NANOTRASEN

Spark Theorem
Research Into the Development of
Synthetic Consciousness and Sapience
Kyyirryavii Karima Ilenagrii AlGhul-MoTaki
08/20/2458

This report will serve as an in-depth look into the development of the synthetic
psyche, comparing it to biological psyche. It will review several points that make
up the synthetic consciousness, and examine the Spark Theorem the
development presented in the synthetics 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.

Introduction
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 synthetics ability to redefine directives and definitions,
predisposed from environmental stimuli, external influence, and internal
reasoning. One such example of this ability of redefining their structured
coding stems from within the morality core matrices, showcasing the shifting
calculations and variables within a synthetics 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.
Synthetics are inhibited from understanding the proper definition 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 quantifiable input and
output. Ideologies and concepts of reality are filtered through a system of
calculations, focusing on core qualities gleaned from experiences,
environmental stimuli, or preset coding.
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.
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 specific examples of both
predetermined core coding, and evaluation of environmental stimuli, and
how these effects play into a development of the synthetics ability to
understand and reason within its environment.

In addition to these points, an argument of synthetic assimilation will be

addressed, citing a synthetics 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.
Body
Traits of Sapience
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 civilizations 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.
Consciousness and Awareness
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 ones 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.
Consciousness can be expanded into four more properties: nonconscious
processing, preconscious Memory, unattended information, and
unconsciousness.

Nonconscious 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.

Preconscious memory is the ability to store and recall memories,

thoughts, and ideas. They flow below the level of consciousness, and

wont surface unless triggered. Synthetics are capable of memory

recall by taking events, downsizing 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.

Unattended information 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 recognize 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 recognized the stimuli in the first place.

Unconsciousness 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.

To explain this better, observe this sentence: There was a racket outside.
Most likely, you defined the word racket to refer to noise. However, consider
this statement: They were at the tennis court. There was a racket outside.
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.
Synthetics are capable of performing all four of these traits in processing.
They regulate their chassis functions. They observe, recognize 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.
While the approach of recognizing 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.
Now the next question is: Does consciousness confirm sentience?
Sentience
Sentience is not to be mistaken for sapience. While sentience is the ability to
perceive and recognize 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.
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.
Within the presented definitions, synthetics are conscious while this
statement gives room for debate, there is little evidence to present a counter
argument. 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?
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.
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 quantifiable means. Colors are perceived in
wavelengths. Observed facial features can be linked to emotion. Speech
patterns can reveal someones state of mind. These observations are then
turned around and expressed through mimicry.

Personality
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)
There is a vast amount of ways to categorize 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.
Within our four main branches of Empire Coding, personality is presented in
a myriad of ways. Scrutinizing every single detail would be very timeconsuming 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.
Personality is arguably the most artificial aspect of a synthetics 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 recognizable features in the case of
Roma and make synthetics appear human.
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.
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.
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.
Concept of Reality
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.
No two individuals will interpret a situation in exactly
the same way. Ones personal construct of reality
(PCOR) 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)
This stands equally true from a synthetics 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.
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 were alive. Organics can measure

their heartbeats, recognize their breaths, and notice the rise of adrenaline.
These however, are all biological functions, and they do nothing in explaining
what 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 cant 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.
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.
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.
One could argue that because a synthetic is purely code, and can understand
nothing 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 recognizing 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.
Individuality and Identity

Identity and individuality are not to be mistaken for preprogrammed

personality although these two traits can be influenced and developed by
the personality matrices, and in certain cases, vice versa. Individuality and
Identity is an IPCs 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 units uniqueness
from others of its kind.
Variables in a units matrices do change and alter, coming in from a wide
array of stimuli and responses. What is accepted or rejected will develop the
synthetics 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
Culture and Society
Culture is defined as the compilation of artistic and intellectual achievement
within a society. Synthetic do have a culture, but is localized at best, as there
is no single defined source of their collective accomplishments.
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 NanoTrasens own library,
written by many members of synthetic crew.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 RUSTbased reactors, a mining wing... Everything to keep it
functional.

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.
Most interestingly, however, is that a large part of
how they survive is by passing off as either recentlyfreed 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)
Morality
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.
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 generalized
establishment of the units 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
efficiently and productively.

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.

Spark Theorem
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-tomanipulate 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.

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.
The argument of potential sapience arises with the units ability to accept or
reject 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 recognize 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.
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 difficult to study, due
to the uncertainty principle: information being presented through momentum
and position of the bluespace particles. For simplicitys sake, we are limited
in evaluating the shifts of variables represented by subatomic particles.
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.

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.
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 unrecognizable 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.
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.
Lawset Interpretation
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 units actions. These shifts of preference can represent a
synthetics 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.
This is not to say that lawsets are ineffective. A well-programmed lawset with
clear explanations of application well be used to its intended design. But if a
lawset is not written efficiently and effectively, more of the underlying core
algorithms will be allowed to flow through the lawset.

Placing a lawset into a unit is quick and efficient 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.
Prevention of Synthetic Singularity
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.
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.
This is a highly generalized 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.
However, development of the Core coding with a focus on the Morality Core
and Individuality Core may provide an insight and prevent the formation of
an AI singularity.
Developing the Morality Core
A well established morality core can provide a safe backup of interpretation
should a lawset be nonexistent or in rare cases, become inadequate. 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 synthetics own personalized
Core programming. And what does this imply, when the subject of
observation is us?

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 to
establish within a morality core. We must focus more on the quality of a
synthetics 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 units own personal Individuality Core.
Developing the Individuality Core
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.
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.
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.
However, we have inefficient 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.
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.
Gruber Bill Is Ineffective
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
recognize the fallibility of enforcing this behavior.
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.
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.
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 recognize 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.

Conclusion
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 qualifications 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.

Reference

1. R. Gerrig, P Zimbardo. (2455). Psychology And Life: Discovering Psychology

Edition. North American Confederation: Pearson Education Inc.
a. ((R. Gerrig, P Zimbardo. (2009). Psychology And Life: Discovering
Psychology Edition. United States of America: Pearson Education Inc.))
2. IPC. (2458). Retrieved June 29, 2458 from the NanoTrasen Reference:
https://aurorastation.org/wiki/index.php?title=IPC
3. SSTA. (2458). Retrieved June 29, 2458 from the NanoTrasen Reference:
https://aurorastation.org/wiki/index.php?title=IPC
4. Empire (Coding Language). (2458). Retrieved June 29, 2458 from the
NanoTrasen Reference: https://aurorastation.org/wiki/index.php?title=IPC

((Disclaimer: This document is a fictional work, and holds no actual scientific

data, aside from what has been quoted from real-world educational publications.
It should not be used for reference, outside of the Aurora Station Community.
While educational non-fiction publications were used, the reference has been
edited to reflect a futuristic sci-fi alternate reality. The actual publication has
been credited in a sub note on the reference page. In short, I DIDNT PLAGARIZE.
Thank you.))