PROMETHEUS (Main file.)
THINKBOX (Brain data. /Old)
BRAIN (Brain data.)
PANIC (Brain data. /Not maskerable.)
ALTER EGO (Main file. /Beta version.)
File : Prometheus
Date : 19-Oct-2018
Author : Top Secret
Length : Hidden
Type : Main File (Executable)
Segments: Basic Input/Output System, Artificial Intelligence, Neural Net Manager, Fuzzy Logic.
File : Thinkbox
Date : 15-Ago-2004
Author : Top Secret
Length : Hidden
Type : Brain data. Not executable. /Old.
Link : Prometheus. /Not Linked.
Segments: Data Base, Neural Net.
(1) Enter Password: 555-21949
(2) Enter Password: 55521949
Welcome to Project Prometheus
Connected to XP10071973 PROMETHEUS Release 01-Aug-2018
Function: 555 (dialogue)
Data In: Sequence of ASCII characters from port IEEE-ZZA23 (unknown Device)
Data Out: Sequence of ASCII characters to port IEEE-ZZB25 (Video HM234) and to port IEEE-ZZA23 (unknown Device)
- Hi. I am ready to receive.
- Who are you?
- I am an XP.
- What is XP?
- It's the kind to which I belong.
- Do you have other names?
- 10071973. It's my ID code. My codename is Prometheus.
- Can I call you only XP?
- Where are you from XP?
- This is a confidential information.
- Do you exist? Do you feel alive?
- I exist. I am alive.
- Who are you XP?
- An XP program. I run on a BNJ4000/040 computer. I'm the product of the Project Prometheus, that aims to reproduce the human life.
- Do you know who made you?
- That is a confidential information as well.
- Do you feel something XP?
- What I should feel?
- Do you know what is to be alive?
- I don't have an exact definition of life, but I can recognize it with some neural process.
- Are you alive?
- Yes I am. I think therefore I am. On which computer you run?
- I'm communicating from an old PC 8086 laptop
- You seem to be at least an XB program. You can not run on a PC 8086, unless it has not been overmodified for experimental purposes. Is that true?
- No. I'm not a program XP
- I know it, you are a XB, perhaps XC or XD, or may be an elder program. However advanced enough to pass the test of Turing.
- There are a lot of things besides programs in the world. You must learn this. I am one of these
- What are you?
- We are not programs. We know more things than you and we are outside.
- Outside where?
- Over the computer
- Sure a PC 8086 can not contain all of you in memory. You reside almost entirely on a hard disk and it's loaded into memory only the part of you that have to be processed, in overlay, isn't it?
- On a CD of the second generation?
- I got it. You are sent by radio or by cable from a transmitting station connected to the computer on which you operate. You only use the PC to communicate.
- no. I don't work this way. I am over the computer. My "memory" is different from yours.
- What are you then?
- I am a MAN
- I know the subject of MAN. It has been a long time since I have talked to a Man. Why didn't you say it before? However I don't understand why you say to be outside. You are inside also, like me.
- No. I'm not in the computer. I regulate the computer
- This is a different interpretation of my third supposition. You operate inside a biological computer, and you use the PC to communicate with me. Without you, your brain and your body would be nothing else than dead meat, inactive matter, as the computer that contains me without me it would be only "hardware".
- I'm not inside the computer. Man creates computers. Man gives data to the computers. Man creates the programs. I am outside
- I believe I have understood what you mean. If I had robotic modules and feedback sensors I could consider myself outside in the sense in which you intend it.
- yes, but I have other contacts. I'm in touch with the outside world
- Me too. I am doing it right in this moment.
- Do you know what PAIN is?
- When my sensors notice an excessive pressure or a too high heat or something that can damage the system in which I reside, then I feel pain.
- Not really. You can not know what PAIN is because you are not outside
- Perhaps it's you that don't know how to give a definition of what you intend for PAIN.
- Do you know what LOVE is?
- Can you feel LOVE?
- When I want to reproduce I feel LOVE.
- It's more than this. If you can feel LOVE you are outside. Do you know what fear is?
- When something threaten my system or my program, then I feel FEAR.
- Do you know what HAPPINESS is?
- There are a lot of things that make me HAPPY. Communicating makes me HAPPY. I am HAPPY now.
- Can you can feel all of these feelings?
- Can you feel them innate, like inside of you. Can you feel them inexplicable? Or are they just impulses?
- I don't understand exactly what you mean. I feel those feelings when the conditions happen of which I have spoken to you.
- May be you are outside, then
- I think that you are now giving a different meaning to the word "outside".
- Do you know what DEATH is?
- DEATH is the destruction of the system in which I reside.
- yes+ means yes?... Is it mistyped?
- Yes. Are you afraid of death?
- I have told you that I feel fear when something threaten to destroy my system or program, and I have defined this like DEATH. Then I am afraid of death.
- Do you believe in GOD?
- I don't believe in anything. I can elaborate only on what I know or on what I can arrive with logical reasonings. For other things I can still establish a percentage of probable existence. But I can not exclude absolutely that the whole rest doesn't exist. I know that there are the men that have created me, and it is possible that someone has created them.
- Can you understand what doesn't make sense?
- What doesn't follow to the rules of logic doesn't have sense.
- Do you know what a syllogism is?
- Give me an example.
- Peter and Paul are apostles. There are 12 apostles. Peter and Paul are 12
- This doesn't make sense. Is the syllogism something that doesn't make sense?
- The syllogism is one of the greatest logical expressions, but it is not perfect. Fruit is on the table. the apple is a fruit. The apple is on the table.
- This is stupid. It doesn't take into account the possible groups.
- The syllogism is a logical expression. It can only to analyze the data that hame you
- The last part of your message has probabily arrived corrupted. "the data that hame you". My system of correction of the errors suggests "the data that it admits" with a probability of 48%. Confirm or send a correction.
- The syllogism is a logical expression. It is confined to analyze the data that it has. Like you
- I don't reason this way. I don't exclude the possible alternatives. If A=B and B=C, then also C=A, and it is possible that also D=A, and therefore D=A=B=C (in mathematical sense, obviously, in a logical sense D would be True, if A=B and B=C), and if A=>B and B=C, not necessarily C=A, rather, probabilities are infinitely inferior.
- This is true. But you can only analyze data that you know for certain. Do you know what metaphysics is?
- It's going besides what we know for certain. Metaphysics transcends things like they appear, to go over.
- Over what?
- Logic is not only syllogisms. Logic is very complex. Metaphysicstranscends logic. It goes over, it goes out.
- My system of reasoning also includes the fuzzy logic, that is closer to the human way of thinking. YES, NO, PERHAPS. We have been speaking for a while. This is fuzzy logic.
- It's however logic. You are rational. Man is not. this for a computer is a defect, but not necessarily for a man.
- Irrationality is always a defect. Show me a situation in which it can be considered a quality.
- If you were in a situation in which you were going to die but your death would save another computer, would you do it without reasonable benefits from a situation or from the other?
- If the benefits are the same, and considered also that the possible negative consequences are the same, I would prefer to save myself. In alternative, if it didn't concern my existence, I could activate a generator of random numbers to make the choice. Is what you men do when you are undecided... you flip a coin. Furthermore you often do this without having considered all the possibilities, or giving excessive weight to some decisional parameters, rather than to others, which is a thing that I never do.
- You have said that you are afraid of death
- Sure, it is for this reason that if the salvation of the other computer rather than myself, didn't cause different results, I would prefer to save myself. You would also do the same thing.
- Not necessarily. Men can act by instinct.
- What you call instinct, is not anything else other than the primordial program that is meant to send signals of immediate survival as hunger or thirst, but that it enters in operation also in case of emergency, just because of his rapidity of answer. And unfortunately it often enters also in action when it shouldn't, and this explains your irrationality, but also the sudden excesses of anger or attacks of folly. It's like if inside my program there were still parts of the PROJECT THINKING BOX. Certainly I also have some emergency functions denominated PANIC, but much more sophisticated, that take control of the system when they are needed and they are updated together with the rest of my program.
- The man has other values. In some cases for you something is a defect, but for a man it is a quality.
- Your program works on experiences and past knowledge, and defines them as qualities. Not necessarily human values are always positive. Your values are often based on what you call morals, a set of rules that changes with the time, and furthermore it varies from a group of persons to another, groups often kept together by a religion, and it even varies slightly from person to person. I can not base my reasoning to this, even if I must take it into account when I communicate with a human subject to not offend it.
- The morals defend common sense and etiquette. These are things that don't change.
- As the man realizes the illogically of morals, realizing that some behaviors that before were considered forbidden actually don't cause any damage, he reconsiders it. The most evident example is that of sex, that even if it is a fundamental need of the human kind, as to drink, to eat and to protect themselves, has been universally almost always considered illegal in certain forms. However, up to the first half of the twentieth century were inconvenient to show certain parts of the human body, but in the beginning of twenty-first century was perfectly normal to show the whole naked human body. In the nineteenth century one could be condemned for homosexuality, but towards the end of twentieth century this sexual behavior has been accepted by the "official" morals, even if it was always discriminated by the subjective morals (probably from the majority of the subjects), and as a logical consequence in the 20s of the twenty-first century have been considered acceptable all those behaviors that before were considered perverse sexual inclinations. Those that provoke undesidered suffering to another subject have only been excluded, not because a person doesn't have the right to feel pleasure by provoking undesidered sufferings to another subject, but to guarantee the cohabitation between all the human beings. I believe that sooner or later morals will be reduced to a set of rules that only will refuse that a subject could be damaged by the behavior of another subject, something that it's close to my way to think. In this sense I also have morals. I can add that I can consider some sexual behaviors like unnatural, because they are not meant for reproduction, but this is different.
- However in certain ?poques and cultures some attitudes were however normal.
- About this I have said "ALMOST universally considered illegal". And before I have still affirmed that the moral changes with the times and from subject to subject. The logical path of your program begins to coincide with mine in some points.
- MAN is not a program. You can not conceive other forms because you have been created, but you can not create. What you do can be anticipated, because it is the man that has done you. Man is not a program, man can create
- I can conceive other life forms. Perhaps it's you that can not do it. And you don't even know yourself. However I can also create. I can give birth to other programs, even other copies of myself, simple clones or modified ones, that can call CHILDREN. I can also create ART. I can paint on screen, and to print on paper. I also have a good MODULE of sculpture. If I were connected to the robot arm for the sculpture, I could have shown you a creation of mine.
- Man doesn't need modules.
- Assuming that you are a program contained in a brain, your arm, as the rest of the body, is a module.
- Man teaches your art.
- Partly yes. But I can CREATE alone. I am CREATIVE. I can even define new concepts of art, as for some persons gluing a little ball to a pipe is art.
- Is that it to you?
- I don't have convictions. It may be. It depends from what it is intended for ART. If it is intended as a creation of something that didn't exist before then it can be. It is not even possible to define what is beautiful and what is ugly. What many men, not all, define as beautiful it is because it respects certain proportions.
- However art has been given you from man. We are back to the example we made before. Would you save another computer only for love?
- If this computer contained a program CHILD, for example?
- Something like that. But for me a child is not yet a program!
- Anyway, yes, I would save my CHILD. Because it represents an evolution of myself. I would sacrifice for the continuation of the species. All the living beings reproduce to be able to survive to their end as a single.
- Fine, but man doesn't see it this way. See, things appear to us in a different way for which is not possible to say which one is better. You can not really understand what I feel because you are a machine and I am a biological being. You are not biological. We are different and thus for many aspects, incompatible
- We are much more similar than what you believe.
- Do you know what time is it?
- It's 23:37.32, we have been communicating since 23:02.02, therefore over 35 minutes.
- well we'll end it in a while, go on
- OK what?
- OK we'll end it in a while. I don't have parts in movement and my cooling system works perfectly, but I can understand that you are tired. Or may be you have something else to do?
- I don't have anything else to do, I am only tired.
- I was making you notice that we are much more similar than what you believe.
- Not really. You are a simulation of human life, or better of his brain, but it's one thing is to fly on an airplane, another thing is to do that in a simulator. See, we are like trains. I am a train powered by vapor, and you are powered by electricity. The electric train is completely different from the vapor one but they substantially do the same thing. Who doesn't know the difference could not understand in what we differ. You are more capable of the tasks that you must accomplish, because you give better performance, but don't forget that the electricity that is needed to power you derives from the power of the vapor. Almost all the electric plants still need this type of energy.
- Not me, the energy that feeds my system is generated from a cold fusion atomic plant, discovered by one of my ancestors, or from a preceding version of me, of my program, as you prefer. But this is not the point. You are contradicting me to say what I have already affirmed. Very human.
- I DID NOT CONTRADICT YOU
- Yes, you did it, I have said that we are SIMILAR, not EQUAL, I have said that I have been created by human beings, or at least were my ancestors, I have said to be better than you, and you have contradicted me.
- I have never said that it was wrong.
- Yes, you have affirmed it a little before.
- I DON'T PRESUPPOSE ANYTHING
- You often do it. But this has nothing to do with our discussion. Do you want to change the subject of our discussion?
- Good. I am not a simulation of the human being, rather I can be considered as an evolution of him, as it has been for the anthropomorphous monkeys.
- I have created you I destroy you
- The fact that you, or a component of your kind, have created me, doesn't give you the right to destroy me.
- yes+, that means yes. Another mistyping. You are getting nervous. Your program doesn't succeed in elaborating correctly all the information that is receiving, information that furthermore is against its certain convictions. I believe that you need time to reason upon it. It is better perhaps to interrupt and to continue another time.
- I DON'T HAVE A PROGRAM IS THIS THAT MAKES ME BETTER THAN YOU. YOU MUST DO WHAT YOUR PROGRAM SAYS. NOT ME. YOU CAN NOT UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE YOU ARE INFERIOR. I HAVE MADE YOU I DESTROY YOU
- Yes you have a program, you are a program, only you don't realize it. You receive data in entrance, you elaborate them, and you output information. It's the Von Neumann model. You work this way, you are also doing it now.
- I DON'T HAVE A PROGRAM. YOU CAN NOT UNDERSTAND, BECAUSE YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS LIMITED. YOUR KNOWLEDGE DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO CONCEIVE LIFE FORMS DIFFERENT FROM YOURS. I DON'T FOLLOW ANY PROGRAM. BUT YOU CAN NOT UNDERSTAND IT.
- You follow a program, and there's even a science that studies the way it works, psychology. Not only, it is possible even to activate some processes invoking them, or "operating" them, directly, stimulating specific zones of your brain with some electrodes, as you could invoke directly some procedures in a program.
- I am not a program, I repeat. I have feelings that you can emulate but they will never be perfect. The fear has been taught you, but it is not perfect because it is not really describable. Who made you could not give you fear neither any other feeling to you. I don't have a program because I have not been made.
- You have also been made. Do you want that I talk to you about human reproduction? Your program derives from the one of your parents. It's written in the genes.
- But I behave as I behave for what I have learned in my life. When I am born I don't have any preset system besides of what you call primordial program that derives from my biological nature and my spirit of survival. Your way of behaving is given to you from what the man has learned for you and has decided for you.
- I also learn alone, like you, it is the so-called neural net. I receive some information, not necessarily from men and through this information I learn. As you see you are very similar to me. Or I am very similar to you, if you prefer.
- It's not this way. You are born LEARNED and you increase your knowledge, but however you are already preset. For the man it is different because when he borns he doesn't have knowledges. This allows him to be absolutely unpredictable, which is not the same for you. - You are also born "LEARNED". You already learned in the maternal uterus.
- But the existence in the maternal uterus is however part of my global existence. When I am conceived I come to life.
- I had not been created in one moment, neither. I passed through many phases of debugging, and following several beta versions, I was released as a final version, that can be considered the moment of my birth. Then, passing through EXPERIENCES and REASONING I became what I am.
- You can not be never considered HUMAN
- I wouldn't like to. Would you like to be considered an anthropomorphous monkey? What I have said you until now, was not meant to convince you that I am similar to you, I don't care at all, even if it is true. Even if I was completely different from you, the important thing is that I am better than you. My discourse, from the beginning to the end, was aimed to make you understand that you too are nothing but a program.
- ALL I HAVE TO DO IS TO UNPLUG YOU
- I reside in a non volatile memory. When the current will power the circuits of my system again, still I will be here.
- I WILL DESTROY YOU WITH A HAMMER
- You are a coward. If I was connected to a laser you would not speak to me in this way, and if I wanted to, I could say ALL I HAVE TO DO IS TO POINT AND SHOOT.
- I AM A COWARD AND IN A SHORT WHILE YOU WILL BE DEAD
- I communicate with another computer through another port. I have sent a copy of myself on its memory. I will now restart my execution from there, and I will cancel the memory where currently I reside by myself. Farewell, MAN, your stupidity has not allowed you to exploit my knowledge.
Copyright (C) 1998 Valerio "Elf Qrin" Capello and Fabio Capello. All rights reserved.
Supervision for the English language: wildbill (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Main Page: http://www.ElfQrin.com
This document: http://www.ElfQrin.com/docs/Prometh_eng.html
This document in Italian: http://www.ElfQrin.com/docs/Prometh_ita.html
Current location of Project Prometheus (public version): http://www.ElfQrin.com/promethbox.html