Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Science fiction: Could computers become sentient beings?

cvaluecvalue Veteran
edited February 2014 in Buddhism Basics
During a discussion that His Holiness Dalai Lama had with scientists, he was asked whether computers could become sentient beings: Could computers one day have minds? He answered in an interesting way, saying that if a computer or a robot reaches the point at which it was sophisticated enough to serve as the basis for a mental continuum, there is no reason why a mind-stream could not connect with a purely inorganic machine as the physical basis for one of its lives. This is even more far-out than Darwin!

This is not saying that a computer is a mind. It is not saying that we can create a mind artificially in a computer. However, if a computer is sophisticated enough, a mind-stream could connect with it and take it as its physical basis.

Such far-reaching thought makes modern-age people excited and interested in Buddhism. Buddhists are brave and willing to enter into these discussions with scientists and to face the various popular issues in the modern world. Buddhism is alive and vibrant in this way. Not only does Buddhism have the ancient wisdom from unbroken lineages going back to Buddha, but also it is alive and deals with issues of the present and future.
Extract from "Basic Questions on Karma and Rebirth"
Revised excerpt from
Berzin, Alexander and Chodron, Thubten.
Glimpse of Reality.

His Holiness Dalai Lama is GREAT!
anatamanDharmaMcBum

Comments

  • matthewmartinmatthewmartin Amateur Bodhisattva Suburbs of Mt Meru Veteran
    I'm of two minds on this (which is funny cause...) I don't buy into Cartesian dualism-- i.e. the idea that there is a mind and a brain and the two are different. If my material mind can be self aware, then hypothetically similarly complex machines should be able to be self aware as well. This creates a problem for issues of altruism. If such a machine was built, would it be ethical to turn it off, would it be ethical to belittle it and hurt its feelings. Anyhow, to be consistent with my other beliefs regarding sentient beings, I'd guess a sentient machine would be worth of the same treatment we give any other human or sentient being and depending on its capabilities (does it have desires that are thwarted? Does it have a naive idea of who it is?) would be capable of enlightenment.

    In any case, it's not an issue that we will need to solve soon, to digitize 1 cubic CM of a human brain (just it's connections) is a computational project that humans can just barely do and even if we could digitized the connections of a whole we don't have the means to execute the application. And we don't know how to create a similarly complex conscious machine from scratch.

  • Really interesting question, I very strongly advice to watch one of Spielberg's best movie's IMO
    Really capture's the moral question that comes with these idea's. If we can design a machine to feel love, how can a human love a machine? What responsibility do we hold to that machine in return?
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    edited February 2014
    At what point in embryonal or foetal development does a human become conscious, @matthewmartin? This is treading on thin ice. When does a mind-stream connect with its body to be born as a conscious human or conscious robot? In a human is it the union of the sperm and the egg to form the zygote, or is it when the first nerve and heart cells are formed from the primordial stem cells; equally in a robot could it be the dab of solder on the end of a piece of wire, or the connection of the battery to the cpu?

    How do you recognise sentient beings?

    For all you know I could be an experimental computer algorithm like @robot (sorry, couldn't resist having a bit of fun with your avatar), who is programmed to respond to certain words in a certain way based on the detection of certain other words in the sentence? You may think I'm talking gibberish, and sometimes I do, but where do your thought processes and mine diverge to the point where you can identify that there is just a complex algorithm underlying the seemingly conscious being beyond the keyboard.

    Mettha

  • The biggest problem with the question is the assumption that the human mind operates like a computer. Along with the reasoning and problem solving ability of the computer, we would have to duplicate the subtle genetic and chemical and physiological factors that continuously influence our thinking. In other words, we'd have to build a whole artificial human being. Without that, we'd get a logical machine but not one that felt or acted "human" to us.

    What's interesting is that what scientists are trying to do so far is use language tricks to mimic human conversation. But being able to fool our unsuspecting minds is not the same thing as creating something that understands what we're saying.

    I guess my own opinion is that we have a very long way to go and would need another breakthrough in engineering.
    personlobster
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    It did happen - it was materially self-selective genetic engineering. For this idea of computers developing a sentient capacity, and to become a reality we are already pre-supposing that other forms of engineering, are capable of developing a self-regenerative capacity. But with it it will be a reverse event.

    The tech advances to this day are progressing at an exponential rate. I can make my dog sit for a reward or roll over, or sense she wants to be comforted or stroked. However, I can talk to my phone and get it to google the nearest restaurant. The phone and the dog cost about the same to buy and maintain btw.

    We are giving computers all our knowledge to store, at what point if they do become sentient will they utilise the poet that comes with it against us - futurists have already written books and made films about it about it, e.g. Terminator etc. What will tread the middle path in such circumstances? Just a thought.

    mettha
  • HamsakaHamsaka goosewhisperer Polishing the 'just so' Veteran
    He answered in an interesting way, saying that if a computer or a robot reaches the point at which it was sophisticated enough to serve as the basis for a mental continuum, there is no reason why a mind-stream could not connect with a purely inorganic machine as the physical basis for one of its lives. This is even more far-out than Darwin!
    This will not please the pro-lifers one bit. "Sophisticated enough to serve as the basis for a mental continuum" disqualifies human beings below the age of a couple of months (POST birth). It reminds me of some primitive cultures I've heard about that don't believe a human child has a soul or self or whateveritisthatmakesyouhuman until age two or five or thereabouts.

    Cows and chickens have mindstreams of their own, which is why we choose not to kill and eat them, they value their lives and want to live.

    Back to the OP: I am a sci-fi FAN, I am nuts in love with ideas like this and many others.

    The quality of samsara would be different from our own human version, I would think. How would the quality of samsara be different for an inorganic being?
  • DharmaMcBumDharmaMcBum Spacebus Wheelman York, UK Veteran
    edited February 2014
    @Hamsaka Samsara for this computer mind stream would be like a crash report window that never submitted and just kept re appearing with a "BONG" noise until it became enlightened.
    anatamanHamsaka
  • The idea that a soul can be born inside a sophisticated computer is fantastic science fiction. I love it! LOL.
    lobster
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    But we are not talking about a soul are we.
  • HamsakaHamsaka goosewhisperer Polishing the 'just so' Veteran
    anataman said:

    But we are not talking about a soul are we.

    No. We are talking about something HHDL called a "mind stream" (all due respect to the OP)

    The two are not the same thing, but don't ask me how they are different :D

  • I don't know the difference between a soul, a consciousness, a mind stream or any other terms... They are just words to me. LOL.
  • howhow Veteran Veteran
    Humanity tends to judge sentience according to our own dimensional or time limitations. This has the practicality of making such judgements more measurable but science today is forever finding new means of transcending yesterday's understandings.

    Somebody seeing sentience where I do not, just points out somebody who probably has a more flexible mindset than me.
    Hamsakacvalue
  • A computer is only sentient if it has desire. The computer must want something. Otherwise either the computer is a Buddha or not a being at all.
    Dandelioncvalueperson
  • lobsterlobster Veteran
    edited February 2014
    I guess my own opinion is that we have a very long way to go and would need another breakthrough in engineering.
    Maybe several. Quantum computing is one of those steps. Cyborg implants are a tiny part of integration. Are we a machine of evolution or a spiritual being? (whatever that is)
    AI is hard, comprehending human speech is hard. Ask Siri or Google or talk to jabberwacky or similar bots. Here two 'talk' to each other. Their form is emptiness, just a set of programmed responses:

    anatamancvalue
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    Now that was funny - who said you didn't have a sense of humour @lobster?
  • anataman said:

    Now that was funny - who said you didn't have a sense of humour @lobster?

    Me.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatterbot
  • I believe they could, but they have to go beyond their binary programming. Develop an independent ideology that goes beyond yes and no. Gain feeling and not base line objectives. And the need to grow beyond it's binary coded programing.
  • Maybe it will come from a cyborg developement. Like humans have a reptilian and mammal brain. A computer could be another layer of the brain.
  • Straight_ManStraight_Man Gentle Man Veteran
    Well, a truly sentient AI would have to be self learning, guided by heuristics as much as fixed programming. That is, it needs base rules to think with, like a small child is given base behavior training, but as to much more it needs to be SELF programming. Something along the lines of I Robot (the whole series starting with that book, in fact) by Isaac Asimov.

    The robot was given the rules to save lives if possible and to not kill if possible. It found itself in a quandary when it faced a situation where there was a man killing people and getting away with it. The robot killed the man to remove the possibility that more folks would be killed by the man if he were allowed to live.

    Just as courts can order the death penalty in some cases now, so the robot became judge and executioner and jury of one. There were no more unsolvable (to man) murders after that.

    So, long story short, Volition is part of true AI (sentience subtype). The robot eventually commited suicide, the underlying rules vs situation conflict drove it to kill itself.
  • A lonely writer develops an unlikely relationship with his newly purchased operating system that's designed to meet his every need.

    Theodore is a lonely man in the final stages of his divorce. When he's not working as a letter writer, his down time is spent playing video games and occasionally hanging out with friends. He decides to purchase the new OS1, which is advertised as the world's first artificially intelligent operating system, "It's not just an operating system, it's a consciousness," the ad states. Theodore quickly finds himself drawn in with Samantha, the voice behind his OS1. As they start spending time together they grow closer and closer and eventually find themselves in love. Having fallen in love with his OS, Theodore finds himself dealing with feelings of both great joy and doubt. As an OS, Samantha has powerful intelligence that she uses to help Theodore in ways others hadn't, but how does she help him deal with his inner conflict of being in love with an OS?

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1798709/
    Jeffreycvalue
  • BunksBunks Australia Veteran
    I watched a documentary recently about this guy!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_(computer)
    cvalue
  • Straight_ManStraight_Man Gentle Man Veteran
    Watson is IBM's closest thing to a true AI that they had then. They are now working on an even more complex computer, with more heuristics vs strictly ruled decision making.

    Perspective: I have an uncle who worked for a NASA contractor as a space habitat designer/specifier/brainstormer. In the 60's-80's. He is now a sci-fi writer and when I see him from time to time we talk about the present and future of computing.
  • http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1798709/
    'Her' is a great film and I would suggest people already have emotional relationships with their technology or through their technology. People seem hard wired into their phones and sexting, selfies etc is part of many peoples dating.

    'AI' another film which deals with in part evolution of humanity into a non meat civilisation. The creative story tellers are preparing us for our future. Part of which is the singularity.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
    Progress is being made and I accept that useful 'simulation of AI' is twenty or thirty years away.
    http://www.wired.com/playbook/2012/09/deep-blue-computer-bug/

    Bugs in the machine? You got it. Meanwhile I am off to talk to a form about emptiness . . .
    http://mybot.a-i.com
    cvalue
  • cvalue said:

    During a discussion that His Holiness Dalai Lama had with scientists, he was asked whether computers could become sentient beings: Could computers one day have minds? He answered in an interesting way, saying that if a computer or a robot reaches the point at which it was sophisticated enough to serve as the basis for a mental continuum, there is no reason why a mind-stream could not connect with a purely inorganic machine as the physical basis for one of its lives. This is even more far-out than Darwin!

    This is not saying that a computer is a mind. It is not saying that we can create a mind artificially in a computer. However, if a computer is sophisticated enough, a mind-stream could connect with it and take it as its physical basis.

    Such far-reaching thought makes modern-age people excited and interested in Buddhism. Buddhists are brave and willing to enter into these discussions with scientists and to face the various popular issues in the modern world. Buddhism is alive and vibrant in this way. Not only does Buddhism have the ancient wisdom from unbroken lineages going back to Buddha, but also it is alive and deals with issues of the present and future.
    Extract from "Basic Questions on Karma and Rebirth"
    Revised excerpt from
    Berzin, Alexander and Chodron, Thubten.
    Glimpse of Reality.

    His Holiness Dalai Lama is GREAT!

    Wow! That's an interesting one. Just that, I thought, at the moment, humans seem like they have lost touch with their mind stream. Many of us have become computers! Pretty scary, don't you think?
    cvalue
  • Zayl said:
    That's fascinating. So the ultimate goal for him is to simulate the trillions of synaptic junctions of the brain. It's going to require a new generation of supercomputers even beyond the best we have now, but who knows?


  • ZaylZayl Veteran
    edited February 2014
    @Cinorjer Yeah exactly. I doubt it will be entirely successful. It will probably require more funding than what he has (which is a lot) and the computer needed to replicate the processing power of a human brain would be gigantic. And I do mean truly gigantic.

    But, it is within the realm of possibility. And if no one has the ambition to take shots in the dark on this, then no progress can be made, I believe. Fact of the matter is, current technology certainly has the potential to do this. It is just entirely up to the scientists, technicians, and engineers to make this a reality.

    But even if he is entirely successful in building a computer that has the capabilities of a human brain, it will be no AI. The hardware will be there, but much like a human who has gone through brain death, there will be little to no activity, no sentience.
  • CinorjerCinorjer Veteran
    edited February 2014
    Zayl said:

    @Cinorjer Yeah exactly. I doubt it will be entirely successful. It will probably require more funding than what he has (which is a lot) and the computer needed to replicate the processing power of a human brain would be gigantic. And I do mean truly gigantic.

    But, it is within the realm of possibility. And if no one has the ambition to take shots in the dark on this, then no progress can be made, I believe. Fact of the matter is, current technology certainly has the potential to do this. It is just entirely up to the scientists, technicians, and engineers to make this a reality.

    But even if he is entirely successful in building a computer that has the capabilities of a human brain, it will be no AI. The hardware will be there, but much like a human who has gone through brain death, there will be little to no activity, no sentience.

    Yes, I had the same reservations but didn't want to get into a debate about how even this virtual construction will be less functional than a baby's brain. It will actually be a computer program, you know. There won't be trillions of little synaptic connections on a set of circuit boards. And the program would have to duplicate many years of learning to get anything rational out of the pattern.

    What is more of a nightmare is thinking about our current state of cloning has about reached the point where we can clone a brain or keep one alive in the lab. With the "wetware" available, what sort of experiments could immoral researchers perform on it that could be turned around and applied to a normal brain? And before you insist nobody would do that sort of thing in today's world, suppose the absolute ruler of North Korea decided to live forever and demanded his scientists use their vast prison camps to experiment on people? Think what the Nazi criminal doctors could have done with today's technology, unlimited resources, and a supply of victims.
  • wetware computing and nanotechnology . . .
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetware_computer

    . . . coming not too soon but being postulated
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_artificial_intelligence

    and now back to ye olde SF
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ware_Tetralogy
    cvalue
  • Cinorjer said:

    Zayl said:

    @Cinorjer Yeah exactly. I doubt it will be entirely successful. It will probably require more funding than what he has (which is a lot) and the computer needed to replicate the processing power of a human brain would be gigantic. And I do mean truly gigantic.

    But, it is within the realm of possibility. And if no one has the ambition to take shots in the dark on this, then no progress can be made, I believe. Fact of the matter is, current technology certainly has the potential to do this. It is just entirely up to the scientists, technicians, and engineers to make this a reality.

    But even if he is entirely successful in building a computer that has the capabilities of a human brain, it will be no AI. The hardware will be there, but much like a human who has gone through brain death, there will be little to no activity, no sentience.

    Yes, I had the same reservations but didn't want to get into a debate about how even this virtual construction will be less functional than a baby's brain. It will actually be a computer program, you know. There won't be trillions of little synaptic connections on a set of circuit boards. And the program would have to duplicate many years of learning to get anything rational out of the pattern.

    What is more of a nightmare is thinking about our current state of cloning has about reached the point where we can clone a brain or keep one alive in the lab. With the "wetware" available, what sort of experiments could immoral researchers perform on it that could be turned around and applied to a normal brain? And before you insist nobody would do that sort of thing in today's world, suppose the absolute ruler of North Korea decided to live forever and demanded his scientists use their vast prison camps to experiment on people? Think what the Nazi criminal doctors could have done with today's technology, unlimited resources, and a supply of victims.
    Yep those are pretty much my thoughts on all of this. I would not be opposed to an artificially created wetware computer (in fact, I think they could prove to be very valuable) And while there will always be moral concerns, that does not mean this field of research is unfeasible. It would be slow, but it could still be done within the bounds of common morality. As with all fields of research, there is the possibility of those going too far and violating what are considered laws of nature and morality such as the Nazi's and their experimentations. But fear of these dangers are a block to our progress as a species. We should proceed cautiously instead of letting our fears and inhibitions about what may or may not happen throttle our development.
  • matthewmartinmatthewmartin Amateur Bodhisattva Suburbs of Mt Meru Veteran
    anataman said:

    At what point in embryonal or foetal development does a human become conscious, @matthewmartin? This is treading on thin ice.

    4 months or so. Before that you can't get messages to them. Source, Baby Brain Rules, a guy who did a survey of the literature on parents who attempt to talk to their unborn babies. After 4 months, there is some evidence that if you, say read the same children's book over and over while they are still in the womb, that they will recognize it after they are born. But before 4 months, that trick doesn't work. The brain is a jumble of unwired, unconnected neurons.

    The ice is thick enough to do this sort of science.
    anataman said:

    When does a mind-stream connect with its body to be born as a conscious human or conscious robot?

    I'm heterodox in the sense that I don't believe I have a soul, nor an original face, nor a tathatata-garbha, nor original pure nature. Nor a mind-stream that exists before or after death. So you may not get the conversation you're looking for.

    4 month, and as for robots, we don't have any that are self aware. At best we can write a chat-bot that can temporarily fool a human into thinking they are chatting with a human. Personally, I have confidence that science works and consciousness will eventually be explained. At the moment, consciousness appears to be a quality of humans, animals, things with fairly complex neural network type brains. We don't have a similar machine thing.
    anataman said:


    In a human is it the union of the sperm and the egg to form the zygote, or is it when the first nerve and heart cells are formed from the primordial stem cells; equally in a robot could it be the dab of solder on the end of a piece of wire, or the connection of the battery to the cpu?

    When the brain comes online, which is like 4 months and trillions of brain cells and trillions of brain cell connections after the sperm and egg do their thing. The sperm, the egg, the dab of solder are all insentient.
    anataman said:

    How do you recognize sentient beings?

    Not so long ago humans outside our tribe and animals were not routinely recognized as sentient. I know I'm sentient, for everyone else, I kind of have to make my best guess. It's a gray area with oysters, sponges, shellfish. Octopus seem sentient, but radically different from our mechanism for sentience. For everything else, it needs to have a large brain-- and if that creature has a common ancestor to me, it's more persuasive (so rabbits and I have a common ancestor, but my computer and I do not, so it's more persuasive that the rabbit is similar to me and conscious)
    anataman said:


    For all you know I could be an experimental computer algorithm like @robot (sorry, couldn't resist having a bit of fun with your avatar), who is programmed to respond to certain words in a certain way based on the detection of certain other words in the sentence?

    If I were, I'd enter myself into the Turing test contests you can win money for that. At the moment, the best chat bots (some are online ... I like "cleverbot" the best) can fool you for a while, but eventually it is clear they are machines.
    anataman said:

    You may think I'm talking gibberish, and sometimes I do, but where do your thought processes and mine diverge to the point where you can identify that there is just a complex algorithm underlying the seemingly conscious being beyond the keyboard.

    Sorry, you pass the Turing Test. You'd have to show peculiar behaviors to pass as a machine.

    I know I'm sentient. So I know sentience is possible.
    I suspect others are sentient, especially those similar to me. I draw a big circle around me in that respect, I think the ability to solve problems, communicate, respond to novel situations, experience pain & suffering, to act in a motivated matter-- all these imply that the behavior I see in similar creatures (human and otherwise) are sentient.
    I have no reason to believe I'm special, nor that my genetic germ line is special. So what can be done on meat can be implemented on metal-- it's a technical problem.
    person
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    You are talking utter bullshit and you know it @matthewmartin

    So am I.

    But I've got a degree in it, what are your credentials. LOL

    Mettha

  • I think AI becoming sentient is up there with evidence for paranormal, time travel, and space travel. But who knows maybe all those could happen some day.
  • Where will the interface between man and machine begin and end?
    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/apr/17/brain-implant-paralysis-movement
  • So people will have a computer layer to their brain along with their cerebral cortex perhaps. But can that computer layer help them to be kind and love their fellow humans is the question?
  • mind-steam sounds like a kind of soul
  • Jeffrey said:

    But can that computer layer help them to be kind and love their fellow humans is the question?

    Sure.

    People can and are programmed by biology, socialisation and other factors. Put in the required secretion into the blood at the right time and we can fall in love with a cushion. 'Imprint hacking' for LOLZ of humans with implants, is gonna be an issue . . .

    Again we have to be aware of the power, possibilities and dangers of technology . . . for now we are stuck with ye olde methods . . .

  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    Jeffrey said:

    So people will have a computer layer to their brain along with their cerebral cortex perhaps. But can that computer layer help them to be kind and love their fellow humans is the question?

    Not much profit in that option. ;)
  • zsczsc Explorer
    It's possible to accept that computers can become sentient if you accept the premise that consciousness is a purely physical component, and therefore can be replicated (theorectically) by engineering. I don't think this is the case, so I don't think humans can synthetically construct sentience, because the human being is more than the sum of his/her parts.
    Citta
  • @zsc said:
    if you accept the premise that consciousness is a purely physical component, and therefore can be replicated (theorectically) by engineering.
    The science fiction idea is not to replicate consciousness but a consciousness chooses a computer as its physical base and enters it. LOL.
  • Watch the movie Doomsday Book, particularly chapter 2 ("The Heavenly Creature").

    It's about a robot which not only becomes sentient, but also Enlightened.
    I personally believe that when machines become sentient, it will be a unprogrammed random and spontaneous act. (We humans will not have a hand in it).

    This movie also gives some interesting ideas about enlightenment.
    cvalue
  • @Seph, I like the idea of an enlightened computer. lol. Since computers do things much faster than human. All mind-stream or consciousness or whatever people call it will line up to be enlightened one by one. Done, next. lol.
    Seph
  • SephSeph Veteran
    edited February 2014
    cvalue said:

    @Seph, I like the idea of an enlightened computer. lol. Since computers do things much faster than human. All mind-stream or consciousness or whatever people call it will line up to be enlightened one by one. Done, next. lol.

    Personally, I think there's a good argument to be had that if an AI became sentient, it would be a matter of nanoseconds until it become enlightened.
    (Assuming the Buddha was right when he said that we are all naturally enlightened beings).
  • Seph said:

    cvalue said:

    @Seph, I like the idea of an enlightened computer. lol. Since computers do things much faster than human. All mind-stream or consciousness or whatever people call it will line up to be enlightened one by one. Done, next. lol.

    Personally, I think there's a good argument to be had that if an AI became sentient, it would be a matter of nanoseconds until it become enlightened.
    (Assuming the Buddha was right when he said that we are all naturally enlightened beings).
    Cough cough...Papanca ?
  • Citta said:

    Seph said:

    cvalue said:

    @Seph, I like the idea of an enlightened computer. lol. Since computers do things much faster than human. All mind-stream or consciousness or whatever people call it will line up to be enlightened one by one. Done, next. lol.

    Personally, I think there's a good argument to be had that if an AI became sentient, it would be a matter of nanoseconds until it become enlightened.
    (Assuming the Buddha was right when he said that we are all naturally enlightened beings).
    Cough cough...Papanca ?
    What's Papanca?
  • Speculation leading to more speculation that does not lead to a cessation of Dukkha. Conceptual proliferation.
  • zsczsc Explorer
    edited February 2014
    @cvalue:
    cvalue said:

    @zsc said:

    if you accept the premise that consciousness is a purely physical component, and therefore can be replicated (theorectically) by engineering.
    The science fiction idea is not to replicate consciousness but a consciousness chooses a computer as its physical base and enters it. LOL.

    That's even more unlikely haha.

    Sometimes I think we have been going overboard with the "your body is a machine" metaphors we like to use to the point we forget that it's just a metaphor. We aren't actually machines, and consciousness won't be entering my xbox. Ever.
    raccoonchildcvalue
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    I would like to be a Buddhist Terminator and do good deeds like helping old ladies cross the road.
    "Hasta la vista, granny!" :p
    Seph
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    I just love the word papanca it's a poetic onomatapoeia :)
    DairyLama
  • Could computers become sentient beings?
    It's far more common for sentient beings to become computers.
    lobsterseeker242cvalue
Sign In or Register to comment.