d34bbf95   
   XPost: rec.arts.sf.tv, rec.arts.tv   
   From: Obveeus@aol.com   
      
    wrote in message   
   news:dd803a86-5691-4203-a4bf-7308b172db87@o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...   
   On 1 Apr, 19:42, "Obveeus"  wrote:   
   >>  wrote:   
   >> >On 1 Apr, 17:57, "Obveeus"  wrote:   
   >> >>  wrote:   
   >> >> > On 1 Apr, 15:42, "Obveeus"  wrote:   
   >> >The problem lies not with the suggestion that   
   >> >analogue copies vary among each other, but with the suggestion that   
   >> >they are inherently uncopiable - I doubt Graystone would have cared   
   >> >much if different Centurions had different personalities if he could   
   >> >produce them in the appropriate numbers.   
   >>   
   >> Your line of reasoning suggests that you have not even considered the   
   >> possibility that fleshy-Zoe's 'soul' found its way into avatar-Zoe (the   
   >> 'analog' component).   
   >   
   >Well ... no. I'm assuming the avatar is what it's been said to be, a   
   >piece of software incorporating 'generative algorithms' - what we'd   
   >call a neural net.   
      
   Why are you assuming that as the limit for the avatar-Zoe when they also   
   included a one of a kind 'defective' processor into the mix as well as a   
   moment of avatar-Zoe 'feeling' the death of fleshy-Zoe (complete with   
   blood)?   
      
   >> Or, if you want to discount 'God' as being a factor in any of this, you   
   >> are   
   >> still entirely discounting any/all time that avatar-Zoe spent   
   >> learning/changing through her experiences with fleshy-Zoe.   
      
   >Different issue. That's what gives the Zoe avatar a distinct   
   >personality; it's not what gives the avatar the ability to function.   
      
   So what database is being used by the attempted 'copy' versions?  Daniel   
   graystone certainly hasn't told anyone at his lab that his daughter's   
   database was inserted into the only working model.  Perhaps, no database at   
   all is even being used and the tech-geeks are simply thinking that the   
   program in and of itself will work?   
      
   >Run two neural nets setting different learning tasks and conditions   
   >and you'll get two different outcomes, but you will get two outcomes.   
   >The way this has been presented, by contrast, is that the program   
   >won't run at all if it's not configured in exactly the same way each   
   >time - yet, as you say, no two cars are "exact replicas", but both   
   >work.   
      
   I disagree.  the show has demonstrated that the copies can   
   stand/walk/control a gun..sortof.  The problem is that the copies don't have   
   the decisionmaking skills to do it quickly and 'intelligently'.  However,   
   with no database to work from and a set of tech guys that think telling the   
   robot how many inches to move its arm is quality database input...well, no   
   surprise that the Cylon copies are still in the infant stage.   
      
   >> Additionally, there is nothing to suggest that the attempts to replicate   
   >> more Cylons have gone further than adding the software 'program' (which   
   >> is   
   >> not something that inherently includes the Zoe database) to a hardware   
   >> platform (additional chips made by Graystone) which may not actually be   
   >> 'identical' to the defective chip that was originally stolen and is in   
   >> use   
   >> by avatar-Zoe.   
      
   >One thing that's annoying me about Caprica is the failure of everyone   
   >involved to make one simple point - Vergis' chip, by his own   
   >admission, never worked.   
      
   Yep...and the only one of those chips in use is the one that avatar-Zoe is   
   using.   
      
   >Graystone's does (at least in one robot).   
      
   Really?  I thought that the avatar-Zoe was using the chip stolen from   
   Vergis, not a chip made afterwards by Graystone from the  stolen plans.   
      
   >Why   
   >does he never bring that up when challenged as 'evidence' that he is   
   >therefore not using stolen technology?   
      
   I don't think that Vergis admitted to anyone other than Daniel (certainly   
   not to the government) that his chip didn't work.  What we had as a premise   
   was two companies competing for a government contract and neither company   
   actually being able to meet the specifications even though both companies   
   were peddling the idea that they could.   
      
   >> >> In any case, I have said earlier that people are misinterpretting the   
   >> >> word   
   >> >> 'analog'. I think the wording was more to suggest 'fuzzy logic' /   
   >> >> inexactness / something other than simply ones and zeros.   
   >>   
   >> >Analogue was used in opposition to digital - i.e. in the same context   
   >> >as an analogue watch.   
   >>   
   >> It was interpretted that way by the bulk of the audience posting here.   
   >> That   
   >> does not make it true.   
   >   
   >It was specifically described that way by Philomon, who said on   
   >several occasions "It's analogue, *not digital* - that's why it can't   
   >be copied!"   
      
   So then...he couldn't understand its responses fully (because he doesn't   
   know about the input database 'Zoe')...fuzzy logic...not analog like a   
   4-20mA output.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)