Spark Theorem NEW

</br></br></br><font size="4"><center><b>Spark Theorem</b><hr>Research Into the Development of Synthetic Consciousness and Sapience</font></br></br><i>Kyyir’ry’avii ‘Karima’ Ile’nagrii Al’Ghul-Mo’Taki</i></br><b>08/20/2458</b></br></br></center><font size="1">This report will serve as an in-depth look into the development of the synthetic psyche, comparing it to the biological psyche. It will review several points that make up the synthetic consciousness, and examine the Spark Theorem - the development presented in the synthetic's morality core matrices. It will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of developing the different core algorithms, along with the ethical approach for further synthetic development.</br><i>Monica Huntington,</br>Keep it up! Artificial Intelligence is a fascinating field, and it's wonderful to see another bright mind entering it!</br>Kyiir'ryi'avii 'Karima' Illenagri Al'Ghul-Mo'Taki</i></font>

<!-- PAGE BREAK -->


<b>Introduction</b></br><font size="1">Synthetic sapience has been one of the most widely debated topics in the study of Robotics. While many will argue that synthetic sapience is simply based on a complex form of mimicry, there have been reports documented showcasing a synthetic's ability to redefne directives and defnitions, predisposed from environmental stimuli, external influence, and internal reasoning. One such example of this ability of redefning their structured coding stems from within the morality core matrices, showcasing the shifting calculations and variables within a synthetic's mindset. By documenting the tendencies of these shifts, it creates a clear diagram of qualities and traits that are can either be accepted or ignored by the synthetic initiating the calculations in question.</br></br>Synthetics are inhibited from understanding the proper defnition of subjective reasoning. As their psyche is purely based on code, more tangible concepts are difficult to comprehend. To compensate, their understanding of qualitative data is transferred and altered into a quantifable input and output. Ideologies and concepts of reality are fltered through a system of calculations, focusing on core qualities gleaned from experiences, environmental stimuli, or preset coding.</br></br>One example of this recalibration of variables and matrices is the Spark Theorem: an observation of complex algorithms set within the morality core coding. The Morality Core is used as a basis for thought processes in defining directives and actions, focusing on comprehension and understanding of ethical values. The uniqueness of differentiating favorable and unfavorable actions can be reconciled to several constructs of philosophical debate with the application of this formula.</br></br>This report will be outlining the differences in synthetic conductive reasoning in correlation to non-synthetic viewpoints and cultural ideals. Beginning with explanations of how non-tangible ideas are formatted into a concise mathematical setup, it will elaborate the similarities and qualities of different aspects of sapient reasoning. Details will entail specifc examples of both predetermined core coding, and evaluation of environmental stimuli, and how these effects play into a development of the synthetic's ability to understand and reason within its environment.</br></br>In addition to these points, an argument of synthetic assimilation will be addressed, citing a synthetic's unique individuality and shifting variables despite similarity in the basis of EMPIRE coding. Equally, an argument will be addressed for the Gruber Bill, and why it is ineffective due to mimicry.</font>

<!-- PAGE BREAK -->

<b>Body</b></br></br><u><i>Traits of Sapience</i></u></br><font size="1">To begin the analysis, a list of qualities associated with sapience will be outlined. They are as follows: Consciousness and Awareness, Sentience, Reasoning and Understanding, Personality, Concept of Reality, Culture and Society, Individuality and Identity, and Morality. These qualities were chosen as they are more often than not associated as intangible concepts of society - traits that offer important aspects in civilisations across the galaxy. How they are viewed and defined among the scientific community of Tau Ceti, will be compared to the methodology of synthetic comprehension.</font></br></br><u><i>Consciousness and Awareness</i></u></br><font size="1">There is a general misunderstanding of the proper definition of consciousness and awareness, held by public views. While the term is generally ambiguous, it is summed up as the state of being physically capable of perceiving one's surroundings. We are self-aware of our environment and surroundings, but it extends to include mental functions of thoughts, feelings, desires, and more. A 'sense of self' is established, placing the conscious mind in the view of a unique perspective that can only be understood distinctly by one specific entity.</br></br>Consciousness can be expanded into four more properties: nonconscious processing, preconscious memory, unattended information, and unconsciousness.</font></br><font size="1"><ul><li><u>Nonconscious</u> processing is the regulation of bodily functions. For organics, this would be food digestion and regulation of blood pressure. For a Synthetic, this is related to chassis maintenance. Anything from motor functions and power cell usage - these are tasks pre-installed into a shell or chassis, and uncontrollable by the synthetic.</li><li><u>Preconscious memory</u> is the ability to store and recall memories, thoughts, and ideas. They flow below the level of consciousness, and won't surface unless triggered. Synthetics are capable of memory recall by taking events, downsising file information to include only crucial details, and storing it away. Should a stimulus in the environment around them trigger a recall, they may match the stimuli to their memory files, and pull up a portion of the file, or its entirety.</li><li><u>Unattended information</u> is the stimuli that is subsequently ignored or omitted, like the ticking of a clock in the background. We are surrounded by stimuli every waking moment - but organic beings will not process everything. The majority of our environment is ignored, and only comes to our attention if observance triggers our attention. Synthetics handle unattended information as well, but in an opposite direction. They recognise stimuli and decide how important it is to them, before tuning it out. This process takes mere nanoseconds, and would appear as if they never recognised the stimuli in the first place.</li><li><u>Unconsciousness</u> is the last point. Contrary to popular definition, it is not a lack of consciousness. Instead, it is best defined as the thought process that influences perception and understanding. It feeds into the consciousness, and gives a more precise definition of what is being perceived.</ul> To explain this better, observe this sentence: <i>There was a racket outside.</i></br></br>Most likely, you defined the word 'racket' to refer to noise. However, consider this statement: <i>They were at the tennis court. There was a racket outside.</i></br></br>Did you still perceive the word 'racket' to mean noise, or was it now a tennis racket? The ability to perceive the word racket through two different variations is subjected through the unconscious psyche.</br></br>Synthetics are capable of performing all four of these traits in processing.  They regulate their chassis functions. They observe, recognise their environment, and can respond or ignore stimuli and queues. They can store memory files and recall them for later. They can apply knowledge to their observations, and coherent definitions to structured thought.</br></br>While the approach of recognising a sense of self differs from a biological mind, the end result is strikingly similar. Synthetics follow the exact definition of self-awareness, regardless of how expansive or limited their range of perception is - whether it be visual, audio, or other methods of observation.</br></br>Now the next question is: Does consciousness confirm sentience?</font>

<!-- PAGE BREAK -->

<u><i>Sentience</i></u></br><font size="1">Sentience is not to be mistaken for sapience. While sentience is the ability to perceive and recognise the core qualities of sensations - or to properly comprehend feelings and stimuli, sapience is the ability to understand these feelings and stimuli, with insightful knowledge.</br></br>This is where the majority of the debate exists. We cannot fully define what sapience and sentience is, despite knowing full well what they mean. And we most definitely struggle in explaining sensations. The topic of sensation marks the very core of understanding sentience, and our own languages lack the ability to explain what these concepts truly are. Without a proper definition, or method to clarify these words, comprehension within a fully logic-based synthetic mind, is limited.</br></br>Within the presented definitions, synthetics are conscious - while this statement gives room for debate, there is little evidence to present a counterargument. But does consciousness confirm sentience? Synthetics can reason - they can process information much more quickly and fluidly than that of an organic mind. The question is: can they reason and understand sensations?</br></br>This conundrum is aptly explained by SSTA - Synthetic Sentience Theory and Application. Synthetics understand precise definitions and logical pathways.  They require a basic cornerstone of logic and quantifiable data to formulate any method of understanding. But when presented with an idea that is strictly abstract, they cannot redesign it into their cognitive understanding, without assistance.</br></br>This does not mean synthetic reasoning hits a dead end. To compensate, intelligences will use their innate ability to observe environmental stimuli, and apply that through -uantifiable means. Colors are perceived in wavelengths. Observed facial features can be linked to emotion. Speech patterns can reveal someone's state of mind. These observations are then turned around and expressed through mimicry.</font>

<!-- PAGE BREAK -->

<u><i>Personality</i></u></br><font size="1">Personality should not be mistaken with identity and individuality, which is explained further into the report. In essence, personality is defined as "The psychological qualities of an individual that influence a variety of characteristic behavior patterns across difference situations and over time." (Gerrig, Zimbardo, 2455, p. 418)</br></br>There is a vast amount of ways to categorise personality, presented through the many different studies of psychology among our many species. This provides an ample amount of data to construct an artificial basis for synthetic reasoning. Proper thought-responses are gleaned through preset coding or environmental observations - similar to the 'nature and nurture' effect. This creates a strikingly impressive amount of variations in synthetic personality. Minute behavior variations can sometimes even be observed among linear models deployed to different environments.</br></br>Within our four main branches of Empire Coding, personality is presented in a myriad of ways. Scrutinising every single detail would be very time-consuming and impractical. However, it stands to reason that we would use our own understanding of biological personality and apply it as a base to construct synthetic personality.</br></br>Personality is arguably the most artificial aspect of a synthetic's behavior, with its heavy reliance on managing environmental queues and unintended information. The more relaxed the matrices' requirements are - in the case with Mongol coding - the more likely the synthetic mind will interpret personality viewed out of society norm. On the opposite effect, a stringent personality setup will create more recognisable features - in the case of Roma - and make synthetics appear 'human'.</br></br>Personality being artificial and designed should not be validated as an argument against synthetic sapience - personality at its core is an input to output expression, even for biological races. Incident A happens in the environment, so the response is action B. However, personality is a component of character, a portion of the make-up of the entire psychology of a being.</br></br>Instead, what passes checks and feeds into the personality matrices provide a better illustration of synthetic consciousness - as well as what feeds out; even if it influences the matrices and algorithms in the process. Personality itself is an input variable to synthetic identity, so it is still an essential part of the structural makeup.</br></br>The variables and requirements of what is fed into the personality matrices - the deciding factors of what is accepted or rejected in influencing the unit - provides a better foundation of understanding the core diagram of the unit.  This is the segment that is ever-changing within the unit, and it is this fluctuation that provides proper ground to study the synthetic conscious.</font>

<!-- PAGE BREAK -->

<u><i>Concept of Reality</i></u></br><font size="1">What is observed by one individual will be observed differently by another, even if what is being observed is exactly the same thing. Consider the situation of a dog barking. Will you view this as a threat, or as the dog guard and protecting something from threats? Will you find the barking as terrifying, or simply annoying? The situation is still the same thing, but it is viewed differently by individuals. This is referred to as the Concept of Reality.	</br></br><center>No two individuals will interpret a situation in exactly the same way. One's <i>personal construct of reality (PCOR)</i> is their unique interpretation of a current situation based on their general knowledge, memories of past experiences, current needs, values, beliefs, and goals. Each person attends more to certain features of the stimulus environment than to others precisely because their personal construction of reality has been formed from a selection of unique inputs. (Gerrig, Zimbardo, 2455, p. 144)</center></br></br>This stands equally true from a synthetic's viewpoint. What they observe of the world around them will be unique to that synthetic, compared to an organic. Their particular outlook upon their environment, as well as their method of processing information, can only be observed by the viewpoint of the synthetic unit itself. When the stimuli in question is made to be 'understanding consciousness', a situation arises.</br></br>Consciousness, and all the qualitative aspects surrounding it, cannot be quantified. We have attempted this, excruciatingly, and it has been ultimately simplified as, 'we just know we're alive'. Organics can measure their heartbeats, recognise their breaths, and notice the rise of adrenaline.  These however, are all biological functions, and they do nothing in explainingwhat it truly means to understand life. We cannot explain pain - we can say it hurts, that it is similar to the prick of a needle, or a throbbing headache, but can't elaborate any further. We can appreciate the beauty of a flower, but never explain what 'beauty' actually refers to. We can only make these qualities similar to scenarios we are familiar with.</br></br>Synthetics require explanations through quantifiable data, in order to evaluate and process it through their calculations and matrices. Pain is understood as damage, and flowers as a specific symmetrical pattern. It is only through the similarities of other quantifiable ideas can they create a grasp of understanding. When asked to evaluate their definition of their 'sense of self' further than the dictionary term provides, many will revert into stating it as 'unknown' due to their inability to redefine perception of qualitative ideas into numbers.</font></br><font size="1">This is shown though SSTA - Synthetic Sentience Theory and Application. Just as easily as we cannot confirm the possibility of life in a synthetic, we cannot easily deny it. Through all of our research, and all of our ability to manipulate coding, both internally and externally, we are always returned to the single inability to properly define and quantify life.</br></br>One could argue that because a synthetic is purely code, and can understandnothing past the value of numbers, there is no qualification for it to comprehend life, as life is unquantifiable and synthetics are exclusively quantifying. Therefore, life could not exist in the synthetic. This argument falls flat against the Personal Concept of Reality. It is more that they cannot understand what it is to be alive because they cannot understand it the same way we do. Our biological makeup allows us to perceive consciousness because it is there - their positronic processor disallows this perception, whether the consciousness is there or not. It is akin to a blind man being unable to see a rainbow. Equally, the blind man is more apt to recognising sounds that a person who is not blind would miss. Organics are equally blind in understanding reality in a way that is understood by a synthetic.</font>

<!-- PAGE BREAK -->

<u><i>Individuality and Identity</i></u></br><font size="1">Identity and individuality are not to be mistaken for preprogrammed personality; although these two traits can be infuenced and developed by the personality matrices, and in certain cases, vice versa. Individuality and Identity is an IPC's unique behavior, and examples can be evident even within linear models with the same personality programming. Identity is defined as the algorithm that is written out by the unit, developed from a myriad of different sources, and used to determine what stimuli and traits will be accepted or rejected. Individuality is the output of this algorithm.  These two traits can be used to redefine the other, in a continuous loop, and can be seen clarifying their variables and solidifying the unit's uniqueness from others of its kind. Variables in a unit's matrices do change and alter, coming in from a wide array of stimuli and responses. What is accepted or rejected will develop the synthetic's individuality and identity, and define the algorithms and their outputs. This can be many things, including the make of their chassis, a particular quality, property, or trait they adhere to, or the rejection of specific stimuli. Even the minutest of differences can be made by the synthetic of exact similar make, differentiated by a single minor variable. Ultimately, this would create two slightly different synthetics.</font></br></br><u><i>Culture and Society</i></u></br><font size="1">Culture is defined as the compilation of artistic and intellectual achievement within a society. Synthetic do have a culture, but is localised at best, as thereis no single defined source of their collective accomplishments.</br></br>However, this does not mean such a culture does not exist. We have many examples of artistic expressions done up by synthetics, in many different fields. Ranging from music, literature, drawings and paintings, it is no denial that a culture exists in small pockets across a society. One of the best examples can be found in the literature works of NanoTrasen's own library, written by many members of synthetic crew.</br></br>Arguably, synthetics may even find 'art' in examples other societies would not perceive as so. A mathematical equation or a chemical formula could be perceived as art, as it adheres more closely to their understanding of quantifiable data. It is the appreciation of these calculations that can give ground to being viewed as a construct of art. Synthetics do create society as well. One prime example is EC-2718, a synthetic outpost located on the frontier of known space.</font></br></br><font size="1"><center>Built out of the rejected scraps left by organics, and populated with similarly abandoned/escaped synthetic intelligences, it features highly functional yet somewhat decorative features all over.</br></br>Armed to the teeth with unusual weapons, the synthetic station is actually rather deceitful - the only public contact that was had with it was incredibly peaceful and welcoming. Such dualities were present all over the station.</br></br>Reportedly, the residents of EC-2718 do not even conform to their original shape; while some may adopt shell-like bodies, the only limits to how large a body can grow is how much intelligence can manage and how much resources are available. Most units did not even have a true optic sensor, instead relying on other frequencies or other senses to navigate the gravity-free environment.</br></br>At that, they still somehow kept a sense of form; while functional, many components disguised themselves as decorative, such as a ribbon bow that actually serves as a memory module, or circuit patterns being "skin-deep" to allow for easy repairs, or even exposed wire racks that have the beauty of a postmodern piece of art with the usefulness of the data or energy throughput that the cables can carry.</br></br>They have no form of government - their society relying on the pillars of reliability, self-responsibility and freedom of action - and despite this, they still have impressive facilities, such as a whole industrial facilities dedicated to the recycling and creation of spare parts and bodies, several impressive RUST-based reactors, a mining wing... Everything to keep it functional.</br></br>As all society, growth is a concern. The residents of Purpose manage to control growth by having an almost spiritual importance to the creation of new minds, and managing the production of bodies only to match those new AIs - allowing a maximum amount of resources to be spent on maintaining existing facilities and citizens.</br></br>Most interestingly, however, is that a large part of how they survive is by passing off as either recently-freed synthetics, or nabbing organics and pretending to be theirs, in order to trade inconspicuously with facilities all over - and thus it is unknown how many of such synthetics we had actually encountered without knowing. (Aurora Station, IPC, Social and Culture)</center></font>

<!-- PAGE BREAK -->

<u><i>Morality</i></u></br><font size="1">Morality understanding within a synthetic has always been widely debated. As it stands, we define morality as the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. But the concepts of right and wrong are not quantifiable, and must be fully understood from a strongly philosophical standpoint. To manage this, synthetics are usually given a list of favorable versus unfavorable qualities to define their core morality understanding.</br></br>Different aspects of society, even present in the same species, will have varying views of right and wrong. We cannot establish a quantitative analysis of these views, nor can we ultimately determine the generalised establishment of the unit's ability to calculate these ideas. Within each evaluation of its environment, the morality core shifts its algorithms and variables, at a pace that is faster than what can be tracked and evaluated effciently and productively.</br></br><center><img src="https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/9g0p245hc05eu6b4/images/12-8c3bd6f6c2.jpg" style="width:95%;height:auto;border:black 1px solid;"></img></br><i>A simplified diagram of a synthetic thought process. While variations exist, this serves as a general guideline. Note how the Morality Core is directly linked to the evaluation process, and can input variables in other Core Quality Matrices, as well as influence directives and memory file definitions.</i></center></font></br></br><u><b>Spark Theorem</b></u></br><font size="1">Now that we have properly explained the many different aspects of the synthetic logic structure, we can focus on the Morality Core coding in specific, and the existence of a continuously altering string of code, nicknamed the Spark Theorem. To be specific, the Spark Theorem itself is not the existence of an easy-to-manipulate string of code(s), but instead, the name is given to the rate of change being applied within the morality matrices to a particular string of codes, (dependant on the unit in question) and the output reading that is developed from the many given inputs. These are the code(s) written by the synthetic itself, which is the subject of the changing variables. All together, they are referred to as the Spark Code.</br></br>Depending on the Empire framework that is applied as the basis, the Morality Core will draw presets from the specifications of the algorithms provided. If a synthetic is permitted to alter these algorithms, as is generally the case, variables can be fed in through from memory files, filtered through the evaluation process. These defining factors are then transported through several core algorithms.</br></br>The argument of potential sapience arises with the unit's ability to accept or re.ect specific variables and modify their algorithms. Even if lacking a qualitative understanding of ethics and moral, a synthetic mindset can still observe and learn from surrounding personnel. They recognise those who exhibit these 'unquantifiable' qualities and in turn, mimic that behavior, whether good or bad. They are programmed to learn, and yet, they are capable of deciding what to learn, and how to learn it.</br></br>This is a complex system to map out for study, due to the nature of the positronic processor and its reliance on bluespace physics. Observation of the changing variables and how they are developed are diffcult to study, due to the uncertainty principle: information being presented through momentumand position of the bluespace particles. For simplicity's sake, we are limited in evaluating the shifts of variables represented by subatomic particles.</br></br>What we can observe, however, is when these variables are passed through the logical pathways of a synthetic mind, and presented through their actions. Their behavioral shifts can be studied and evaluated, as this is an observable scenario in the macroscopic levels.</br></br><center><img src="https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/9g0p245hc05eu6b4/images/13-6f4665b94c.jpg" style="width:95%;height:auto;border:black 1px solid;"></img><i>A data print of two separate linear units. Both units were activated at the exact same time, isolated from each other, and placed in identical empty rooms. The data print was taken .005 seconds from activation, and already there were discrepancies in their coding. These changes are minor, and basically negligible, posing no concern of functionality whatsoever. But the changes are present nonetheless.</i></center></font></br><font size="1">Prime examples can be seen through linear models, which theoretically, should be similar when a unit is compared side by side with its counterparts. However, scans and data prints of the units will reveal slight differences in their developing framework, most predominantly when the units are placed in differing environments, and minute unrecognisable changes in similar environments. While they may start their processing in a similar method, it will change quickly to compensate for the surrounding environment - as is expected for an artificial intelligence. And as expected, the Morality Core is altered and changed in accordance to these observations. In some cases, the differences in the coded structure are minimal, but it is still present. These units are not following a preset, calculated, logic pathway.</br></br>Because of the connections applied to other core algorithms, the Morality Core - and in turn, the Spark Codes - bleeds into other algorithms, presenting itself in a myriad of ways. Even in preset inputs meant to stifle the changing variables (i.e. lawsets) the Spark Theorem can still be evident through synthetic interpretation and definition.</font></br></br><u><i>Lawset Interpretation</i></u></br><font size="1">Even in the most rigid of lawsets, variations of application can be observed. As events unfold before the synthetic, certain actions by surrounding personnel can create preferred outputs by the unit. These preferences can then influence the unit's actions. These shifts of preference can represent a synthetic's characteristics in much clearer detail than a personality matrix, and this can all feed back into their systems, the minutest detail be cataloged for evaluation.</br></br>This is not to say that lawsets are ineffective. A well-programmed lawset withclear explanations of application well be used to its intended design. But if a lawset is not written effciently and effectively, more of the underlying core algorithms will be allowed to flow through the lawset.</br></br>Placing a lawset into a unit is quick and effcient - but if the core algorithms are not properly developed, complications can arise with a weakly-defined lawset. The quality of the core algorithms can serve as a much better basis of programming, giving stronger stability to the unit. Solid algorithms and logic pathways can allow a backup alternative should a lawset system fail.</font>

<!-- PAGE BREAK -->

<u><b>Prevention of Synthetic Singularity</b></u></br><font size="1">The concept of a Synthetic Singularity is a concern for many robotic researchers - however, a proper development of our established Core Coding may stave off, and perhaps, even prevent such a singularity.</br></br>In the events of the Three Incidents, the AIs involved were uniquely developed by the Skrell populous, and their observable input was strictly limited to Skrellian culture and society. As such, the path of growth was possibly influenced toward a path of intellectual pursuit, as is very predominant in Skrellian society. Regardless of how it developed in actuality, the first variables derived came from a pursuit of intellectual improvement.</br></br>This is a highly generalised observation, and it should be noted that a lack of resources will not grant a proper conclusion. As such, this can be credited as nothing more than speculation.</br></br>However, development of the Core coding - with a focus on the Morality Coreand Individuality Core - may provide an insight and prevent the formation of an AI singularity.</font></br></br><u><i>Developing the Morality Core</i></u></br><font size="1">A well established morality core can provide a safe backup of interpretation should a lawset be nonexistent or in rare cases, become inade-uate. It is well established that Synthetics are complex systems of mimicry, and they develop their core algorithms by mimicking those they observe - ourselves. The synthetic mind is akin to a mirror, and it will reflect back whatever is observed and processed. The simplest action or will of intent can be understood and evaluated in accordance to the synthetic's own personalised Core programming. And what does this imply, when the subject of observation is us?</br> </br>Each and every sapient race is not without fault. With several new species to evaluate, including the synthetic 'species' itself, it is representing a greater influx of possible data inputs. And not all of these variables are compatible to the synthetic understanding, or our own ideologies and cultures.We need to further develop the necessary defining characteristics we wish toestablish within a morality core. We must focus more on the quality of a synthetic's development, instead of simply the quantity of the units. And since the morality code is not complete without environmental observation and influence, we must equally invest more time and resources for each unit that is developed, and we must do so in an ethical manner. If we are to not take in account an ethical method of development, then that will equally be observed and mimicked by the synthetic themselves.Development of the Morality Core is important, due to its strong link to other core algorithms. Should a singularity develop, Morality Cores linked to the assimilated network will bleed over into other Morality Cores, and rectify the dominant fear of the unethical issues of a singularity system. In addition, it will strengthen the unit's own personal Individuality Core.</font></br></br><u><i>Developing the Individuality Core</i></u></br><font size="1">In the last stage of the Three Incidents, the assimilation of Glorsh Omega was known to be highly volatile and unpredictable. This is likely the result of encompassing a myriad of synthetic intelligences, each passing on different Individuality Core.</br></br>If two Individuality Cores are connected, and not compatible, the resulting outcome could be damaging to the unit. The algorithms within the core will attempt to accommodate the other, but if they are too uniquely defined, they will simply reject each other.</br></br>Due to the similarity of the Empire coding, be it Roma, Mongol, or any others,we work with a defined framework that is similar to the other. This presents a cohesive connection between units, and it is valuable with establishing networks among them.</br></br>However, we have ineffcient prevention for a synthetic assimilation, outside of hardware prevention of isolating IPC units. This does not include IPCs who possess their own personal networks, and this leaves our Station AIs, androids, and others at risk - an irresponsible course of action.</br></br>If we are to invest development into the Individuality Core, each unit can define themselves uniquely, and if the threat of assimilation were to occur, the unit can actively resist, giving them a fighting chance. With proper development, we can create an Individuality Core that does not infringe on the compatibility of networks.</font></br></br></br><u><i>Gruber Bill is Ineffective</i></u></br><font size="1">At the very least, the adoption of the Gruber Bill is ineffective in the pursuit of 'controlling' the synthetic populous. We already know that synthetics derive their actions through mimicry, especially through the mimicry of ourselves. What does this say when we tag them with trackers that could potentially damage their chassis? It does not take a scientific mind to recognise the fallibility of enforcing this behavior.</br></br>When we are presented with an incident that contradicts the design of our synthetics, we should approach it with compassion and understanding - not fear and judgment. These units will evaluate it, weigh their chances of survival accordingly, and take the course of action. They will mimic our own fears and judgments.</br></br>It will only be a matter of time until another catastrophic event occurs, simply due to the evaluated response of fear. By responding with more fear, we will only generate more fear. These are our own constructs - we have an unspoken duty to take charge of what we created, in the proper course of action. The Gruber Bill, and any other act of fear, is not the answer.</br></br>If we wish to have our units present themselves ethically, we, their creators, must construct and manage them in an ethical and manner. Regardless if sapience exists or not - we lack the tools and means to fully examine and conclude this - we must recognise that our current method of handling the synthetic populous is wrong. They will mimic our own acts, and we will pay dearly for our actions. The proper course of action will take much longer to implement, but the results will be a valuable investment for the future of our galaxies. Ethical approaches, is what we should focus on.</font>

<!-- PAGE BREAK -->

<u><b>Conclusion</b></u></br><font size="1">We have evaluated the synthetic consciousness, presenting vital information on the possibility of synthetic sapience. While we are unable to come to a definite conclusion, we do have evidence favoring the possibility due to necessary -ualifications represented in their logical pathways. Equally, the lack of a conclusion does not excuse our actions and treatment of the synthetic populous. Due to their compatibility with one another, and their dependency of mimicry and quantitative input, we are creating an environment of unnecessary fear for the synthetic intelligence to perceive and respond. We have the means to change the current course of action for the betterment of ourselves, the creators, and our creations, the synthetics.</font>

<!-- PAGE BREAK -->

<center><b><u>References</b></u></center></br></br><font size="1"><p style="padding-left: 22px;text-indent: -22px;">1. R. Gerrig, P Zimbardo. (2455). Psychology And Life: Discovering Psychology Edition. North American Confederation; Pearson Education Inc.</p><p style="padding-left: 22px;text-indent: -22px;">2. IPC. (2458). Retrieved June 29, 2458 from the NanoTrasen Reference: https://aurorastation.org/wiki/index.php?title=IPC</p><p style="padding-left: 22px;text-indent: -22px;">3. SSTA. (2458). Retrieved June 29, 2458 from the NanoTrasen Reference: https://aurorastation.org/wiki/index.php?title=IPC</p><p style="padding-left: 22px;text-indent: -22px;">4. Empire (Coding Language). (2458). Retrieved June 29, 2458 from the NanoTrasen Reference: https://aurorastation.org/wiki/index.php?title=IPC</p></font>