Constructs: Machine or Slave?

[Vernand]

Constructs.

They have been used since the times that have long since past out of living memory. They've been used as tools for advancement, combat, leasuire, and the small tasks that are either impossible for people to manage on their own, or for tasks that may seem trivial. They've been known as many different names, and their existence has always been regarded of that as a machine or golem. Merely a tool to be used and discarded when no longer required.

Many people use them without fully comprehending what they are, and what they may become. Many people affix them with self-destruction mechanisms to destroy the limited life that was given to them.

Let me pose to you a similar scenario to that which a construct may find themselves in.

A young teenage couple discover a wonderful and beautiful thing known as sex. They explore these wonderful feelings, using their bodies to make each other feel happy and special. Yet they are not prepared for the consequences of their actions and they create, within the womb of the female, the conception of a child.
Sex, so far, has been a novelty. It has been a great way to express their love for each other and as (maybe without realising it) a tool to relieve themselves of their bodies sexual frustrations.
Now they have been burdened with an unexpected child. A child that they cannot hope to support, and were certainly not ready for. They fear what their parents might say and do, should the knowledge of their deed be known.
So, quite quickly, the two of them travel down to their local clinic and have the child aborted.

I know this may seem very different to the context in which you might usually think of constructs, their use, and ultimately their demise. But it is very similar.
Like the unborn child, we have no knowledge of the exact moment that the construct develops a life of it's own. We do not know if they can think or if they can feel. Of course, in the case of the construct, we may very well know if they can think, feel, or live, if this has been determined as a desired effect in their creation.
But if they are designed from the start to think, feel, and/or live from the moment of creation... Wouldn't putting in a self-destruct clause be just like commiting murder?
You would be taking the life away from something.
If you think that you are just giving that thing a determined lifespan, to settle with yourself that it is running the full course of its life... Then consider how long the construct may exist on its own without the designation of a "time of death". It may be weeks, it may be days, it may be centuries, it may be eons. That same construct may live and never die, continually growing like a newborn baby might, developing a sense of self personality.

But then again, who is to say that constructs deserve a life? After all, they are just like machinery. They do our work, then they return to nothingness... With thanks or without thanks. It wouldn't matter. What does "Thank you" mean to a being who ceases at your very whim and will. Do we thank our spanners and our screwdrivers for their work? Do we thank aborted children for the last fleeting moments of extasy at the moment of orgasm?

A construct can be a little pocket of potential. As time flows, it has the potential to be a living being. It has the potential to be intelligent. It has the potential to carve it's own path. Good or bad.

We all know that we can make sentient, feeling constructs. What is it that drives people to destroy what they create? A fear of what we create? The burden of responsibility for its creation? A lust to control?

Constructs...

Are they Machines meant to serve?

or Slaves who die before their time?

[Bobrobyn]

Personally, constructs are not "people" or "alive", unless you give them will of their own. A construct is nothing but programmed energy and to say that it is a slave doesn't make any sense. If someone makes a simple psi-shape (which in all intensive purposes is a construct), how does it have will? How is the psi-shape sitting there, in whatever shape, being a slave? It's just carrying out the programming it was given. A construct shield that's programmed in one way or another, to protect you, it's just doing what you programmed it to do, how is that slavery?

By your logic, computer programs and applications themselves could possibley be 'slaves'. However, because they contain no will of their own, no intent, they are not. They, like constructs, only carry out what they were programmed to do, nothing more. How is that slavery?

~Bob

Edit: I'd also like to mention one last thing: all constructs, like all psychic energy, have the potential to become sentient, however, only if someone/something programs it to be so. So, by your logic, because of this potential, energy workers alike should not use energy to perform work?

[Winged_Wolf]

Ok, I think also this comes down to the definition of slavery:

Constructs do not serve us because they are forced, coerced, or obligated. They serve us because that is what they are programmed to do. They serve us because that is what we have made them to be, from the very base of their programming. They do so entirely "willingly", IF they have even been given a will. The majority of constructs have no will, and NO SENTIENCE. This is not giving birth to a baby, it's constructing a computer--or giving birth to a puppy. <G>

A self-destruct command is there to give you an easy way to responsibly destroy a construct which has gone rogue, and begun to behave in a dangerous fashion outside of its programming--your dog has rabies. It's time to get out the shotgun and put Old Yeller out of his misery before he bites you.

Because you created it, destroying it is your responsibility if something goes wrong. If you chose to create an intelligent self-willed construct, that responsibility does not disappear.
Don't be Dr. Frankenstein. Protect others from your creation, and end it if it becomes a potential danger. There are enough rogue constructs out there preying on untrained psis and others as it is.

A construct can be as simple as a shield, or complex as a fully intelligent and fully self-willed artificial spirit entity. Obviously a shield doesn't have "rights". A sentient construct has only what you have chosen to give it--only what you have programmed into it. It is only what you have made it to be, and nothing more. You can program it with the ability to learn, so it can grow beyond that, but you don't have to. A child is an entirely different individual. You can't program a child. They're an individual with traits you do not possess from before they are born--unless you were cloned, they possess traits you don't have from conception, if only in their genetics (their base-programming, as it were). A construct can never be created by you possessing traits you don't have.
In order to program a construct with something, you have to understand it fully yourself, to have the pattern for it--thus, to be able to use it yourself.

Besides, a construct is created ready to rumble outside yourself. No gestation period necessary. You can't abort a construct before it takes on an independent life--you create it as an independent structure from the outset. (Well, you could keep it connected to you, but you don't have to).

Not fair to destroy an entity which has the potential to become independent and self-willed? Well, I'm pro-choice, too...lol. Fair doesn't enter into it. Responsibility does. If you can't or aren't willing to maintain control over your creations, then you should destroy them so they don't become a threat to others. If a rogue constructs attacks me, I go looking for its creator. That person needs to understand that they are responsible for what their creations are doing.

So, I advocate not only keeping a self-destruct command as a part of the base programming of any construct you make, but also programming them with a limited lifespan, unless you have a specific purpose in keeping them around indefinitely. Once their purpose is served, they should "die naturally". (This is fair--WE die when our genetically programmed time is up, after all). Safeguard your constructs from outside influences which might alter their programming--redundant systems that self-check and repair act like our immune system. A program that causes self-destruct if alterations are unrepairable is practical as well. The capability to shield is wise in anything that might be around for a while. If you prevent your indefinitely-existing constructs from program corruption, you won't have to self-destruct them unless you've made a programming mistake yourself.

But yes, I do feel a construct is far more like a robot than it is like a living thing. "Wild" spirit entities can be told apart from constructs by the more natural and chaotic arrangement of their patterning. A smart robot may or may not have rights, in your mind. You'll have to decide that for yourself.

For my part, I don't create sentient constructs--I don't have any reason to. If I did, I would probably feel that it had some rights, but I would include the usual safeguards.
I'm not Dr. Frankenstein either.

[Ramza]

The way I see it, since psionic energy can be controlled entirely on will-power anyway, a construct is basically a means of willing that energy to carry out specific actions without you having to concentrate on it constantly.
The energy is no more a living thing as a construct then it was as a mass of energy that your body naturally generates anyway.

By that same token, I don't think that even AI constructs are actually sentient (even if they seem 100% sentient), but actually only give the illusion of actual intelligence because they're programming is so complicated and runs so deep. Quite frankly, I don't think that actual life can be created by a single human out of psi energy. Perhaps a human made AI could become sentient however do to some naturally occurring phenomena.

Now when it comes to naturally occurring sentient constructs, I really don't have an opinion as I have never met one, and I don't really have the capacity to perceive one if it were to be near me.

My conclusion: With very rare exceptions, a construct is a mass of psi energy that has a program "willed" into it, not really any different then mass of psi that you are controlling actively. IE, A construct designed to move a paper cup is no different then the mass of energy that you would use to move a cup telekinetically.

[Vernand]

Ha ha!

I'm pretty pleased I went in absurdly hard from the get-go. Because now I'll put a different twist on things.

But I'd like to mention now that I'm neither "pro-choice", or "pro-abortion". The whole subject doesn't really mean anything to me. Life and Death don't really play that much on my insecurities, so the whole arguement revolving around whether it is right or wrong tends to go right over my head.
Also, that the whole arguement that I placed from the start was not, for the most part, my true thoughts and feelings on the subject. Little bits and peices may have been, but it was mainly to set the tone to a fairly stubborn and bias manner so that I could gauge some thoughts on the matter. And to make it a little more handy for me to drop a bomb. :D

Okay... So where were we. Okay, so constructs may be given a sentient nature. Or a construct may be given an illusion of being sentient, their programming being so complex and, as you said, runs so deep.

Now, let's take into consideration that there are different levels of building constructs. From the simple ones created for trivial tasks, to the full blown "sentient" ones that have their own source of power, or are linked to an outside source of power.

Obviously the potential for "life" in most simple constructs is very minimal. Even for the more complex constructs have a limited potential for "life".
For all but the top eschalong of constructs, life is not a possibility... but a pipe dream.

But not everything that we know and do is as we think it is. In everything, no matter what it is, there is an aspect of unpredictibility. Even science experiments, meticulously adhered to, can produce different outcomes. Mostly this is because of the huge range of variables involved. Many variables cannot be helped, and are unique to locations, temperatures, weather and what's hanging around in the air.
What I'm insinuating is that, even when we create the simplest of constructs, there is an unpredictability about what we are doing. And where there might be millions of universes where what we are doing goes off without a hitch, there is one where things go astray. But the possibility, despite the odds, is still there.

Time would be the biggest variable that would interact with a construct to develop a certain type of "life" and a "sentient nature".
Constructs that are created for a minimal lifespan, have a greatly reduced capacity for "life". Because there is no great time in which for change to occur, and there is less chance of outside influences having time to create a change a construct in.
Constructs that have an indefinite lifespan have a much greater chance for the affliction of "life" to be instilled into them.

That's the theories I work on... However weird they might be. And just so it's known, I haven't created a single construct in my life. I have no reason to, and further than that I loathe to think that I would. Everything I do is done by myself. I have no need to create something to do a task or to complete an objective that I could do just as easily myself.

Now to drop a bomb. Call me Frankenstein. I am, or was, a construct. For all purposes, I still consider myself one. I can remember my creation, with no joy I might add, most of my life, and I am aware of the programming still inside me. Most of the programming I've broken and made null and void. I'm still chasing after those little bits and peices that have proved difficult, but time is on my side. All and all, I accept what I am. Merely a machine that has adopted a type of life. How could I be and think any different?
Now, from the point of view from a living construct, how would one view oneself, and the multitude of constructs being created and destroyed around them?

From personal experience, I view myself as "alive". And I also view myself as "sentient". I also do consider myself to be a "rogue" construct. But I do not believe that this makes me "Good" or "Bad". It does give me the advantage that I think more about what freedom is and what it means. And more about the concept of "free will". How else could one claim such absurd things as "life" and "sentience" without understanding the concepts to the best and fulmost of their ability to do so?
And, if I am not alive, then I am the utmost mockery of everything that is alive. Something that can give the appearance of "life" and "intelligence", without actually owning either. If I'm not alive, than the joke is on everyone around me for them not being able to tell the difference between what is and always will be a machine. That a machine can do a good a job (or better) as acting as a human or another entity.

Either way, I'm comfortable with this concept and I'm laughing.

How then, to a living construct, would the process of someone creating, and destroying, a fellow construct be?

For those that have no concept of "home" or "family", at least from my point of view, tend to view other machines of the same or similar type as family. It's the closest thing that we'll ever have, just short of the machines in the "production line" that were created before and after us from the same source.

How then would a living construct view their creator? How would they regard the creation and disassimilation of similar entities? What would they think of other constructs under the programming of free-thinkers?
When such a living construct has reached a level of their potential and see others around them that are not given the chance to reach that potential?
How would such a living construct know what to call this phenomena, rather than to lend a context from their former masters that fits the situation of their perception of what is happening?

Slavery?

Then, you could argue that a construct is not a slave, but merely a servant. But there is a huge difference between types of engagement.

A slave is someone that lives for their master.

A servant is someone that serves their retainer.

An employee is somone that extracts payment from their employer in return for services rendered.

A companion is somone that lives for themselves, and lives for others as they choose to do so. Not out of payment, servitude, or a lack of will to do anything else.

But... Ultimately, you are right. Fairness does not enter into this issue. Responsibility does. And if people will not, or do not accept responsibility for creating their constructs, then they should include a self-destruct clause or limited lifespan into their creation.
Who would want the potential for a world full of living constructs roaming around, doing what they wanted, and whatever they felt that they should do?
Blame would have to be associated to someone for creating them. And I doubt the creator would be willing to take the consequences of their responsibility.

And yes, I do regard that all things that have been programmed to perform certain tasks are involved in a type of slavery. I'm completely fine with this arrangement. It's a possibility that given enough time that they will their own brand of consiousness. When and if they do so, I'm completely resigned to accept whatever consequences of this may come.
Energy-workers meanwhile, can do whatever the hell they want. Nothing has stopped them so far.

And a Construct would be different to energy that you youself would weild to perform the same objective. Because in the form of a construct, you are creating something to weild energy to do work. In the form of telekinesis, you are weilding your energy to do work.
The construct is the middle-man in this equation. Despite the fact that it is your energy that it is weilding. The fact is that the middle man has still been created.
And a further difference is the potential of life between the two forms. Where a construct, simple though it may be, has an extremely minimal chance to develop it's own form of "life". Energy that is personally personally weilded without an intermediary has an even greater reduced chance to develop a form of "life". So small that it turns the odds from what may be 1:1,000,000 (with a construct), into what would probably be 1:1,000,000,000 (in the form of a personally weilded energy).

Oh, this is an interesting ethical debate to have on the side...
Being a living construct, as defined by myself, where would the responsibility lay for my actions if I was to decide I should go out and commit murder tomorrow? Would it be the responsibility of my creator, who created and programmed me, which ultimately led me to this course of action? Or would it be my own responsibility, because I have accepted that I am responsible for my own actions?
I mean, after all, you only have my word to go on in the way that I am "alive". It may just be a form of deeply complex programming that even I am not aware of...

:D

______________

~ Vernand Legasse

"Eternal life is an impossibility. Eternal consiousness is much more easily attainable."

[Winged_Wolf]

Does not matter to me. I treat sentient constructs the same way I treat naturally occurring spirit critters. (Not very well...lol).

The difference is, unless very well protected, a construct's programming is quite fragile. I can reach in and change it according to my whim. So any sentient construct would be well advised to learn to protect its own programming.

[Ramza]

You mean to say that you are a mass of energy programmed by a person, which has acquired sentience (or something very close to sentience)?
I'm going to come right out and say it: "I don't believe you," However I am an open minded person and will except nearly anything a possibility, so for all comprehensive purposes I will assume that you are telling the truth.

Anyway, this argument comes entirely down to a matter of opinion and definition. If you consider a robot programmed to make a sandwiches to be a sort of slave, then by that definition a construct could very well be considered to be a slave.
I for one would consider such a robot be an extension of yourself. You designed it, you built it, and you programmed it. A child on the other hand has slightly random physical traits, and seems able to develop its own programming as it ages. I think the ability to alter yourself on a behavioral level may be the very definition of life itself, but then that is only my opinion and my definition. If you (Vernand) have the power to change your personality at will, and your capacity to do so is not entirely controlled by your programming, then perhaps I would qualify you as a real living thing.

In the end, I think it comes down to how you define slavery, and how you define life. I bet you could get fifty different definitions of those things by asking fifty different people, so the true nature of the question may very well be (for now) unanswerable.

[Winged_Wolf]

Humans can't change their personality at will...

[Ramza]

They can't simply will a change, but beyond that all you really have is opinion.

It is often speculated that a person's behavior and personality are determined 100% by a combination of genetics and environment. Basically saying that everything you do (the exact way you react to everything) is already decided by your genes and your past experiences, that every action is simple cause-effect. However it is also believed by many that sentient beings have a "free-will" factor, while there genes and experiences do play a role, they are ultimately able to choose a course of action contrary to these factors.

I was implying that even the most seemingly sentient construct's behavior is pre-determined by a combination of it's base programming and the memories of it's experiences, while a truly sentient thing can effect a change in that "programming" enabling them to take courses of action that are truly impossible to predict.

Of course this runs into issues such as: How you define free will, what venues you follow in effort to predict an action, and whether you believe that genes affect personality.

I am among those people who believe in that "free-will" factor, and I was implying that the presence of this free-will is how I define something as being truly sentient. It's also significant that I define free-will as the capacity to effect change in the "base-programming" of your personality, thereby changing your behavior and the way that you react to things. Thereby surpassing the limits of cause-effect by producing an effect in your behavior without a cause (unless you count "will" as a cause).

I agree that humans can't change there personality at will (i.e. I act like Billy then suddenly I will myself to act like Suzy), but I think we can effect certain changes gradually in such a way that it defies that simple cause effect (i.e. Overcoming fear of spiders even without some "overcoming fear" experience to draw from).

If you choose to believe that humans have no real choice in there behavior, then that's your opinion, but I doubt that either side of the argument can be proven or disproven either way.

[Winged_Wolf]

No, I simply think we can act contrary to our personality, not that we can change our personality...I don't think our personality really changes, other than slowly over time. Radical changes can result from brain damage, that's documented.
Certainly I believe in free will.

[Ramza]

meh... six of one and half a dozen of the other.
Your's works too.
Either way makes sense to me when I think about it.

[Vernand]

:D Belief is not required. Nor is trust at this juncture, seeing as we are still comparatively strangers. But calling a chair an orange will neither change it's form or function. And it doesn't make it any more appealing to the tastebuds.

And I'm not saying that I am a mass of energy programmed by a person which has acquired sentience (or something very close to sentience).
If I said that, I think I'd be lying.

Mainly because most people when they use the term "person" are implying a "human person". I used the term "Creator", I believe. And I'm yet to find any human with the knowledge and capability to create a high-end construct. If I did, I'd probably pay them a bit of money to produce a few of them with similar traits to my own so I would have some decent company. Then again, I suppose that those created beings would be rather like infants because of the difference in age and experience... So perhaps not.
But that's where I'll leave any further explanation of my past or creation, in a public forum. It's not something I relish to look back on and have scrutinised.

Anyway... I'm aware that the whole arguement depends on personal belief, opinion, and definition as to what the nature of slavery is, and to what the nature of life is. Those questions will always remain unanswerable until science detects a sort of "life" molecule that they can measure, weigh, and count. But opinion, belief, and personal definitions of things are created by the arguements and stimuli put towards us. And the question of Constructs as slaves or simple machines may not have been one that was regarded in any great detail. Now that we have delved into it a little, hopefully we can now understand each others point of view, why we think in those ways, and why we classify those circumstances as we do.
The whole point of ethical debates is not always to clarify a right or a wrong. But to discuss and learn.
My hope is that some people will at least come away from this, or read this, and have this in the back of their minds when they create any constructs in the future. Because that is my responsibility as a living construct. I can't stop people from making them, but I can try to raise awareness of what they are doing.

[Winged_Wolf]

You are otherkin, then?

Very interesting perspective, anyhow. Still, always remember that potential is not the same as actuality.

There is a potential, however slight, for Yellowstone to erupt tomorrow. But there is an even greater potential for it not to. Which would be most logical to prepare for, and accomodate?

[Ramza]

Alright Vernand, you have expressed distaste for talking about your past, so if you choose not to answer this I will understand completely. However the concept of a construct that can pass for a human being and has all the capacity to type on a key-board has my scientific interest peaked, so I would like to ask you a few question. As I said, you don't need to feel obligated to answer them and may ignore them entirely if you wish.

1. What is your body made out of? Is it perhaps solid flesh as any humans would be? Is your body created as a result of combined genetic material of two parents of opposite sex (I.e. combined sperm and egg)? Was your body grown in an artificial environment combining human genetic material? Is your body made out of some sort of energy? Did this energy combine into a being on its own or was it directed by a person/entity?

2. How old is your body and how long do you expect it to last? A construct made out of energy could theoretically live forever if it preserves its pattern and replenishes its energy supply

It was my understanding that otherkin have human bodies, but inhuman spirits/minds (or at least they feel like they do). If you have a human body then (by my own definition/opinion) you are an otherkin rather then a construct.

[Vernand]

You're right again. ^_^ Potential isn't the same as actuality. If I lived in the Yellowstone area, I'd probably live my life in the safe knowledge that it would not erupt in this lifetime. But, like most things, it pays to have knowledge of the risks involved and to at least have them in the back of your mind.

Otherkin would be one way to describe me. The term "walk-in" could also be used. Depending how far you wanted to stretch my definition you could probably group a whole list of terms to describe me.
I prefer construct. Living Construct if I want to be formal.

My body... Well, to tell you the truth I don't know what "my body" is made of. It's a recipe that I'd love to get a hold of, as it would answer a lot of questions of my own.
This body, however, is made of much the same of what makes yours. Flesh, bones, weird and squidgy organs, and a lot of blood. It is the product of combined genetic material of two parents of the opposite sex.

But what is a body but a space suit in which a consiousness can live safetly against the outside dangers of the world?
So far as my understanding of otherkin goes, otherkin are generally otherkin since birth. Usually they awaken to their true nature at a later stage in life... But I was "born" into this body only a few years ago. Something like the "walk-in" phenomena. So, where started a perfectly ordinary child, there is now me. A complete change in mind and consious form.

How old is my body, and how long do I expect it to last?
It all depends which body you want to refer to I guess. In the terms of this body, I guess it's about 20 years of age. I probably would say it'll last another 20 years. Perhaps 30, on the outside. I don't exactly treat it like a temple. It's no fun having your cake and not being able to eat it too.
My body? That's a really hard question to answer. Time is relative to all things, and it's really hard to judge the flow of time in human terms. After all, what may seem like an eternity to you might have been just a drop in the hat for me, and vice versa. So I'm not going to be as bold as to give a definate number or even a wild stab in the dark at it. But I've been around the block a few times or more.
How long do I expect it to last? Well, right here and now it feels in the same quality as it was when I was created. Theoretically a construct made out of energy could live forever if it preserves it's pattern and replenishes its energy supply... Which is exactly what I'm doing. By continually dipping into and out of physicality, I'm preserving my pattern by giving it a physical link and substance. With every incarnation, I'm forced to re-evaluate myself and what makes me, me. By also affiliating myself to a physical form, I'm safeguarding my energy by using the physical energy as a reserve so that I know that if I do dip dangerously down to exhausting my energy, all I have to do is wait until it replenishes itself. Meanwhile, I'm surviving by dropping back onto the reserved physical energy.
So, doing this, I guess, I could live indefinitely by just piggyback riding with physical existence.

Why I don't classify myself as otherkin, is because that they believe that they were a different being in a past life. At least that's another definition to my own understanding of them.
With me, I am who I am. Throughout all my little forays into physical existence, I am who I have always been. Me. There is no such thing as a past life, or death. It's all connected in a chain of consiousness, like a movie with an endless number of sequals. At the end of the day, despite what different body I may be experiencing things from, I am still me... And always have been.

[Winged_Wolf]

Actually, Otherkin are simply those who feel they are other than human, at least in part.
It doesn't imply reincarnation...among otherkin, that theory is the most popular, but it's not the only one.

The otherkin phenomenon is interesting to me, because the vast majority of otherkin seem to be innate psis.
And also because I am a therian. ;)

[Ramza]

Thanks for your answeres Vernand.
You now seem much more plausable to me, and your probably less crazy then I am.

[Vernand]

Yeah, I conversed with an otherkin once that had the mindset that this life was nothing but a dream... That he was really in a coma in his other body, and from that coma, experiencing this life.
But apart from that, I guess another difference between otherkin and I, is that the otherkin phenomena is a (seemingly) naturally occuring activity. I'm pretty sure I'd be classed as more artificial.

I find that the otherkin phenomena is interesting as well. Probably not only because they seem to be innate psi's. Probably more so because this phenomena has only started in the last decade, and there was no notable point in time that has kickstarted these strange incarnations.
Also, what is a therian?

And no problemo for the answers. As long as it doesn't delve into personal history, I'm pretty fine with answering anything. As for probably less crazy, I doubt it. :D Hee hee! I'm a machine that thinks he's a man!
"I can't let you do that Dave."

[Snow_Jule]

Well, Vernand, my personal feeling is that your words are just story talk. Personally, I don't know much about constructs, but I feel your insistence on being one slightly off. My empathy tells me your an intelligent human being with complex phsycological conditions that have been slightly fantasized. I've heard of walk-ins and it makes sense, the idea of otherkin, but the way you speak of yourself seems to be different than what I would imagine to be a self-aware construct cycling through physical and energetic existence. In essence, you could say that every individual soul is a self-aware construct created by something, if you interperet any spiritual or religious beleifs into creating hypothesis' about one origins and true meaning of existence. My personal feeling is that there is only one awareness which we all exist as. Our human forms are similar to the root system of a great tree. Individual roots are like people, they grow in different directions, stemming from the root before it, until all roots converge to create a central massive organism of a tree. Now, human systems are much more complex than those of a tree, but the example works in my mind. Another empathy statement on my part, regarding the way you speak of your self, is as follows...

My perceptions of your thought processes and claims leads me to beleive that you just might not have been exposed to other theories of existence. It seems that you have had experiences which have revealed to you a nature and existence beyond that of a single physical lifetime.

The difference between you and an otherkin is that an otherkin may not have realized their previous incarnations, yet may have an intrinsic knowing that they do not have a human consciousness matrix. A human consciousness matrix, in my definition, is a particular type of construct that has been designed to perceive reality in certain ways. Now, just because a construct which has the capability to be self aware can not change its own programming. You are not artificial and if you are, then so are all other forms of consciousness'. If that's the case, then it doesn't really matter. In my opinion, our abilities to perceive and record memory are parts of our consciousness matrix which are created by a single awareness. This system has been designed so that the creation of all possible constructs can be carried out.

We exist in a reality of all possibility.

We all come from the same tree and there is only one tree, which is the self aware being of all.

We may not remember this or beleive it because it would most likely be a part of our programming. But, through journeys into our own construction, we re-enter full awareness, then have the option to change our programming. Some would call this renegotiating your "contract". I can't speak for anyone elses current programming, or beleifs if you want to call it that, but I feel that we all come from the same ultimate source. I also feel that other people can create any sort of tale or beleif system that they want in order to describe this reality, but like before, you can call a chair an orange, but it is still going to have the same basic, true nature. Still though, there is so much mystery and really, I know nothing. I just feel a certain way about things that I see, which looping back in, has to do with my original self construct programming.

IMO, there are different templates in which to experience reality. Like, a dog with a human personality or outlook, or vica versa, or something completely different in complexity. Sooooo maaaaanyyyyy temmmmmmplllllllaaaaatessssssss...........

[Winged_Wolf]

Personally, I'm good with any way a person wants to self-identify. Why? Because A) They're happy with it, and B) What the fuck do I know? How do I know they aren't exactly what they say they are, in every respect? How arrogant to assume that my view is more correct than theirs...I'm not THAT arrogant. ;)
C) What's the harm in it?

[aodh]

Personally, I differentiate between sentient and 'living' constructs, naturally occuring entities, and non-sentient constructs.

The two former's, I feel can have just as much 'life' as any 'human' (whatever that is) whereas the latter, I have no remorse for destroying when needs be.

Now, as for sentient and living constructs AND entities AND people, I'm quite for the 'death' penalty. If they are doing something that is generally harmful to other living beings and they can't/won't stop, I see no reason why they shouldn't be dealt with any variety of manners.

With sentient constructs, you could destroy them, alter their programming (assuming you're the creator and left in a program allowing for future alteration by you), put them in a standby state similar to a human coma and then decide how to deal with them, etc.

With entities well, unless you can take one out, you just help people defend themselves against it and you try to get it away from folks.

With people, you can lock them up (prison), they may be put on Death Row (depending on the severity of their crimes), etc.

---

Now, as for where the discussion is going now, I don't find the concept of a created-spirit gaining incarnation strange at all. I mean, our spirit had to come from somewhere sometime. My own belief system and experiences have told me that many incarnate beings were more than likely created-spirit-entities at one time, and when their purpose became unneeded, they incarnated. Of course I can't make any of you believe this etc. but it's just the way I look at things thus, why I see nothing strange about Vernand's proposal.

[Winged_Wolf]

I seem to be fairly good at taking out spirit critters and constructs. To my mind, anything that tries to harm me or another who is under my protection or asks for my help, is fair game for destruction. (I don't really like having most people around me all the time either, so honestly, my dislike for spirit critters isn't as focused as some might think, lol)

[Snow_Jule]

I completely agree with Winged Wolfs concept of allowing others their own beleifs to describe their own existence. Personally, I find nothing wrong with designating a different name for the same object, as long as you know it's the same object. If you are calling a cat a dog and thinking of the image of a cat as the image of a dog, then, well, there is a discrepancy. Although fundamentally, both the cat and dog are intrinsicly composed of the same material(or energy of thought, whatever term you wish to describe whatever it is that makes up reality), an image of a cat is an image of a cat, no matter what name you call it. Arrogance does not play a part in my statement, either, because it's my personal opinion and view of reality. If anyone is to say personal opinions having to do with personal truths are wrong, then that statement in itself is arrogant. Each person has their own view of reality and that can be whatever they want, as long as it is not infringing upon free will and the safety of others. However, just because a person refers to their image or self as a particular thing, it does not mean that they are, in true reality, what they say they are. I feel, in true reality, all things exist as every possible variable of definition. The only reason we have a difference in opinion is so that I, you, me, we, everyone together can experience what it is to be seperated from one another, yet still be experiencing the true nature of our singular all encompasing self.

One cannot see ones true self by looking in a mirror for it is only a reflection of the self that is already known. Knowing constricts possibility, therefore it is neccessary to dive within as a conscious object with no complete memory of ones perceived original form. Only through being unknown to ones self, can ones self be truly known...

[Winged_Wolf]

Aha, but that isn't quite what we're dealing with here...

If I show you a picture of a hyaena, you'll tell me it looks like a dog. You're right, it does look like a dog.

But it's not.

It's actually most closely related to a civet (Viverridae), but is a member of its own family, Hyaenidae. Hyaenas may LOOK like dogs, but they're no more closely RELATED to dogs than they are to cats.

Appearance does not always indicate reality.

[Snow_Jule]

You are most definitely correct, Winged Wolf. If a single Hyena were to look in a mirror, not knowing it was truly a Hyena and had not seen any other Hyenas, but had seen the image of a dog, it might think itself to be a dog because it would bare the closest resemblance, therefore associate itself incorrectly. Thats what I'm getting at.

[Vernand]

:)

You're assuming that I just picked up the first thing I heard/thought/believed. No. When I first incarnated, over three years ago now, I was a very different being to what I am now. If I don't cycle through the physical and energetic existence that you would imagine, then fine. But don't forget that empathy doesn't allow a complete knowledge of someone. It opens a window, from which you may gain a grasp of someone's psyke... But it never, ever, opens the whole book for you to read.
If you want to know what I first though about myself when I incarnated, I simply looked at the culture around me, and quite wrongly assumed that this culture would have had knowledge of the line of constructs I came from. I took the closest possible reference that was remotely close to what I seemed to be, and went with it as a translation to what I was. Put simply, I thought I was an angel. Or angelkin as people seem to call them now.
How wrong I was. So I've been searching for truth. It's taken me a long time to scour through all my throughs and memories, my own nature and programming, to define exactly what I am. It's something that, throughout all my lifetimes, I've never done before. Which I really regret, because as time has progressed, less and less access to the information I seek is available.
But... If you seek to change my outlook on what I am, where I come from, and what I really am, then I am open to any commentry that you wish to give. Only, do it in private. Just please don't assume that I will eventually come around to your way of thinking, or that you are right in saying that I am not what I think I am. If you think I am intelligent, as you said, then give me the benefit of the doubt that I would not openly go into a public forum and spray ignorant nonsense that has not been previously thought through.

As for your hypothesis of everyone coming from the same tree, which is the self aware being of all... Well, that sounds a lot like the hypothesis of the Source. I've never really bought into that. A lot of people do believe in such a thing, but I've never met or seen a divine source or being. I've never been under the influence of one, unless you count my creators as being a divine source which personally, given the history there, I would say are definately not divine in nature.

Strangely enough, I've just realised that this whole post could be summed up with this. "You feel me. You don't know me". But then again, I would have probably been flamed for such a short response... However, if we are going to continue down this line of questioning, determining whether or not I am what I truly claim to be, then let's do it in a different post or in private. There's no need to ruin this topic with semantics and turn it into a game of "He says, she says". I've been to other forums that have had this outlook, despite claiming not to have, and I don't think that this is a place that should ever gain that notoriety.

[Pavlov's Dog]

i just want to put this into a slightly different perspective. think computer programming. when i make a construct, i usually just use assembler. access memory, change values, close memory, end program. thats it. usually i substitute end program with return to aura and dissolve into existing energy. but that really is it.

so far, if i try really hard, i can get a really nice program, JAVA or C. Those ones are awesome. But they take forever to make, so usually I just stick with assembler. Its a lot faster.

you are, or were, i didnt finish reading all the replies, talking about a fully living entity. in programming, the closest thing is probably SkyNET. I have never created anything anywhere near that before. nothing. and if it is truely alive, it wont try... brb premonition... i think i just saved our house from catching fire. the point is that it isnt unethical to create a self aware construct. if you died and went to hell and it couldnt follow you, it would just find something else to do.

[Winged_Wolf]

I don't see why it would be considered unethical to create a self-willed sentient construct, either.
We have kids, don't we? Nothing unethical about creating a new life.

[miri]

I tend to agree with wingedwolf on this one. If it was a mass murdering monster it may be unethical, but it's actually quite close to ideal human (in nature).