What advantages to organic beings have over cybernetics?

[ReadyAndWilling]

assuming the intellectual abilities are identical. what are some advantages do each have?

data and the doctor just seemed so much better in every way compared to a human. even a human from the 24th century who'd have access to better education etc?

 

[Subcommander R.]

Its easier for most organic beings to sustain themselves under adverse conditions. No worries about power, just about food. And its generally easier to trap and eat a squirrel than it is to assemble a power generation system and adapter from two toothpicks and a canteen of Bear Grylls' piss.

 

[RichMerk]

Organics don't have off switches.

 

[T'Girl]

We can't be talked to death by William Shatner ... err, I mean Captain Kirk.

 

[TiberiusMaximus]

We CAN be talked to death by William Shatner, though.

 

[sonak]

Its easier for most organic beings to sustain themselves under adverse conditions. No worries about power, just about food. And its generally easier to trap and eat a squirrel than it is to assemble a power generation system and adapter from two toothpicks and a canteen of Bear Grylls' piss.

er, I think the opposite's true. The more complex and advanced the technological device, I think the longer an independent power source would last for it. Whereas humans need water, food, and sleep pretty often before they start to decline in performance.


also, humans DO have an off switch, lots of them. They can be knocked out cold, suffocated, etc.


humans are very fragile as they currently are. I don't imagine complex A.I. beings would have that fragility.

 

[Subcommander R.]

er, I think the opposite's true. The more complex and advanced the technological device, I think the longer an independent power source would last for it. Whereas humans need water, food, and sleep pretty often before they start to decline in performance.


also, humans DO have an off switch, lots of them. They can be knocked out cold, suffocated, etc.


humans are very fragile as they currently are. I don't imagine complex A.I. beings would have that fragility.

Lets give a scenario here. Lets say a human Starfleet officer crashes on an undeveloped class M world. Then on another world exactly the same a Cylon from BSG crashes. Who has it better? The human can survive by eating berries, animals, and even could take up farming.

The Cylon has to manufacture some sort of compatible regeneration device out of scraps and find a way to power it.

Now who's got the advantage? I say the human.

 

[Timo]

Going by how this actually happened in BSG-TOS, the Cylon would have the advantage. A simple hand-crank kept him going in an environment where there were no berries, animals or arable land. (Apparently, the human lived on Holy Spirit. Until he died. It's not unheard of for people to survive for months without any sort of food, as long as there is water.)

In general, an alien planet would be more likely to have compatible power sources for a creature that consumes electricity than for a creature that consumes what we call food. Most "food" on those planets would be poison, or then totally devoid of nutritional value.

OTOH, planets in Trek tend to be duplicates of Earth (or, more probably, duplicates of some long-lost original, of which Earth is another duplicate), solving that problem. But then again, the builders of Trek's Cylon-equivalents would know that, and would provide their machines with the means to sustain themselves in that common type of environment. They could be built with much better and more versatile stomachs than humans have, and with a greater variety of backup energy sources.

Of course, machine intellects could come in many forms, from simple to complex. Humans cannot. We have to be generalists, even though our range of tricks is very narrow; machines can choose between being better generalists than we are, or being optimized for a specific environment way past our level of adaptation.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Subcommander R.]

Interesting point. But the problem with a hand crank (you're thinking Galactica 1980, right?) is that you expend energy operating it.

And this all raises another question: Cylons vs Borg?

 

[infinix]

Extending the "Crashing on an undeveloped planet" scenario, two organics could conceivably create a society of more organics with minimal resources. The cybernetics, on the other hand, will require a great deal of infrastructure before more cybernetic organisms can be produced.

But if organics and cybernetics were going to physically battle each other, cybernetics win, hands down because of the superior strength of the individual units.

So the answer to your question is... it depends. Under what situation are you comparing the two?

 

[Subcommander R.]

Depends on the combat as well. And the capabilities of each side.

 

[Sector 7]

Organics have original thought and creativity. Cybernetics rarely use creativity, rather existing databases and programming, to look for solutions. Only organics think "outside the box" when looking for answers to problems.

 

[ReadyAndWilling]

Its easier for most organic beings to sustain themselves under adverse conditions. No worries about power, just about food. And its generally easier to trap and eat a squirrel than it is to assemble a power generation system and adapter from two toothpicks and a canteen of Bear Grylls' piss.

er, I think the opposite's true. The more complex and advanced the technological device, I think the longer an independent power source would last for it. Whereas humans need water, food, and sleep pretty often before they start to decline in performance.


also, humans DO have an off switch, lots of them. They can be knocked out cold, suffocated, etc.


humans are very fragile as they currently are. I don't imagine complex A.I. beings would have that fragility.

that's what i was thinking.

but what about species 8472 and the founders?

 

[Timo]

two organics could conceivably create a society of more organics with minimal resources.

...Assuming they are compatible. Two cybernetic constructs might simply decide to become compatible if the need arose. After all, we're probably talking about cybernetics that are "coarser" than the biological structure of an organic, but by the same token more "discrete", with less interdependency of components, and thus more easily rearranged.

To reproduce, a typical "coarse" cybernetic construct would at a minimum require the means to extract metals from local rock. That takes some doing, but it can be done with the same sort of resources that would be necessary for keeping an organic (or two organics and their offspring) alive - chiefly, organic fuel that can be adopted/adapted for generating intense heat. Beyond getting the iron and aluminum flowing, a cybernetic might have the advantage of already coming with a built-in self-repair system, one that can be used for building duplicates or improved models. In contrast, a human's reproductive organs cannot easily be adapted for use in repairing existing humans.

Cybernetics might also be non-coarse, perhaps consisting of swarms of nanotech. The Borg actually seem to be pretty close to this: their nanoprobes seem to do the bulk of Borgifying, while macroscopic surgery only complements the result. A nanotech cybernetic might well have an easy time extracting metals or other raw materials from rock, and indeed Seven of Nine showed some prowess in manipulating matter with her nanoreserves.

That's the main thing about machines: they can be better or worse than humans, or then so flexible that they can be both, mainly depending on what their makers wanted of them. Most makers would want superior machines, either so that they can do jobs the makers cannot, or so that they can defeat enemies who are equivalent to the makers. Superiority would not always equal survivability, and indeed many makers would prefer machines that don't survive independently and thus have a reason to be subservient to the makers.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[sonak]

Organics have original thought and creativity. Cybernetics rarely use creativity, rather existing databases and programming, to look for solutions. Only organics think "outside the box" when looking for answers to problems.

Humans rely on their "databases"(it's called their memory) as well. And we all have our programming through our upbringing, environment, and genetics.


This idea that there's something "magical" to the human thinking process is pretty funny.

 

[Sector 7]

Organics have original thought and creativity. Cybernetics rarely use creativity, rather existing databases and programming, to look for solutions. Only organics think "outside the box" when looking for answers to problems.

Humans rely on their "databases"(it's called their memory) as well. And we all have our programming through our upbringing, environment, and genetics.


This idea that there's something "magical" to the human thinking process is pretty funny.

No one used the term "magical", except you. The reason the human species has survived so far, is through creativity and invention. Your mileage may vary.

Having recently watched IBM's Watson on Jeopardy!, it did well when answering factual questions, yet did poorly, compared to its human competitors, when creative thinking was required.

 

[sonak]

Organics have original thought and creativity. Cybernetics rarely use creativity, rather existing databases and programming, to look for solutions. Only organics think "outside the box" when looking for answers to problems.

Humans rely on their "databases"(it's called their memory) as well. And we all have our programming through our upbringing, environment, and genetics.


This idea that there's something "magical" to the human thinking process is pretty funny.

No one used the term "magical", except you. The reason the human species has survived so far, is through creativity and invention. Your mileage may vary.

Having recently watched IBM's Watson on Jeopardy!, it did well when answering factual questions, yet did poorly, compared to its human competitors, when creative thinking was required.

You seemed to have missed my point by dwelling on my use of "magical" rather than understanding my argument.

I'm saying complex A.I. should be able to use creative thinking as well. There are all ready programs that can create works of art, etc.

Creative thinking is not limited to organic beings.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

It seems to me one of the most dangerous things possible would be a combination--an organic being with the use of cybernetics. This would allow the combination of human innovation and the advantages conferred by cybernetics. HOWEVER--the reason I would not do this in real life is that it could have really, really horrible effects on a person, both mentally and physically, even socially. Even worse if a person were subjected to something against their will.

 

[infinix]

That's the main thing about machines: they can be better or worse than humans, or then so flexible that they can be both, mainly depending on what their makers wanted of them. Most makers would want superior machines, either so that they can do jobs the makers cannot, or so that they can defeat enemies who are equivalent to the makers. Superiority would not always equal survivability, and indeed many makers would prefer machines that don't survive independently and thus have a reason to be subservient to the makers.

Timo Saloniemi

Well, we know what organics are like since we are organic. We don't know what cybernetics are like since none exist in reality. So if we are allowed to imagine any cybernetic construct, then this discussion is moot because we can always imagine something better than our current organic forms.

So keeping in the interest of the discussion, let's set some limits on the situation. In my scenario, I'm doubling the initial population of the humans because they are just physically weaker to begin with.

Two sets of human, two male, two female, with ONLY their clothes and immediate access to clean water. They are in the prime of their youth and has the equivalent education of a college graduate today. Assuming in-breeding is not an issue and there are no large predators around.

Two equivalent of Data, with only their clothes and immediate access to clean water (though they don't need it.) Assuming they have knowledge of how they were built, how to maintain themselves, and otherwise equivalent education as the first pair.

Two Borg, same situation.

In 20 years, which group will fare better? How about 50 years or 100 years?

 

[Timo]

If they happen to land on our Moon, or on Mars, or Venus, groups B and C will fare reasonably well while group A will be extinct.

If they happen to land on Wilkes' Land or Kalahari or the South Atlantic on Earth, groups B and C will fare reasonably well while group A will be extinct.

If they happen to land in the middle of WWI or the Isandlwana massacre, groups B and C will fare reasonably well while group A will probably be extinct.

If they happen to land in New York City, groups B and C will face more opposition than group A (except perhaps in the Village) but all will probably fare equally well. If they happen to land in the area of New York City a few thousand years before Man arrives, I'd again suggest equal success.

Data is known to have an aging program, but may be able to shut it off, in which case he'll probably still be doing pretty well after 100 years. And still be capable of single-handedly defeating a community of rapidly breeding humans that started off with those two pairs at landing. The Borg have not been documented as aging, either, and their nanoprobes are known to be capable of significant feats of resurrection, not to mention the co-opting of lifeforms around them to serve the local Collective.

Something as clumsy as a BSG:TOS Cylon might crumble to rust within 50 years; a Soongian android or a Borg Drone would probably ascend to rule Earth if dropped in any preindustrialized era.

Timo Saloniemi