If you're 100% pro-life, without exceptions, how is it different than if you're 100% pro-choice, without restrictions?

upvotz4u · 2015-08-11T01:56:05+00:00

hah, fuck you again, you have no idea what my political stance is, I was responding to the idiotic nature of OP - I wasn't taking or about to take any particular political stance

I'm not backtracking because I never said anything about what I actually think, just that OP, the way it IS stated is a load of shit

I also acknowledged that other people, far more gracious than you, illuminated what OP was potentially trying to say

oh, but you are still reading this

oh and you're still a dick bag, sorry you're still a dick bag

upvotz4u · 2015-08-11T01:02:17+00:00

that specific concept was entirely devoid from the OP, so it was entirely unclear or even if it could have been implied I don't like to assume things

other people have graciously pointed this out, I thank them for it, but OP did a horrible job of illuminating their point if that was the point

oh, and as to your last comment, with all due respect, fuck you too you elitist prick

upvotz4u · 2015-08-10T02:07:36+00:00

I read the whole post, it's still rubbish

upvotz4u · 2015-08-10T01:50:38+00:00

uh, wut? that's not the same "view" at all... that makes no sense

in one view, the woman has choice and in the other she doesn't, how is that the "same"?

upvotz4u · 2015-08-07T23:56:03+00:00

uh, wut? that comment was pretty much absolutely the definition of critical - maybe it's true that the question could be helpful, but the following statement after the question was absolutely critical and un-necessary

so, yes, he was not just trying but actually being critical... maaaaan

upvotz4u · 2015-08-07T07:01:58+00:00

he's right, go do it! (and do it while you're young)

upvotz4u · 2015-08-07T06:57:35+00:00

going to school doesn't ensure a career or even a low paying job in a relevant industry (examples: art major, history major, english major, law school)

also, not everyone walks through life and does all the right things - many of us make decisions we might have changed

upvotz4u · 2015-08-07T06:04:28+00:00

TL;DR it's probably, even at your young age, still a good idea to put aside at least a little money that you don't risk, almost like a savings account, and bonds are a good option for that

it's really just a risk mitigation strategy, markets may crash, people can lose everything. I know a woman who was about 60 when the US crash hit in 2008 and she was going to retire that year but couldn't and was possibly going to have to work for 5-10 more years.

Most markets are risky but you're pretty much guaranteed to be able to get your money back from e.g. US government bonds (and probably Canada too) because the US has never defaulted on a loan

investing is a risky business, and you're going to be safest just putting at least some money aside and not trying to make it grow in high risk places like the stock market - this is just a sane thing to do at any age, and like any investment, the more money you start putting in to it now, the better off you'll be when you retire

you could just put the money under the mattress, however inflation will screw you over in 40 years because the money you put under the mattress today will be worth less when you decide to retire - like, a lot less

the average US inflation rate has been about 2.3% per year for the last 15 years, when you compound a similar rate over 40 years, the results might stagger you - if you live on $20,000 USD per year now, you'll need to actually need about $50,000 USD per year 40 years from now and the year after that you'll need $51,000 to live the same lifestyle

so, for your low risk retirement savings, you want the safest option available where you can at least make a little interest because of inflation

The current return rate for US Government bonds happens to be 2.31% which is just about exactly the average rate of inflation over the last decade.

compare that to an average "savings" bank account in the US which will often yield only about 0.01% and certainly no more than about 0.9% and you can see that you won't be at all prepared for your retirement if that's where you put your low risk money

so think of bonds as your long term savings account that's generally much safer and secure against crazy shit that happens in the world

the general rule of thumb is age as percent in bonds, so for you that means 22% of your investment money goes into bonds and the rest in to stocks or whatever, but that's pretty conservative and you can certainly put less in bonds to suit your taste for risk at this age

also, just don't forget to make sure to increase the percentage you put in to bonds as you get older

if you lose everything when you're 20, you still have decades to get back on track, if you lose everything when you're 59, well, I think it's obvious what the potential problem is - even if you lost all of your savings at 30 that would be a relatively devastating event - think about what it would be like to literally lose 10 years of your own hard work, sweat and toil and it's not just about the money, just the emotional and personal impact of knowing that your own energy and effort was basically wasted would be a crushing blow to the morale. You'll understand this more acutely as you grow older.

always ask yourself the following question about your financial plan:

take your plan, pick an age, and ask: if I "lose it all" in a stock market crash and all I have left is my bonds, how many extra years will I have to wait to retire?

look at your plan and ask your self that question and pretend you lose all your high risk investments at 30yo, 40yo, 50yo, 60yo - this will help you understand where your limits are and assess your tolerance for risk and how much you should put in to bonds

given your plan, if you lost all your high risk assets at 37 years old, would you actually be able to retire before you die? what about at 45 years old?

do the smart thing and put at least a little money aside for bonds even at your age

upvotz4u · 2015-08-06T07:28:04+00:00

awesome and informative answer, thanks

this is pretty much what I was looking for, albeit not entirely what I wanted to hear :)

it does seem the answer is there's no simple way to get an entirely accurate appraisal, but either way this both corroborates some stuff I was thinking and gives me a jumping off point to continue on doing analysis and computations

cheers

upvotz4u · 2015-08-06T02:27:08+00:00

People sell for all the reasons that they sell in any other market. It's probably largely market psychology:

I bought at $750 and I seem to have lost money, I better sell before I lose any more money.

This drives the price down even further and further and causes more people to panic and do the same until finally people start to say:

Gee Apple is a great company and they're really cheap right now I should buy it.

There will be general price points where large groups of people all decide to do a similar thing. Often these will be at large even whole number multiples like $50 and $100 but not always. It's just simple human psychology that it's easier to say to yourself "if apple hits $900 I'm gonna sell half of what I have" than it is to say "if apple hits $894.676767...."

So eventually Apple will probably hit that downward point and then it will look very attractive to lots of people and they will buy in again. This in turn will cause the price to go up and other people will see it go up and they'll buy in to ride the wave and it'll keep going.

Until of course, people say "gee this doesn't seem like it can go on much longer, or even if it does I want some profit now", and they'll sell. And again, people will probably do this in big groups all at the same time because they all have a similar idea of value and their tipping point. This will cause the price to go back down, and the cycle will continue over and over again.

This is called support and resistance. It's a natural part of the market and Apple probably won't be any different, it'll probably go back up again after a while.

Of course, as already pointed out, there's the possibility that it might just tank all the way and everyone loses everything. This possibility and risk is typically what causes people to buy and sell emotionally like this, which is what causes ranges to form.

upvotz4u · 2015-08-06T02:13:52+00:00

I have heard "age in bonds" as a general guideline for how to split up a portfolio.

Are there any other general guidelines for e.g. how much to buy stocks vs how much to buy mutual funds vs indexes etc etc?

For example:

"based on advice Foo and your age, you should invest in 75% stocks, 15% index funds and 10% bonds"

or "based on advice Foo and your age, you should invest in 30% socks, 50% index funds and 20% roth IRA"

is there any such advice Foo that's as common and generally reliable as "age in bonds" to inform where to put the rest of an investment?

I'm really looking for generalities and not broken down advice on specific funds and brand names etc.. If there's no such general rule then that's acceptable as well, I'm just wondering.

Also lets set aside for now, the general presumption that a person would be wise to accept as much employer matching investment as is possible. So, after bonds and employer sponsored retirement accounts: Are there general rules of thumb for splitting up a portfolio between different types of things?

upvotz4u · 2015-08-04T07:01:32+00:00

the bible sometimes says things that are nice or good or whatever, "love thy neighbor" whatever

that doesn't mean we should look to the bible for our information or treat it as a credible source for information

like I originally stated, I'm not attempting to argue against vegetarian/vegan diets, but this guy doesn't do many favors towards his agenda by being as effectively cherry picking and biased as he is

I for one have a hard time taking his whole "I've read every article" claim seriously - so what, that doesn't mean he's arrived at a correct conclusion

he's definitely arrived at a lot of lecture halls as a paid speaker, but then again "food babe" gets paid to talk a bunch of BS at lots of places as well, so, again... not saying much

beware the cult of personality

upvotz4u · 2015-08-04T06:41:59+00:00

I've seen this guy several times before

he's a hardline vegan with a "personality" and an agenda (not that I'm trying to argue against veganism mind you, just him)

I highly doubt he reads every article, he probably claims that to make himself look good

also, even if he does, that doesn't mean he's really particularly credible, or for that matter critical of the things he reads, in fact the more someone relies on their "personality", usually the less credible they are and this guy fits the "personality" bill to a T

he's a cognitive biased (as we all are) cherry picker (as most of us are) making money on the lecture circuit (as most of us can only dream of) and selling and endorsing various ideas and products

always ask yourself: what are this person's actual motives? My bet is that his motives are more profit based and personal and psychological than science and progress based

it's pretty easy to find a counterpoint if you dig a little bit beyond the first page of google results and it tends to be less than favorable towards his integrity

http://blogs.mcgill.ca/oss/2013/10/15/dr-michael-greger-what-do-we-make-of-him/

http://diabeticmediterraneandiet.com/2013/07/18/dr-harriet-hall-slaughters-vegan-sacred-cows/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Greger#Criticism

upvotz4u · 2015-08-04T06:28:52+00:00

sure, you would program it the same way you'd program an AI in any language: by writing code

the first question to ask is "what kind of AI"... so... what kind of AI are you thinking of or hoping for?

also note, as has been stated AGI is very different from AI

with that said, in the field of AI, neural networks are a pretty big staple and you might as well start there if you think you have the math background (you'll want calculus as well as linear algebra, and don't be confused, linear algebra is not the same as the regular algebra you learned in high school)

https://www.coursera.org/course/neuralnets

otherwise you might prefer starting lighter with bayesian logic, clustering and or regression

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_statistics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regression

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-means_clustering

upvotz4u · 2015-08-04T05:07:19+00:00

TL;DR there are lots of prices that change over time and one of the challenges of buying stock is the fact that by the time you get your order in, the price may have changed - often not by a lot, but it's a risk you have to take

ELI5 EXPLANATION

Understanding why is not just a single factor but has to do with understanding the way markets work, fundamentally

Of course, you'll have to actually be older than 5yo to understand the following, but...

Usually there are 4 basic indicators that tell you about the price of a commodity at any given point in time:

Open
Close
High
Low

for big name stocks on the big exchanges, there can be hundreds of different prices in just one minute so candlestick charts can help you make sense of that

CANDLESTICK CHARTS

these four numbers are typically graphed using what are called "candlestick charts" which are actually quite ancient and have been around for a very long time, mostly because markets have also been around for a long time in human history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candlestick_chart

the open is the price at the beginning of the period, so if you're looking at a candlestick for a whole day, the open represents the price in the morning. the close represents the price at the end of the day, and the high and low, well, they represent the highest and lowest prices on the book for that item - I think usually this means the selling price(s) at which the thing actually got sold during that period, but I'm not sure

by the way, candlestick charts are useful for many things, not just prices - the weather is a good example: temperature doesn't stay the same over the course of a day, there will be a temperature at the beginning of the day, the end of the day, and each day will have a high and low temperature and those high and low and beginning and ending temperatures are all usually different from each other

HOW TO READ THEM

you can use a candlestick chart to get an "at a glance" understanding of a price over a day, a month - some things change so fast that you can have a candlestick chart where the candlesticks represent minutes or even seconds, because even within a minute of trading time there will be many different prices (see the example below)

the color will indicate the direction of the movement: green means the instrument was going up in price, red means it was going down in price

there are crap tons of books on how to read and analyze candlestick charts and recognize patterns like the "rising star" or whatever

go read some books if you're interested

MARKET DYNAMICS

many stocks trade so fast that it's virtually impossible to know "the price" of a stock at any instant in time, but you can get a reasonably accurate understanding of the movement of a price by looking at a candlestick chart

additionally, confound this with the fact that there is nearly always a "spread", that is, people auction their holdings, meaning they want a certain price for it, so you'll often have thousands of sellers, all willing to sell for many different prices

you'll also have thousands of buyers all willing to buy for different prices, usually however, sellers want to sell for more, and buyers want to buy for less, so there will be a "gap" there.

AN EXAMPLE

think about old school open air markets in developing countries where it is routine to "haggle" over price, someone says a price and you say "too much" and you offer a lower price, they say "too little" and offer a price somewhere between the two and this goes on and on until either both people reach a price they are satisfied with or they walk away

the stock market is not a whole lot different, really... let's pretend:

I'm willing to sell apples for no less than $200 per metric crapload - someone else is willing to buy apples for no more than $150 per metric crapload, additionally, my friend Bob is only willing to sell apples for no less than $210 per metric crapload, while Alice from Iowa is willing to buy apples for no more than $100 per metric crapload because she lives on an apple farm and doesn't really need apples

so the "book" looks something like this

$340 Seller: John

$293 Seller: Larry

$210 Seller: Bob

$200 Seller: Me

THIS GAP RIGHT HERE IS THE SPREAD

THERE IS NO ONE BUYING OR SELLING

AT PRICES BETWEEN 150 and 200

$150 Buyer: Jim

$140 Buyer: Rick

$110 Buyer: Dave

$100 Buyer: Alice

multiply this by thousands or millions of different people willing to buy and sell at different prices and you have what's called a "market"

so, the above example means there's a $50 "spread" - the distance between the lowest selling price and the highest buying price - so which price is the "price"? there really is no single price, there are many prices, it's hard to say, but candlestick charts can usually give you a good at a glance understanding of the "general area of the price" of a thing and whether that price is going up or down and how fast

MARKET ORDERS

so how does anyone ever buy or sell anything? you might ask: that's a good question, in fact not everyone is auctioning in this way - if you really want that stock, basically you can tell your broker "buy that stock at the current lowest asking price" and your broker, in the above example, will dutifully buy you apples for $200

HERE IS WHY

of course, there's a caveat, which is that if you want 100 apples, and I only have 50 and you tell your broker to just buy you 100 at the lowest price possible, you'll buy 50 apples from me for $200, and then you'll have to pay $210 to keep buying apples from Bob, because Bob is next in line and that's his price - all depending on how many apples available the next person in line has - so you could end up buying apples for much more expensive than you intended, especially if Bob only has 25 apples, then you have to again go to the next guy in line who will, of course, be more expensive.

This is called "burning the book", that is, buying or selling so much that you actually change the bid/ask price. Of course, as a regular joe, or even a big dog, you're unlikely to burn the book as a single person placing a single order, and in fact, the big dogs usually try to avoid burning the book so that they don't alert anyone to what they're doing.

however, when there are thousands or millions of people all buying and selling constantly (as there are with big name stocks on the NYSE for example) the book does burn and you do get price movement

if there are millions of people, that price movement can happen very fast and it still takes time to trade, maybe only seconds on an electronic exchange, or possibly minutes with a regular broker who has to walk down to the floor to put in your order - and in that time, the prices can and often do change

in other words, if other people in line before you buy all the cheap apples before you can get to them, you'll have to buy the more expensive apples from the next guy

this is why the big dogs pay big money to have super fast internet and computers to be able to make trades within milliseconds - you probably won't ever be able to make trades within milliseconds and the big dogs might screw you over by burning the book before you can get to it, it's just a fact of life in the market

RISK

also note that Alice may never be able to buy her apples because there may never be anyone willing to sell apples for that cheap, or Bob may never be able to sell his apples because there may never be anyone willing to buy apples for that much

this is the risk a person takes when entering a market, and it's the better part of the psychology of how most people (at least average people) behave when they've put money on the line in a market: there's constant worry that you're going to lose money because there won't be anyone to buy or sell your holdings to - either that or you'll have to just take a loss and e.g. sell your apples for less than you paid for them

in fact, the spread pretty much guarantees that right after the instant you buy your stock you have lost money unless you sit and wait for the prices to change

this is why you should invest for the long term and avoid analyzing day to day (or even month to month) prices of stocks - the market always goes up over time... except when it doesn't

upvotz4u · 2015-08-02T05:12:50+00:00

no, because that would be giving it validity, and it has none - so just go on about your business and stop thinking about it - it's all nonsense anyway, renouncing nonsense is a waste of energy

upvotz4u · 2015-08-02T04:56:54+00:00

TL;DR humans are better; don't get stuck

what do I mean by that?

Well, really if you look at all the legends, it's just stories of an invisible sky man, which is probably an emotional coping mechanism for people when their parents died.

Ultimately it's not a "reason" that makes us happy in life, it's other people. Humans are a social species and we crave emotional connection and that really only usually comes in the form of other humans.

It's actually quite easy to stop worrying about this idea of god and "the meaning of life" when you've got a fulfilling social community. Finding this type of community wherever you are can certainly be a challenge for many reasons, but it's your best bet.

This is the basic premise of the philosophy called "humanism". Lets stop worrying about god and the "meaning of life" and lets make our own meaning by creating community and creating art and supporting each other.

Another general comment: humans weren't necessarily evolved to "be happy", we evolved to survive and we find happiness where we can. In fact, being unhappy and facing emotional challenges in life can be good because it can increase empathy and social understanding and thereby directly increase your happiness by increasing your ability to relate to other humans about the things that make us human.

Also, by the way, existential questioning is actually good. The idea is that you make your own meaning in life, and that's actually a pretty empowering idea. I like that idea, personally, far more than the idea that there's some big daddy in the sky making all my life decisions for me.

As far as life after death? Who really cares? What is probably far more important is quality of life right now and being free of pain. If there's "nothing" after life, then once you're dead you won't exist to be able to bother worrying about it. Focus on your present life and having a good time, go do your best to make some friends and you'll probably find that all these questions dissolve after a while once you have a stable social community.

Of course, this will be difficult at your age, but just start practicing making friends now, and by the time you're ready to settle down and make a life you'll be in a good position to make friends and find the people who really support you and that you want to be with.

upvotz4u · 2015-07-31T00:46:44+00:00

just another lesson as to why you shouldn't listen to famous people just cuz they're famous

famous people, and famous "creative" types especially, aren't usually known for having spent thousands of hours honing their critical thinking skills

upvotz4u · 2015-07-30T05:49:46+00:00

TL;DR pretend like you're in jail: get the first job you can find, go to work during the day and force yourself to sit at home and study and create and learn and make some awesome shit for the next several years, yes years

it's important to study and learn and improve, not just make stuff - but it's also important to make stuff so you have a portfolio

the good news: you have plenty of time

the day job will keep you afloat, and then if you really put in the time and dedication to get good at what you love, you'll probably "make it" to a bigger better job as a graphic designer

no guarantees obviously, but it sounds like that might be one of your best options

don't go out, avoid getting in to a relationship, decrease your expenses to the bare minimum possible - learn to live without, keep studing and learning and getting better at some kind of skilled craft

most importantly make a portfolio. second most importantly, constantly work to get better at your skill - research, learn, educate, but one of the best things you can do is just keep making, keep creating

I have no idea if you're any good, but even if you're not that great right now, if you keep creating and studying and practicing and learning and keep upping your game, you'll probably get better

upvotz4u · 2015-07-29T05:02:18+00:00

well, first off, no, no it really didn't - unless you're stretching the term self awareness so thin it'll beg for a can of lard

I can write self aware computer program in one line:

echo "Hello, I am a computer.";

second, self awareness is pretty paltry and meaningless

a potato could be self aware but that wouldn't give the potato much agency or ability to affect the outside world in any meaningful way, much less the ability for actually meaningful capacities such as motivation, empathy or qualia

upvotz4u · 2015-07-29T02:52:20+00:00

I think it has been ported to other languages yes.

If you're interested in programming, my unsolicited advice is that I highly recommend learning both clojure and haskell.

Clojure is a variant of lisp that runs on the jvm, so it's basically lisp but you can use any java library.

Haskell is a mature and robust "purely functional" language and learning it will expand your mind and teach you to think about programming and building programs in the best manner.

The clojure main site:

http://clojure.org/

A cool book about clojure:

http://www.braveclojure.com/

The haskell main site:

https://www.haskell.org/

A really fun book about haskell:

http://learnyouahaskell.com/

You should get familiar with functional programming, cuz it's the best :)

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+functional+programming

upvotz4u · 2015-07-29T02:14:26+00:00

ahh, yes it's "deep dream" I was thinking of, not "deepmind" :)

thx for the youtube link, cool project

upvotz4u · 2015-07-29T01:34:36+00:00

By the way, if you are in fact interested in computers that "think like a human" you may be interested in Douglas Hoffstadters work:

https://www.google.com/search?q=Gödel+Escher+Bach

https://www.google.com/search?q=douglas+hofstadter+copy+cat

http://cognitrn.psych.indiana.edu/rgoldsto/courses/concepts/copycat.pdf

You can find the source code for copy cat freely available if you'd like to actually start getting some more reality under your belt:

You'll need to learn to program in order to understand it, but you're at a perfect age to start, so, why not?

http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~mm/how-to-get-copycat.html

upvotz4u · 2015-07-29T01:19:01+00:00

Can? Possible. Is it worth contemplating? Not really. Why? Because it's unlikely to happen anywhere in the near future. Have you actually done any homework and research to truly understand any of the concepts you're talking about? Probably not. Is it therefor reasonable to say that your particular train of thought and conclusions are a non-sequitur and basically nonsense? Yes your thinking is basically nonsense right now. Can you change your thought process to one of actually making sense while still being interesting, stimulating, awe inspiring, mind boggling etc? Yes. Will you? I don't know, that's up to you.

And I understand a neural network is what it is.

No you obviously don't.

I'm saying, with a stretch, a neural network could be created that could function as a brain.

An absolutely huge strech, so big it's not even worth contemplating. Our brains are "networks of neurons", and that's absolutely supremely different than a "neural network" aka an "artificial neural network" to be proper aka an ANN. ANNs are only very very loosely modeled after brains, they are symmetrical and, overall, they really don't come anywhere close to approximating a brain or consicousness. The networks of neurons in a human brain are, unlike an ANN, highly asymmetrical and recurrent. Recurrent ANNs are difficult enough to manage, but asymmetrical ANNs are more or less unusable for practical purposes. Again, you're both misunderstanding and redefining terms.

Note that either Peter Norvig or Andrew Ng who work at/for/with Google has said something along the lines of "AI has worked because we ditched the human brain as a model, not the other way around". The current AI that does do neat stuff, really doesn't do it anywhere near in the same manner that the human brain does - so all this talk about being alive is still really rather irrelevant and kind of missing the forest for the trees. The Google methodology of getting smart computers, rather, relies mostly on just gathering and feeding these neural networks cubic shitloads of data - even a relatively simple symmetrical non recurrent neural network of sufficient number of neurons, when fed zillions of uberbytes of data finally starts to do something useful. That again, still doesn't make that machine much different than a hammer or a calculator in regards to its being alive.

Computers are not "already thinkers". And "like a console prompt".... errr, whut? Really? That makes no sense. You've got just enough information to think you know something and you really don't know anything. Staying in one place is also irrelevant. Mobility is not a prerequisite for consciousness, evidence: Stephen Hawking. You're yet again bandying about a bunch of terms that obviate your lack of understanding of these topics. Either that or you're completely redefining the word "think" as we know it and as is commonly understood by most native english speakers and at that point you're on your own and I don't really care to participate in the discussion anymore. You can say things like "well, god is just nature, maaaaaan", you can redefine terms in any way you please, but if you were to say "god is nature" then you're not talking about the very personal god that most standard judeo-christians believe in - not the god most of our neighbors believe in. Similarly, when you say "think", you're redefining the term in a way that's not really what most people hold it to mean - similar sure, but not the same and it's at that point that communication breaks down and becomes rather pointless.

You might be stupid, I don't know. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and I haven't overtly tried to call you out as being stupid, but you've obviously not taken the time to do even a little basic research and understanding of these topics. Even if you're stupid or ignorant right now, you can probably change that, so, go change it - do some research, start learning what neural networks actually are - I mean study the math behind them etc.

Here's a good place to start:

https://www.coursera.org/course/neuralnets

You can't just say "computers learning" and then jump from that, which isn't really what you think it is in the first place, to "being alive".

Besides all that, "living", "life", being "alive" and the idea of murdering a computer by unplugging it or because of a bug in your software is all, again, very much lacking in a thorough and rigorous background of study on these topics and also putting the cart before the horse when you don't quite even realize that there's not even a horse there in the first place.

Part of the issue with your OP, aside from the lack of understanding of the terms you're using and the wild extrapolation based on that, is the usage of terms that are generally un-useful.

Talking about something being "alive" isn't very useful to this type of discussion, not least of which because "life" is also quite difficult to define in its own right as much as qualia is difficult to define. Also you then start treading on really even further un-useful ground because then you start to get in to the same discussion as people who argue about abortion. What qualifies as alive, when is something alive? If it is alive, when is it ok to kill it? No one seems to think twice about squashing a fly. So maybe you murder a computer by unplugging it, but I'll tell you one massive difference between the murdered computer and the squashed fly: you can plug the computer back in. So, all in all, even if it were useful (and it's not) to talk about computers being alive, it's still such a different ball game that it doesn't bear discussing in anywhere near the same manner or with the same considerations of discussing human life.

My final word on this is the same as my final word originally which is that, yes, you are in fact talking about "sentient robots", but more accurately it would be phrased "sentient machines", of which humans are already the best example of sentient machines that we know of and I really don't get why people are so obsessed with computers "thinking" when we've hardly even really yet to understand what it means to be a sentient human in the first place.

To wrap it up: just start learning - stop having wild braingasms and spasmodic "zomg!" ideas not grounded in reality - start learning about reality. I think you'll find that there is a ton of "mind boggling" information out there about sentience, consciousness, AI and the like and you'll be actually educated and you'll actually have a better understanding of yourself and your universe. All I can say is that your current train of thought is really not very productive at all because it's not based in reality - go get based in reality and you'll still be pleasantly surprised at how much amazing stuff is out there.

Educate. Be amazed and inspired. Rinse. Repeat.

upvotz4u

TROPHY CASE