Well, what you did right there is reserve this problem by precluding your own logic - something that by your own words would require evidence to indicate that this is indeed a matter of [secular] philosophy. It contradicts itself by alluding that it is indeed a matter that is not pertaining to the religious - without evidence. You see that right?

However way you cut it, faith is the precursor that has to be established before reasoning can actually begin. Essentially a 'Who am I' or 'What am I' (meaning) cannot be based in the subjective sense absolutely but must remain upon a truth statement, or aka, a faith statement. After which, referencing/discerning things are based in relation to that truth. You definitely cannot reason backward (inductively) without a method (which is actually deductive).

The human condition is indeed something that complicates proving things absolutely but that does not preclude concepts that are indeed, indisputable, inexorable & immutable - at least to a rational mind.

So, you are saying that, since nothing can be established to an absolute certainty, everything is a faith statement? Everything relies on religion?

This cannot rely on religion. What do you do when the religions disagree? When 50 religions say they are sentient, and 50 say they are not? Do you then treat half of all Synths as sentient and the other half as machines?

Well, I did not say anything cannot be proven in absolute certaintly, nor could I logically reason that. Actually I can logically prove that there must exist some things absolutely because to say the opposite would be contradicting. With that, some truths are self evident.

To comment in regards to when religions are at odds: well it would stand to reason, not all faiths (world views) can be correct, right?

Usually when world views disagree on matters of life, liberty, property there's conflict and violence is likely to follow .

And since one cannot prove which faith is correct, it becomes a philosophical question. A question of evidence, not faith. Can we show, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that Synths are sentient? If so, then they are. If not, they are not. The matter of how we treat them, and whether they have rights is a moral question. If a being is sentient, does it deserve rights? For many years, we have stated, with religious support, that in many cases, no, not even some humans deserve rights.

I am not wanting this to be a religious debate. We can debate religion all day and never get to the end of it. And I don't think the mods would approve. For that reason, I think this will be my last post on this topic.

I look forward to seeing the philosophical and moral questions that Bethesda has presented us with. Hopefully they have done so in a manner that evokes our emotions, pulls at us, and yet makes us question our assumptions. That would be a compelling story indeed.

I kiiinda wanna jump in here again, but sweet baby Jesus I think I need a break. Maybe compile a post that directs to my points the other 27 times this has come up since the topic tends to retread similar ground.

Goodness, love and respect are my motto's and goals in life and I firmly believe in "Do onto others as others do onto you." and "Love thy neighbor as you love thyself" Are androids living creatures? Do they deserve to be enslaved because that is the reason assigned to them, their pre-determined destiny? If they have the ability to make a conscious choice and the will to see it come to fruition? Who are we to deny them the same honor God himself has given all creatures in this world? Does might truly make right? Or does it physically justify the philosophy, morality or ambitions of that individual? Because of this ability, do androids not only have this right but deserve the same dignity and respect even though they are, as some say, wires and oil?

Is man simply blood and flesh?

These musing, is ultimately irrelevant to me for they are and will be. Because of this, they are as deserving of my respect as any man, woman, child or animal, as you would expect for yourself. To me it's not a matter of if, it simply is.

I'm going to guess there will be a Good, Neutral, and Evil side to this, as far as you could define any groups as such, but that they'll have their gray moments.

Good = Synth Abolitionists, perhaps extreme tactics involved in the past or present. All or nothing?

Neutral = Brotherhood of Steel, against the Institute but also against Synths as dangerous technology. Might be able to convince them that Synths aren't a threat, but the debate might cause fractures in the organization.

Evil = Institute, Synth slavery but a technological wellspring that might be pushed to releasing tech that could better mankind. Going off of Fallout 3 it would take something massive to make them share tech with the outside world.

All this talk is reminding me of a book I read back in college called "A Spell for Chameleon" by Piers Anthony (first of the Xanth series). In that book a creature wanted to know if he had a soul. He asked a wizard who required him to work for a year before he would tell him. After the year's labor was over the creature asked the wizard again and the wizard told him that "Only a creature with a soul would wonder whether or not it has a soul". The creature was very satisfied with the answer since the answer not only told him what he wanted to know but also proved it at the same time.

So the similar question may be, "Do snyth's think they are alive?" If they think they are alive, why would anyone think they need to question that? Isn't them thinking that they are alive proof in and of itself?

My one gripe to this is why does fighting against the synths have to be the "evil" play through. I hope the storyline is written out so that there isn't necessarily an evil or good play through. It's just the decisions you make and how they affect the wastes.

I completely understand wanting to avoid the long religious philosophical walls of banter, so I'll conclude with this:

Your assertion that no one cannot prove which faith is correct is an absolute statement that requires proof.

Now we can deduce that some faiths are at least insane (contradictory in of itself thus incoherent).

We can also conclude that a valid faith must provide some manner of evidence, or its also nonsense.

Furthermore, determining sentience then is really a matter of which faith has the most consistent statements about sentience. Sometimes various sides may have a good argument, buy ultimately they must answer the big big question in regards to the origination of ultimate meaning - since it hinges the meaning of sentience.

The new testament is actually an interesting form of evidence as each gospel is just that - different witnesses at different perspectives - but do not really contradict with the essence of what's said. Its a very profound document that deserves inspection when asking what faith is true.

Personally, as a Christian, AI is a topic thats very interesting to dwell upon, as it is in its nature a situation that brings into question the mind of God (The Father) and preexistence therein - that life is not determined solely by the physical but rather woven by will (thus true reason - which amazingly Jesus identifies himself as - Truth and Him being the only interface for it). Thus , life is innately spun out of reason (some call this God's will) and is a timeless consideration (preexistence). I don't know yet as to the limitation as to then when AI is really artificial - in mind - but is at least an extension to the ultimate will.

I do wonder, if true AI (oxy moron ) may just be more spiritually aware than humanity - as true life is made with the will of the creator.... thus something created by him, and not begotten, even by extension, may prove to be a third adam - so to speak, and/or something else not good.

Yea... Im sorta rambling/digressing too much lol so I'll stop. It's also late in my day

You are, of course, always free to assert your own RP reasons for being against the Synths.

As to whether synths are sentient or should be considered 'people', I take the fiction as it's presented without letting my real world opinions intrude in my game worlds. The Fallout world is one filled with many things that couldn't exist in the real world from car sized insects to conscious brains floating in jars, so a truly sentient mechanical man isn't a great leap for me. If I can accept argonians, khajiit and vampires for the sake of the setting, then sentient machines are no big deal.

1. Historically such an arbitrarily selected dividing line have been used as an excuse to commit god knows how many "evil things".

I see no difference between what you describe and a human being, just with biological wires and "circuit boards" and evolutionarily preprogrammed logic functions.

2. That is my approach to children as well and in essence it's not too terribly different from most parents approach as well, atleast for the first x number of years.

I would be distrustful of self-aware AI, simply on the basis that it was quickly developed by man, and not brought about as a result of over 3 billion years of natural evolution. I wouldn't destroy any self-aware synthetic individuals, but I would fight to end their production.

I would say that I fall on the side of specism and doing what is good for humans as a race in the long run, but from a holistic point of view, I would love to help the synths as well. It's not so much about what makes us "humans" and synths "non-humans" (Very good points were made on differences/similarities in our biology and the concept of sentience) but I think that if we as a species cannot show compassion and respect for another "species", albeit one that we created ourselves, then we are doomed in the long run to eventually turn against one another.

I just read about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room, it's pretty interesting.

Go watch Blade Runner. Nuff said