Wisdom begins in wonder.

-Socrates

Yes, that may be simplifying things too far. Humans are quite exceptional animals. How exceptional we will probably never find out, as exploring the universe is impossible due to it's sheer size

As for soul? To me it means the unique neural network every person's, and animals brains have. Unique hardware configuration, unique mind.

But that's just me, i live firmly in the world i can see and experience

Regardless, Mass Effect convinced me that Synthetics are life too Whether that applies to real world, i may just live to see

Also, somewhat related, transhumanism; how much can you replace yourself with cybernetics, and still be considered a human?

6 points worth, according to Shadowrun 2nd Edition. Since we're supporting our arguments with games =)

~shrug~ Sure. But maybe that other Mr Gutsy has been modified, he is traveling with a tinkerer. Or maybe he was a later model. Or maybe ten thousand other things. His behaviour is also completely dissimilar from Cerberus so I'm not sure how he ties in with your initial question about how I felt about Cerberus' situation. Anyway point is, I don't think Cerberus shows signs of sentience. And I don't think the average unmodified pre-war machines (Mr Handies, Mr Gutsies, Sentrybots, Protectowhatevers) have the capacity for true sentience like an android from the Institute will have.

Convenient.

Regarding the soul and the innate superiority of organic life over synthetic life (that is to say, machines considered to be "alive" rather than organic life being created in artificial conditions, I will say that while I can't really quantify a soul or anything like that, there's clearly something unique in organics that we have yet to see in machines: The failure of existence.

What I mean is that if I were to die, I'd be gone forever. There's a small window of recitation, but that's a matter of minutes, and even then the damage can be severe. Cloning wouldn't bring me back, just create a genetic replica. I as an entity would no longer be.

Compare that with a machine. If a machine breaks down, as long as you can restore/find replacement parts, you can make it run again. Fallout could see us driving a Model T if we had the knowhow and the parts to make it run again. You can't do that with organic life. Even supposing that you could flash preserve a corpse so that it wouldn't decay, I don't think it would be possible to bring someone back to life a hundred years after they died by replacing the faulty part (say a heart).

That's the thing that all the "A body is just an organic machine" people never seem to take into consideration when arguing that point. There's something about organic life that, to me, isn't fully corporeal. When life is gone, it's gone. When a machine breaks, it just waits for someone to fix it.

Organic life is a fire. Once it's extinguished, it can never truly be rekindled. Synthetic life is a lamp. When it goes dim, just replace the bulb.

That to me is what will always truly separate organic life from synthetic life. The fragility. The uniqueness.

How is that different than humans drawing a line and saying that any level of sentience that an android is capable of isn't the true sentience that we posses?

I've only played the PC games, it had the "essence" loss associated with each cybernetic implant.

Though i think Deus Ex explores that question in more depth.

Well regardless, to re-iterate, if it is sapient, it doesn't matter what hardware it runs on, it is life.

What is?

It is "fragile" because, unlike said artificial machines, we do not have a complete enough understanding to effect such levels of repair. Even today, however, the brink of death is much closer to actual death than it was a hundred years prior due to the advancement of medical science.

True, but I doubt we'll ever reach the level of repair machines have always had. There's no way we'll be able to resurrect Julius Caesar simply by bringing all the parts together, but we can restore a Roman siege machine.

You should watch "Moon" with Sam Rockwell. Has an interesting take on human cloning that counters what you're saying.

Julius Caesar is lost to us because that information is already irrevocably lost. If brain structure is understood well enough some time in the future, a copy of someone's brain could be made that could exist beyond cessation of biological functions of the original.

In Mass Effect 2, if Legion does not survive the Suicide Mission, all the things it learned are lost. It irrevocably bars you from achieving peace between the Quarians and Geth in the third game. The replacement character even corrects you if you conflate it with Legion: "We are not Legion." Synthetic sentients can "die" if the copies are irrevocably lost. If Legion dies in the ME2 suicide mission, the memory of that handshake with Shepard, that symbol of hope of reconciliation with organics, never made it back to the Geth Collective.

That's what happens to Harkness if you turn him in. The hardware platform he existed in is reset to factory defaults, and Harkness is killed. Even A3-21 is killed, reduced to just another serial number again. However, that consciousness engine, that brain... will inevitably again reach a state where it will question its nature. It did once before. It just won't be Harkness anymore.

@Shanbalileh: The supernatural is beyond human comprehension.

The supernatural is beyond space and time, beyond reason, cause and effect.

An airplane is not supernatural by any means, at least not in the current meaning of the world.

In short, the supernatural is nothing to discuss about, nobody can know anything about it. It's a nagging question that shamelessly molests our mind.

How is it not different? You're speaking of the fundamental distinction between being aware and not. An android like Harkness can probably talk to you about what life means to him and why he wants to continue living, like a person. A computer can't. A Mr Gutsy would tell you 'to fulfill my directive' but it's not his/her/its directive it's whatever was put in there. There's no spontaniety, no flare, no imagination. No desire or drive to go beyond. It just fulfills a function. It doesn't think about it, it just does. THAT is the difference.

As for the rest of your post about the fragility and transient nature of human existence it's terribly poetic but I don't see how it's relevant. So we're dead when we're dead. How is that more or less beautiful or unique than something that can continue when it's physical vessel deteriorates?

Owning anything sapient is immoral. I can't believe this is being discussed as if there are pros and cons to it.

Owning chimpanzees is immoral?

That you found a way to cop out of answering. The monkey here is androids right? From what we've seen from Harkness he is both empathic, part of his reason for evolving sentience was cuz he felt bad for the 'droids he was bringing in and we know he could lead since he was one of The Boat's three leaders. So why shouldn't that monkey get the promotion over a human?

Chimpansees are not sapient to the degree a human is. Nothing on our world is.

Yes, owning chimpanzees is immoral. A chimp doesn't want to be owned.

And there are even questions about that. Jane Goodall's findings indicate that chimps can not only use tools, but prepare them for use from raw materials. The sole difference between them and us in that regard is the magnitude in which we do such behaviors. Something as simple as peeling a reed and licking it to better make termites stick to it in order to snack on the termites shows that we humans aren't as special as we like to believe.

That's why some animal rights advocates aren't keen on "pet ownership" either, using other terms like "guardians" or somesuch.

what if its fed well and cared for with medicine? how do you know then that the chimp doesnt prefer being owned rather than being out in nature?

No, I meant an actual monkey...

Never played any of the Mass Effect games past the first one, so I'll take your word on it.

"Harkness" never existed. He was a figment of imagination, conjured up by a coward who forsook the life granted to him because he couldn't face the truth and wanted to run. Who forgot what he was and what he did so that he could play at humanity.

I despise "Harkness." Every fiber of my being called for his annihilation. So I smashed him to pieces and dragged A3-21 screaming into the light. If it wants life, it's going to live the life it was given. It can call itself whatever it wants. I don't care about that. But I won't allow it to forget things because it's convenient.

I think Zoos are a good thing. A lot of animals would be dead if not for human ownership and care. Owning animals puts us much closer to them and lets us learn more about them than from simple observation in the wild.

It was a play on words, nobody want to be 'owned'. As in pwned.

I don't know if a chimp has any understanding of the concept of freedom and the will to have it. If it has, then yeah, it wouldn't be cool to deny a chimp freedom.

Generally, treating a chimp how it suits a chimp's wants and needs is appropriate. I'd say they prefer the jungle over a city.

Horrifying realization of what one is and irrational reaction to it... Is that something humans are incapable of? The Railroad still extricated him, despite apparently knowing who he really was. Apparently the very people who he previously had an antagonism towards were forgiving.

What happens if, in Fallout 4, Harkness having his memory restored and giving the Institute the slip is canonized, and he returns as a major operator on the Railroad?