Consciousness philosophical discussion

[Maniac]

Perhaps we could freely interpret Aki's speech as "giving up decision making based on illogical emotions, being able to control and guide your emotions"?? As TKG said: "It's not that we don't have emotions: it's that it's *illogical* to let them guide decisions."

[Drogue]

Well, the "[human] tendancy to cling to individual personalities" rant seems to suggest a lack of individual emotion. Moreover, if we experience any emotion, would that not make us act upon them. We run if we are scared, we cannot control that. Thus if we experience fear, we will act differently. We cannot have love, as that would mean what it says about the growth penalty would be false. If we have emotions,w e will be guided by them, and that would be illogical. Thus the only logical conclusion that I can think of would be that we don't experience emotions. We are not just humans with morer logic, we are cyborgs.

I see us a little like Data from Startrek. We are not evil and militaristic like the borg, but we do not wish to reproduce, we are very intelligent and logical. However without his wish to be human (although it seems for some of us). We should realise we are better

[Maniac]

Actually I would argue that emotions are logical most of the time. If you are scared of some wild animal, it's only logical you start running. So we shouldn't act on "illogical emotions", but there's no problem at all with acting on logical emotions. Conclusion: we have emotions; we allow the logical ones; only the illogical ones we don't let control us.
As for love, well when a normal human is in love s/he tends not to see the bad sides of the person s/he's in love with. "Love is blind." However, we as Cyborgs, have better self-knowledge, understand and see through our emotions. So when we're in love, our rational side says we are perceiving our signifant other better than s/he is. This makes us less unlikely to settle down with a person, explaining the growth penalty. So again we would experience the emotion of love, we would just act on it less.

Am I making sense? I'm just making this up while I'm writing it.

[Drogue]

That makes sense, and yes some emotion is logical. However, why would you need the emotion. If we face a wild animal, it is logical to run. Whether emotion, logical or not, also states we should run, is irrelevant. Indeed, even though love, and thus growth is logical, we do not have it, thus the penalty to growth. That seems to suggest to me that even when emotion is logical, we do not act upon it.

I think we should take the Stoicism idea that only reason can give make moral judgments, and that emotion should not be used in government, or is deciding morality. Whether we have emotion or not, an obviously I favour the not, we do not need it to guide us. By definition, what a "logical emotion", if they exist, tells us to do, logic on it's own would say the same thing. Thus with logic, we do not need logical emotions. If emotion and logic every clash, I would argue that logic, as our defining characteristic, should take precedence.

[Corellion]

Emotions were an evolutionary trait acquired to help to speed up a human being's reactions to commonly experienced situations, and to provide additional incentive to go with a course of action that increases the individual's chance of survival (or the survival of the offspring). We, being more advanced organisms with faster processing systems, do not need this speed or this encouragement. Evolution does not have the time or the resources to account for every possible situation, especially not situations encountered in the modern world. Often, emotions even act oppositely to what would be the best course of action would be. Thus, to follow emotions would often be hazardous, and when it would be beneficial, logic would reach the same conclusion. This renders emotions irrelevant. To experience them when they serve no use acts only as a distraction. It also interferes with our collective will, as emotions aren't designed to operate in such an environment.

As for the growth penalty, we reproduce when it is logical. Normal humans let their lust control them, and they reproduce merely because "it feels good", which leads to unwanted or unexpected pregnancies. Thus, it should be seen not so much that we have a growth penalty, as they all have growth bonuses.

[Drogue]

Interesting points Corellion. Could I point you to the 3D Offices where we have a couple of articles on it, as I would like some opinions. We have gone into much more detail there.

While I agree with some of that, emotions still seem to be against Aki Zeta-5's speech, of losing the left brain functions, and also against the OED definition of emotion, which states it as a reaction as opposed to reason, while also stating that reason is a form of logic. I tend to think now that logical emotion is an oxymoron.

Surely with our massive intelligence, we do not need emotion to make split second decisions. For example, the 'fight or flight' symptoms, when faced with something scary, is caused by increased adrenalin. Why wait for emotion to increase adrenilin, when we can do it logicall ourselves. That way we get increased physical abilities when we need them, without the blind terror. I remember in Star Trek when Data is gettign scared, with his emotion chip, he acts illogically at times, but when he turns it off, he is fine. I see it much like that, that fear can be helpful, but we can do better without it,as we can control our outputs rationally, but still instantaneously, which is more logical.

To be honest, with emotion, it doesn't really seem like an uber-rational CyCon, as envisaged by the game, by Aki Zeta-5. I'm all for liberal RPing, but based upon the game, and IMHO, this goes against our factional ethos.

[Maniac]

In response to certain arguments in this and in the 3D thread:

but argued in the next paragraph that logical emotions could not exist, as logic and reason are so closely linked, and reason is opposed to [emotion??] logic (both from OED definitions).

I never claimed logic and reason were not the same. I disagree though that emotion is opposed to reason. And using the definition of the OED (Oxford English Dictionary??? ) is not a valid argument. That's just an Appeal to Authority. (Sorry for the Archaicing ) In other words, I haven't heard any argument yet why emotion and rationality are exclusive.

I see us all as individual to some extent, as I feel that can be more efficient.

Ah, I'm glad you say that. As personally I think our Cybernetic members shouldn't be individualistic, but should be individuals. Without that, we wouldn't be able to discuss as we do now: we would be mindless drones ruled by one Hive Mind. And a Hive Mind society without dissenting opinions would stagnate and would slow down technological progress, as there aren't any critical minds to point out possible mistakes in scientific theories. I dare say our Cybernetic society would be impossible without individuality! For that reason I think we shouldn't base our ideology on the few phrases said by Aki Zeta-5, and you shouldn't refer to Aki Zeta-5's quotes in your articles.

Moreover, if we experience any emotion, would that not make us act upon them. We run if we are scared, we cannot control that.

Excuse me, but we can control emotions. And if normal biohumans can do that, Cyborgs can certainly do it, and not act upon them if they turn out to be irrational.

Emotions were an evolutionary trait acquired to help to speed up a human being's reactions to commonly experienced situations, and to provide additional incentive to go with a course of action that increases the individual's chance of survival (or the survival of the offspring).

Exactly! I also mentioned that in short in my article. Knowing that, Drogue, how can you claim emotions aren't useful and logical?? Quoting the OED as proof is nonsense.

We, being more advanced organisms with faster processing systems, do not need this speed or this encouragement. Evolution does not have the time or the resources to account for every possible situation, especially not situations encountered in the modern world. Often, emotions even act oppositely to what would be the best course of action would be. Thus, to follow emotions would often be hazardous, and when it would be beneficial, logic would reach the same conclusion. This renders emotions irrelevant. To experience them when they serve no use acts only as a distraction.

Very good points Corellion! Though from that same facts I reach another conclusion:

In case emotions would lead us to do irrational actions, we should and can ignore them. This is easily done because of our algorithms.

In case emotions would lead us to do rational actions, they form no hazard and there's nothing wrong with allowing them, even if logic would lead us to the same thing.

I also disagree with Corellion when he says emotions are irrelevant if logic leads to the same result. IMO they act as a double system, a backup system. Two systems having the same function is better than one system having a certain function, especially if you don't have to do anything to get that second system. It's already present in humans without needing to tamper with hem!

In fact it would be VERY inefficient (and we want efficiency no?) to remove emotions. It would require massive resequencing of our DNA, and would require our brains, hormones, muscles, our entire body to work in a completely different way. That's a task with very huge costs compared to the few possible benefits. So instead of rebuilding our human DNA from scratch to remove emotions, we should just keep the human design as it already exists, and just give us all a few cybernetic implants which give us extra capacities and abilities, but doesn't change the basis of who we are at all.

[Drogue]

I presume that message was sent before it was finished?

Basically, most of my argument can be summed into:

If we are logical above everything, and emotions cannot be logical (as given above, logic and reason are so closely linked, and reason is the opposite of emotion) then we cannot have emotions. However, we may wish to test that hypothesis

I have added a little to the bottom of my philosophy article, as well as making it more readable, so that it mentions that there are rumours of an experiment, but that nothing is confirmed. That means when your article is finished, we can publish that as a newsflash

[Maniac]

I presume that message was sent before it was finished?

Indeed! I must have clicked on Submit per accident.

and reason is the opposite of emotion

I've spoken about that in my above post. I ask proof for that statement.

[Cedayon]

01000010011011000110000101101000,
01000010011011000110000101101000,
01000010011011000110000101101000

010110010110111101110101 01100111011101010111100101110011 01101010011101010111001101110100 0110111001100101011101100110010101110010 01110011011101000110111101110000 0011101000101001.

I move that all philosophical debate must be transmitted in binary, to encourage conciseness of source text

*resumes running on unused cycles*

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Maniac
I never claimed logic and reason were not the same. I disagree though that emotion is opposed to reason. And using the definition of the OED (Oxford English Dictionary??? ) is not a valid argument. That's just an Appeal to Authority. (Sorry for the Archaicing ) In other words, I haven't heard any argument yet why emotion and rationality are exclusive.

However, if the OED (yes it is Oxford English Dictionary), as the standard English dictionary, states that a word means something, in this country, that is what it means. If you are using emotion to mean something that includes reason, then by definition, it is not an emotion. It is just semantics, but we must use words correctly. If we cannot use a dictionary to define our terms, then I could say that emotion is a banana, and there would be no way to prove otherwise. However it is not defined as such.

Also, in a court of law, you have expert witnesses. That is because some people are more able at a certain topic. Are you stateing that you believe the OED to be wrong? That would be an appeal to your authority to override the most used English dictionary, when it comes to the definition of a word. Appeal to Authority is only ever used as an insult or if you do not believe the credibility of that source. Feel free to state that the OED has mis-defined a word, but if we use their definition, as would be common in this country, then emotion is opposed to reason.

However, to argue against it, emotion, my any definiton I've ever seen, in an autonomous reaction. It is an something you do without thinking. It is defined as "a disturbance of mind, and mental sensation that is instinctive, as opposed to reason". That is the definition given by the OED, the primary English dictionary, and the one I use. If you use another, please inform me. If that is indeed what emotion means, then it seems that an "instinctive reaction, as opposed to reason" must mean it is deviod of reasoning. It is a "knee-jerk" reaction, and not something that you think about, except post-event. That is why I argue that emotions are opposed to reason. If you use a different definition of emotion that could include reason, I would be happy to hear and debate it. However I see the OED generally as the bible when it comes to definitions.

Originally posted by Maniac
Ah, I'm glad you say that. As personally I think our Cybernetic members shouldn't be individualistic, but should be individuals. Without that, we wouldn't be able to discuss as we do now: we would be mindless drones ruled by one Hive Mind. And a Hive Mind society without dissenting opinions would stagnate and would slow down technological progress, as there aren't any critical minds to point out possible mistakes in scientific theories. I dare say our Cybernetic society would be impossible without individuality! For that reason I think we shouldn't base our ideology on the few phrases said by Aki Zeta-5, and you shouldn't refer to Aki Zeta-5's quotes in your articles.

I think Aki Zeta-5's quotes are very relevant however. It is not completely anti-individual, just and individualism. If we do not base our faction upon what the game says about our faction, how can we be this faction? Thus, as you said, I see us as individuals, but not individualistic. It seems we agree on something

Originally posted by Maniac
Excuse me, but we can control emotions. And if normal biohumans can do that, Cyborgs can certainly do it, and not act upon them if they turn out to be irrational.

Can we? We can to some extent, possibly, but if we feel an emotion, it must change something, else we could not have it. If it changes nothing at all, it surely cannot exist. We may not act much differently, but it will change something in our mind. As an emtion is an "instinctive feeling" it is not something we can think about, until after the event. Thus we cannot decide not to have them should they be irrational.

Originally posted by Maniac
Exactly! I also mentioned that in short in my article. Knowing that, Drogue, how can you claim emotions aren't useful and logical?? Quoting the OED as proof is nonsense.

Excuse me? How else do we define what we are talking about? If we do not agree on what these words mean, how can we debate what is or is not included in them?

Even with that, emotions are unnecessary. We can think instananeously, thus what humans had to rely on emotions and intuition for, we can think about, and act rationally. Emotions were logical for humans to have, however they are not logical for us to have. We have gone further, and now do not need them.

Originally posted by Maniac
In case emotions would lead us to do irrational actions, we should and can ignore them. This is easily done because of our algorithms.

If that was the case, I do not believe them to be emotions. If we can ignore them, if we have time to think about it, then it is not an instinctive feeling, and thus not an emotion. If we have emotions, how have we got the extra logical and intelligence? By giving upmone side of the brain, we gain increased capacity in the other.

Originally posted by Maniac
In case emotions would lead us to do rational actions, they form no hazard and there's nothing wrong with allowing them, even if logic would lead us to the same thing.

Yes but they are not needed. If they lead us to the same action, what is the use of them? Why waste brain capacity on them if they provide no use? That would be illogical.

Originally posted by Maniac
I also disagree with Corellion when he says emotions are irrelevant if logic leads to the same result. IMO they act as a double system, a backup system. Two systems having the same function is better than one system having a certain function, especially if you don't have to do anything to get that second system. It's already present in humans without needing to tamper with hem!

But we are not human, we do not need that. If they give different results, we should always follow the logical one, thus whatever happens, we will be folowingthe logical path. What use are emotions then?

Originally posted by Maniac
In fact it would be VERY inefficient (and we want efficiency no?) to remove emotions. It would require massive resequencing of our DNA, and would require our brains, hormones, muscles, our entire body to work in a completely different way. That's a task with very huge costs compared to the few possible benefits. So instead of rebuilding our human DNA from scratch to remove emotions, we should just keep the human design as it already exists, and just give us all a few cybernetic implants which give us extra capacities and abilities, but doesn't change the basis of who we are at all.

That is wrong, actually. We are not human, we are cyborgs. We have already had that part of the brain removes, or reduced. What you are trying to do would be to put them back in. However, if we have emotions, that is much wasted brain capacity, that could be used for other things. We gain so much more logic and intelligence, extra right side brain power, by removing them. We do not need to rebuild DNA, we need to change the brain, which we have already done, as stated by Aki Zeta-5. We are not just humans with cybernetic implants, we are run by algorithms. We would need to spend many resources on creating algorithms for emotions, and we do not even know if that is possible. That is why I suggested the experiment. We can experiment to see the results, which if they give any different reaction than logic, would be bad, as we would have to take the logic over the emotion.

Emotions serve no purpose for us, and they use up much needed brain power. Also we would need to create algorithms to give emotions. It would be a massive task, for no benefit. Very inefficient, and very illogical.

[Maniac]

Ok, first let me say I've written a mistake in my previous message. When I said

I disagree though that emotion is opposed to reason.

I meant

I disagree though that emotion is opposed to logic

I am not saying emotions are reasonable, because, as Drogue says, they are instinctive, you do not think about them. However I still maintain emotions are logical, and I again will use the example of running away from a wild animal when you're afraid. The action of running is logical from the point of survival, though you didn't reason about it, because you would have been eaten if you didn't run.

Anyway, I made a search to check what the definition of "emotion" was according to a few internet dictionaries. These are the results of the first three sites I checked:

A moving of the mind or soul; excitement of the feelings, whether pleasing or painful; disturbance or agitation of mind caused by a specific exciting cause and manifested by some sensible effect on the body.

1. A mental state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes; a feeling: the emotions of joy, sorrow, reverence, hate, and love. 2. A state of mental agitation or disturbance: spoke unsteadily in a voice that betrayed his emotion. See synonyms at feeling. 3. The part of the consciousness that involves feeling; sensibility:

1a: DISTURBANCE 1b: EXCITEMENT 2a: the affective aspect of consciousness : FEELING 2b: a state of feeling 2c: a psychic and physical reaction subjectively experienced as strong feeling and physiologically involving changes that prepare the body for immediate vigorous action

As you can see, none of these three definitions mention anything about reason.

I think Aki Zeta-5's quotes are very relevant however. It is not completely anti-individual, just and individualism

Do I presume correctly the last two words "and individualism" should be "anti-invidualism"?
In that case, I must say her quote does seem anti-invidual IMHO:

The tendency of Biologicals to cling instead to their individual
personalities can only be attributed to archaic evolutionary tendencies.

In order to make clear we are still individuals and not mindless drones of a Hive Mind, I think you should change the words "individual personalities" to "individualistic personalities" in your first article. Ok, so it changes a Firaxis quote, but Firaxis' way of representing the CyCon is contradictory and impossible nonsense if we wouldn't be individuals. Reasons provided in my previous post.

Can we? We can to some extent, possibly, but if we feel an emotion, it must change something, else we could not have it. If it changes nothing at all, it surely cannot exist. We may not act much differently, but it will change something in our mind. As an emtion is an "instinctive feeling" it is not something we can think about, until after the event. Thus we cannot decide not to have them should they be irrational.

I never said we have the ability to choose not to have illogical emotions. I said we have the ability not to act upon them. And that's what matters. If we do not act upon them, they don't harm us.

Emotions were logical for humans to have, however they are not logical for us to have. We have gone further, and now do not need them.

Why are they no longer logical for us? Even if we may no longer need them, they are still as logical as before. As said before, they form a second system besides our algorythms with the same function. There may no longer be a need to have them, but neither is there a reason not to have them. Thus removing or suppressing them is unnecessary, thus inefficient, thus against our faction ideology.

If that was the case, I do not believe them to be emotions. If we can ignore them, if we have time to think about it, then it is not an instinctive feeling, and thus not an emotion.

Ok, so if you're angry at someone, but you do not smash upon that person's face, your anger was not an emotion because you ignored your anger, you didn't act upon it???????

Besides, you claim yourself we think instantaneously (Well I'd say faster...), so we do have the time to think abour our emotions the moment they arise, and can control them well before we could act upon them.

If we have emotions, how have we got the extra logical and intelligence? By giving upmone side of the brain, we gain increased capacity in the other.

Again: !! We get our extra logical thinking capacity by our cybernetic implanted algorythms. We sort of expanded our brain. You seem to think our entire brain was reprogrammed, that we had to make a choice between two options. I simply don't share that opinion.

Yes but they are not needed. If they lead us to the same action, what is the use of them? Why waste brain capacity on them if hey provide no use? That would be illogical.

Neither are they not not needed. As told before, they are a similar system. They have the same function, which may mean that there's no use in keeping them, but neither is there any use in removing them. And as removing them requires more resources, actions and changes than simply keeping them, removing them is inefficient.

But we are not human, we do not need that.

Please reread the definitions of a "cyborg" I provided. We are humans with a few mechanic components, not machines with a few organic components.

That is wrong, actually. We are not human, we are cyborgs. We have already had that part of the brain removes, or reduced.

1. We are humans. Read the definition of a cyborg.
2. We did not have some sort of lobotomy or replacement of brain functions. We got extra brain functions. Thus we are not "wasting" brain capacity. We can just add extra capacity if we need it.

We do not need to rebuild DNA, we need to change the brain, which we have already done, as stated by Aki Zeta-5.

Aki Zeta-5's quote does not state that. It simply says that we should give up our right-brain functions. And that we get extra left-brain functions. It does not explicitly say that the right brain half functions are replaced with a left brain half functions. That quote could just as well be interpreted that we should no longer act upon our right-brain emotions, not that we will lose them, if we want to join the Consciousness and get extra left-brain functions.

We are not just humans with cybernetic implants, we are run by algorithms.

I COMPLETELY disagree. What you are saying is that we no longer have any consciousness, but that we are run by mindless computer programs*. If you hold that opinion, we can never agree on anything concerning the Consciousness. Then we are basically playing with two different factions.

Edit: * Which makes it impossible to have any individuality...

[Drogue]

This is getting very long and boring, so I suggest we finish it soon. If you don't fancy reading this (it is just answering your posts) just read the last 2 paragraphs, they are the important bits.

Originally posted by Maniac
I disagree though that emotion is opposed to logic

As the OED states

reason is to express something in a logical form.

Thus if emotion is opposed to reason, I believe it is opposed to logic.

Originally posted by Maniac
I am not saying emotions are reasonable, because, as Drogue says, they are instinctive, you do not think about them. However I still maintain emotions are logical, and I again will use the example of running away from a wild animal when you're afraid. The action of running is logical from the point of survival, though you didn't reason about it, because you would have been eaten if you didn't run.

Running away from a wild animal isn't the emotion. The emotion is fear, which can also make us stop and not run due to terror. Why not just run, without the fear? If we can heighten our adrenalin levels anyway, what use is there for the emotion fear?

Originally posted by Maniac
As you can see, none of these three definitions mention anything about reason.

True, they all show different aspects of it. However I will personally prefer to use the OED than an online dictionary. They may well be true, but for finer points, I find the OED generally the best I've come across. But anyway, that is of limited importance.

Originally posted by Maniac
Do I presume correctly the last two words "and individualism" should be "anti-invidualism"?

In that case, I must say her quote does seem anti-invidual IMHO:
True, although my opinion is only slightly shifting the bias of what Akizeta said, not discounting a major point, such as missing out the lack of left brain functions.

Originally posted by Maniac
In order to make clear we are still individuals and not mindless drones of a Hive Mind, I think you should change the words "individual personalities" to "individualistic personalities" in your first article. Ok, so it changes a Firaxis quote, but Firaxis' way of representing the CyCon is contradictory and impossible nonsense if we wouldn't be individuals. Reasons provided in my previous post.

While I agree with the opinion, it is a quote, and I do not want to change that. I don't think people will think of us as mindless drones particularly. No more than we are anyway

Originally posted by Maniac
I never said we have the ability to choose not to have illogical emotions. I said we have the ability not to act upon them. And that's what matters. If we do not act upon them, they don't harm us.

I was arguing that if we have them, our actions will change because of that. We may not directly act upon them, but having them changes something, and beign emotions, I would think that something is likely to be illogical.

Originally posted by Maniac
Why are they no longer logical for us? Even if we may no longer need them, they are still as logical as before. As said before, they form a second system besides our algorythms with the same function. There may no longer be a need to have them, but neither is there a reason not to have them. Thus removing or suppressing them is unnecessary, thus inefficient, thus against our faction ideology.

Actually I take the different position. They are not logical, because they use up brain power that is better used elsewhere. They no longer have a function, and it is not inefficient to remove them. I am working from the position of not having them, and it would be inefficient to spend much resources trying to create algorithms for them. However, even if we have them, we can do so much with that brain power. That is a reason to remove them, as it wastes brain power. If you have a computer, and half of the processor power is being used for something obsolete, then is it inefficient to change it's job, so that it is doing the same efficient job as the other half? It may take resources to do it, but it is worth it, as the results are far better.

Originally posted by Maniac
Ok, so if you're angry at someone, but you do not smash upon that person's face, your anger was not an emotion because you ignored your anger, you didn't act upon it???????

No, I was not saying it was just about actions. If you feel that anger, it has already affected you. Your blood pressure rises, your adrenalin levels rise, etc. Even without physical effects, it affects you mentally.

Originally posted by Maniac
Besides, you claim yourself we think instantaneously (Well I'd say faster...), so we do have the time to think abour our emotions the moment they arise, and can control them well before we could act upon them.

I thought I said "almost instantaneously"? If not, then it should have been. If we have time to think about them, to reason them, then that has become reasoning, or logic, and thus not emotion.

Originally posted by Maniac
Again: !! We get our extra logical thinking capacity by our cybernetic implanted algorythms. We sort of expanded our brain. You seem to think our entire brain was reprogrammed, that we had to make a choice between two options. I simply don't share that opinion.

I do not think that at all. We did not reprogram our brain. In Aki Zeta-5's speech she talks of giving up your illogical right brain functions, and having heightened left brain functions. That is waht I am refering to. If we have emotions, a right brain function, then we are using brain power that could be used for left brain, rational functions. Thus having emotions, being more human than Aki Zeta suggests, we have fewer of the advantages of being a CyCon. Our brains could not take the rationality and intelligence of being a Cyborg and have the right brain functions of a human.

Originally posted by Maniac
Neither are they not not needed.

I've been trying, badly, to explain that they are. They are taking brain power away from more useful, logical activities.

Originally posted by Maniac
As told before, they are a similar system. They have the same function, which may mean that there's no use in keeping them, but neither is there any use in removing them. And as removing them requires more resources, actions and changes than simply keeping them, removing them is inefficient.

That is where we disagree. I think it would take more resources to add them, whereas you think it would take more to take them away. Why have 2 systems doing the same job, using up twice the brain power, when we only need one?

Originally posted by Maniac
Please reread the definitions of a "cyborg" I provided. We are humans with a few mechanic components, not machines with a few organic components.

Well, that is one way of seeing a Cyborg. Your definition did not state that it is a human with few mechanical components. It stated it was part human, and part machine. Even if we only have mechanical components, that does not invalidate my statement. We are cyborgs, and thus not completely human. The fact that something may be logical and useful for humans, does not mean it is so for us.

Originally posted by Maniac
1. We are humans. Read the definition of a cyborg.
2. We did not have some sort of lobotomy or replacement of brain functions. We got extra brain functions. Thus we are not "wasting" brain capacity. We can just add extra capacity if we need it.

We are not humans. I have read it. If we even just have mechanical componants, we are not then completely human. We cannot be completely human, esle we would be called humans, not cyborgs. Besides, as I said, those definitions did not say how much human and how much machine we are.

Originally posted by Maniac
Aki Zeta-5's quote does not state that. It simply says that we should give up our right-brain functions. And that we get extra left-brain functions. It does not explicitly say that the right brain half functions are replaced with a left brain half functions. That quote could just as well be interpreted that we should no longer act upon our right-brain emotions, not that we will lose them, if we want to join the Consciousness and get extra left-brain functions.

In giving up our right brain functions, how could we still have them? Yes it means we can no longer act upon them, but giving up means that you do not have them. I cannot have £5, give up that £5, and still have it. Not only can I not make use of it (the only point in having it anyway) I do not have it anymore.

Originally posted by Maniac
I COMPLETELY disagree. What you are saying is that we no longer have any consciousness, but that we are run by mindless computer programs*.

Um... no, that's not what I'm saying. Every human is run by electrical impulses in the brain. We have algorithms to enhance that and control those, effectively being run by it. We can still be individuals, it doesn't say we all have the same ones. I thought in your posts before about algorithms you had stated that.

Edit: Therefore I think we do have Consciousness.

Originally posted by Maniac
If you hold that opinion, we can never agree on anything concerning the Consciousness. Then we are basically playing with two different factions.

Well, I wouldn't go that far, but I was expecting to play the faction as the game says, and RP around that. Not RP about some other faction, closely related to it. I think we can agree on some things, but for me, Firaxis, as creators of the game and faction, have said what this faction is like. If we go against that, we are no longer playing as that faction. It is like the Hive being Democratic, I find it a shame they did so, because it is not what that faction is. There is a lot of room for manoeuvre anyway, I don't see the need to change the faction into something other than that which we are playing with.

The way I see it, we are humans, who have given up their right brain functions, and thus have enhanced left brain functions, as Aki Zeta-5 states in the opening speech, which is tryingto define our faction. We have algorithms to enhance this, which also give us telepathy, and the ability to go into computers. We are vastly more intelligent due to this. However, the price we pay is the lose of most, if not all, the right brain functions (Aki Zeta actually states "giving up half of your brain"), thus we have less of a desire for love (as shown with the growth penalty) and are not affected by emotions. Being humans underneath, there may be some residual traces, which we can RP around, but our defining characteristic is logic and rationality above all else. That is why I personally see us a quite Utilitarian. I cannot see how, without completely discounting the game advantages and disadvantages and the writings by Aki Zeta-5 in defining our faction, we can claim to be human, but just more intelligent and rational. That is against our sayings, and wouldn't have any disadvantages, thus being unbalanced.

I thought the most important thing about RP was to make it based on the reality of the game you're playing? If we are going completely against what Firaxis have created, then maybe you are right, and we are playing 2 different factions

[Maniac]

Look, we're not getting anywhere with this discussion, as we're repeating the same arguments, sometimes even drawing different conclusions out of the same facts & definitions. I therefore propose we organize some sort of ideological poll for all CyCon members to vote on. Poll options could be something like:
What is the nature of the Consciousness members? :

Drogue:

We are not just humans with cybernetic implants, we are run by algorithms.

Maniac:

We are still humans, just with a few cybernetic implants giving us extra abilities.

[Drogue]

A Possible Compromise

Do we need a poll? Can't we just agree to disagree? I have no problem with us RPing differently, maybe having a splinter group with emotions from the experiment? Can we get a compromise? We need something that both shows us as humans and individuals, but also shows our strengths and weaknesses, and does not go entirely against what was written by Firaxis.

Maybe we are humans, with cybernetic implants, that give us more logic, but remove some emotions or emotional capability, but not all. Thus we are still logical, with enhanced left brain functions, but we still can feel emotions, to a limited extent (different for each person?) but choose to act only on logical ones?

That means we can RP individualism, we can RP having some emotions (maybe even emotional turmoil, about what we feel? How we feel? How to cope with them?) but we are rational, and have lost some of our left brain functions, as AKi Zeta-5 said, just not all.

Would something like that be acceptable?

Also, what you have their is not quite how I would catagorise my position.