![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
capri0mniIf robots evolve to a critical level of complexity -- say, if they can heal themselves, reproduce themselves, and become self-aware -- should they still be considered "robots" at that point? Or will they have become an actual (i.e. biological rather than "artificial"*) life form?
Albeit silicon, polymer, and metal-based, rather than carbon, protein** and phospherous-based life forms, like us, but living things, nonetheless. And therefore, no more or less creepy than any other alien creature we can imagine.
Personally, I think what makes robots vaguely sinister is their puppet-like qualities: things that move through the world, and can act upon it, without feeling any connection or desire of their own -- the force of their actions come from some unseen & and unknown inventor-master who is manipulating them, and through them, us (Like the actual zombies of Voodun, or the Gollum of Talmud mythos) -- we can be tricked by their appearence and actions into caring for them, and they don't care or know in return. So who is caring and knowing.
But if they become sophisticated enough to be self-aware, then their actions will be self-motivated, and their survival instinct will require emotions. Without the puppeteer, they are no longer puppet shells.
Does this make sense?
It's only "Random (ish)" because it came to me after brooding for a week on the Watson/Jeopardy!/Terminator jokes that so many people seem to think are oh-so-clever and original.
*"Artificial" -- Middle English < Latin for "contrived by artifice" -- something crafted.
**Could proteins and enzymes, which are long chain molecules, be the biological version of polymers and plastics?
Albeit silicon, polymer, and metal-based, rather than carbon, protein** and phospherous-based life forms, like us, but living things, nonetheless. And therefore, no more or less creepy than any other alien creature we can imagine.
Personally, I think what makes robots vaguely sinister is their puppet-like qualities: things that move through the world, and can act upon it, without feeling any connection or desire of their own -- the force of their actions come from some unseen & and unknown inventor-master who is manipulating them, and through them, us (Like the actual zombies of Voodun, or the Gollum of Talmud mythos) -- we can be tricked by their appearence and actions into caring for them, and they don't care or know in return. So who is caring and knowing.
But if they become sophisticated enough to be self-aware, then their actions will be self-motivated, and their survival instinct will require emotions. Without the puppeteer, they are no longer puppet shells.
Does this make sense?
It's only "Random (ish)" because it came to me after brooding for a week on the Watson/Jeopardy!/Terminator jokes that so many people seem to think are oh-so-clever and original.
*"Artificial" -- Middle English < Latin for "contrived by artifice" -- something crafted.
**Could proteins and enzymes, which are long chain molecules, be the biological version of polymers and plastics?
no subject
Date: 2011-02-27 10:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-27 08:30 pm (UTC)It's my love of DW that got me thinking about this, originally, when I finally confronted, head-on why the character of Davros makes me want to, "Raurgh!!" at people who suggest I dress up as him for Halloweeen, or a costume party: I know this episode pre-dates PC-ness, but ... [June 22, 2008]
A year later, I finally figured out the point I was trying to make: Davros, Daleks and Disability [June 5, 2009], where I wrote:
We fear the robots taking over because we know that we mistreat those we can easily catergorize as "other," and we fear getting our comeuppance. The answer to this, natch, is not to mistreat others. But that's easier said than done.