net. Good resource for any Transhumanist or Extropian campaigns someone might want to run.

Re: Why are robots always immortal? I think the upshot of everything I said above is that if you're going for a hard sci-fi world, not even AI is immortal. Of course, that depends on what you mean by consciousness and intelligence and even immortal. Well, let me step into bizarro world and describe a little about one of the lesser known Quantum Interpretations: Monistic Idealism. MI says that there is only one consciousness that pops all qwf's (quantum wave functions). We think we have unique minds and thus consciousnesses, but according to MI, we don't. This solves Wigner's Friend dilemma. There is only one consciousness, and our brains are sort of like "mental receivers" that tune in to it. Moreover, we're stuck at one "frequency". This is why MI adherents say, the brain seems to control the mind. If you break a radio, would you say that the music came from the radio? No, but that's precisely what the materialists are assuming...the brain is the origin of the mind, but that's like saying music comes from a radio. Fiddle around with the electronics of the radio, and you screw around with its reception....same thing with the brain and the mind. I've thought of merging Buddhist and Advaitic philosophies (as well as my own knowledge of Computer Science and AI) into a game world that discusses some of these issues. I guess that's why I liked Battlestar Galactica so much, because to me, maybe AI might be able to see this universal consciousness (God) better than we humans can. Or maybe they will be just as deluded and mired in maya (the hindu word for illusion) by their skhandas (the buddhist word for the 6 senses which reveal only a false and illusory world...the 6th sense by the way is our mind, and thus our mind is not exactly the same as our consciousness, or vijnana, in Buddhist philosophy). And even if a robot isn't truly immortal, it definitely would have the potential to last a lot longer than we V.1 humans can.

Re: Why are robots always immortal? Actually, the "Schroedinger's Cat" thought experiment does precisely that....transfer quantum properties to a macro object. As does "Wigner's Friend" if i remember correctly. Von Neumann also proved that the quantum entanglement will pass from one measuring device to another...until somehow, a conscious observer comes along and makes an observation. Actually, we can not "prove" determinism either. Determinism requires that the universe A) has material objects which interact locally that these material objects exist independent of our observation of them and C) that the state data (location, momentum etc) is exact and precise. Quantum theory has shot down all three assumptions. Reality is nonlocal, objects do not exist until they are observed, and state data is probabilistic not exact. Determinism is simply an ontological assumption we make about the universe. All science rests on certain metaphysical assumptions which are unprovable. It is actually more probable that instead of there being an objective, material, and deterministic world which is dualistic in nature (this scientific paradigm has failed to explain consciousness for 2500 years in the West), it is more likely that reality is subjective, idealistic, probabilistic and monistic in nature. But again, these assumptions are unproveable (though they do remove some icky Quantum paradoxes). As for analog computers, computers don't "think", and unfortunately many computer scientists are stuck on the deterministic, materialistic view of intelligence, and thus believe that consciousness is a byproduct of the vast complexity of a connectionist model (the mind is an emergent feature of a vastly interconnected system of neurons). If you think about it, a transistor is an analog device at the input level...it's just that it can only recognize two states, high or low and thus outputs a discrete value. The problem with an analog gate is noise. Since an analog device has theoretically an infinite number of values, it's true value would be incredibly affected by noise in the system. In digital computers, thanks to Shannon and his insights into Information Theory (and thus Error Correction Codes), we can generally speaking ignore such noise in the system. Noise or "entanglement" is also what's holding us back from developing Quantum computers...making sure the state of the qubit doesn't get "mixed" up with the rest of the quantum nature of the computer itself. Noise essentially acts as a random unpredictable variable we can't account for. ECC and other noise reduction techniques eliminate this for us in digital system since it's relatively easy to correct a bit which can only contain two possible values.