|
ungulateman posted:Star Wars not literally taking place in the future doesn't prevent it from being speculative fiction about our future, hth Star Wars is speculative in the same way that fantasy is speculative because the orcs are stand-ins for black people.
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:35 |
|
|
Speculative fiction about the future is actually speculative fiction about the present.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
Yorkshire Tea posted:This is completely reasonable and something I struggle with conceptually since we have literally no idea of how robots would actually work in the future. Absent any knowledge I just assumed the technology was there to do it. They actually show the robots suffering in the movies? Why is this an argument?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:I get the impression sometimes that 3PO and several of the other droids actually do have some "set free will to 0" moments sometimes when I watch the movies. I feel like there are a few instances throughout the series where it seems like there's a level of directness or clarity from a droid's master that they must obey no matter how much they complain about it or protest it (regardless of whether they have a slave circuit or whatever installed). You mean like a slave? edit: and why would the droids need restraining bolts? Dubplate Fire fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Feb 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
Star Wars Droids. Some show sentience, some don't. Some have thought and emotions, others show no emotion and all and exist solely to kill. It's the inconstancy in their portrayal that leads to these arguments. Or course, things were more clear before. Before the dark times. Before the prequels.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
Yaws posted:Star Wars Droids. Some show sentience, some don't. Some have thought and emotions, others show no emotion and all and exist solely to kill. It's the inconstancy in their portrayal that leads to these arguments. Not really, because most of the arguments are focused around the OT. The people saying otherwise bring up the battle droids even though TPM shows them having distinct personalities anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
Buzz droids are not people
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Not really, because most of the arguments are focused around the OT. The people saying otherwise bring up the battle droids even though TPM shows them having distinct personalities anyway. The prequels are where it gets muddled though. Some of the droids show sentience and others don't. I wish Lucas was smarter so we'd have more internal consistency in these films. It'd make these discussions go more smoothly. Fans care more about this stuff that George Lucas does so we're left to sort out the mess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
~sigh
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
Yaws posted:Star Wars Droids. Some show sentience, some don't. Some have thought and emotions, others show no emotion and all and exist solely to kill. It's the inconstancy in their portrayal that leads to these arguments. It's really only the destroyer droids who aren't given any humanizing qualities, so to speak - but they're still droids, which means they're still people, even if they're only depicted as implacable and uncommunicative enemies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
There's plenty of miscellaneous soldiers in The Hidden Fortress that just stand around and never speak, but I feel comfortable assuming that they're intelligent creatures even if it's not demonstrated in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:It's really only the destroyer droids who aren't given any humanizing qualities, so to speak Off the top of my head the droids who aren't shown to be sentient: Buzz droids, mouse droids, IG-100 MagnaGuard droids and Droidekas. Obi-Wan can cut these fuckers down without any moral qualms because, like the people who defend the prequels, they're not capable of intelligent thought.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
Yaws posted:The prequels are where it gets muddled though. Some of the droids show sentience and others don't. Yaws posted:Off the top of my head the droids who aren't shown to be sentient: mouse droids Hmm, strange, since mouse droids are in the OT.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
great gotcha
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
Also those other guys are shown to be as sentient as IG-88 was in the OT (i.e., able to take orders).
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
Vulture Droids are also not people. They are birds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
hmm interesting did you know droid spell backwards is the same as forwards?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
Yaws posted:Obi-Wan can cut these fuckers down without any moral qualms because, like the people who defend the prequels, they're not capable of intelligent thought.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
Droid fact: droids are never shown to be breathing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
Droid fact: Some droids can sit and stand, while other droids like R2D2 can only sit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
Martman posted:You should change your username to Yawn. C'mon man. I'm just trying to have fun with my friends online. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
I was riffing on your jokes with a counter-double-sick burn. It's an advanced maneuver.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
Droid is a kingdom, within which some people exist, and some things that are basically insects or toasters or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
Martman posted:I was riffing on your jokes with a counter-double-sick burn. It's an advanced maneuver. 
Yaws fucked around with this message at 07:49 on Feb 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
The buzz droids seemed to be enjoying themselves, anyway. They're probably bad people, though-- they seemed a bit gleeful over the horrific decapitation of Obi-wan's R2 unit. I don't think we even see enough of mouse droids to say they're not people-- they're small and roll around and beep, which also describes BB-8 and R2-D2. Notably, the most prominent thung a mouse droid does is demonstrate an emotional reaction to something (fear of Chewbacca), but I guess an animal would react similarly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Are you in fact a droid? Defending all droid kind?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Jerkface posted:Droid is a kingdom, within which some people exist, and some things that are basically insects or toasters or whatever. A lot of great posts here, but I think it's more sensible that droids were constructed to store grain. Dubplate Fire posted:You mean like a slave? Exactly. Dubplate Fire posted:edit: and why would the droids need restraining bolts? Because they're sentient beings that, depending on how they were initially programmed/memory wiped/whatever might need the extra force to obey their masters from people that would prefer to surround themselves with expensive toasters and free slave labor instead of fellow life forms. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Feb 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 15:18
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I'm not seeing how you're making that last leap. Like, yes, there are related concepts that would presumably also need to be impossible for them to understand, but I don't see why you're saying those concepts are intrinsic to sapience. This feels an awful lot like you making a circular argument. I'm going to need you to explain to me what it is that is going missing in this hypothetical entity that you believe is incompatible with how we might understand what it means to be sapient. If someone proposed that they had invented a sapient computer program, and it was unable to understand that people could move around, would you conclude that it was sapient, or that it was an extremely capable chatbot?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:If someone proposed that they had invented a sapient computer program, and it was unable to understand that people could move around, would you conclude that it was sapient, or that it was an extremely capable chatbot? Allegory of the cave?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:Can a Mod make this the new thread title? I really want this to happen. SuperMechagodzilla posted:The perversion is in the Air Bud logic employed: "there's no rule says you can't rape a Buick!" You've effectively created an elaborate fantasy scenario in which you 'trick' the Big Other into permitting a horrible crime because - on the symbolic level - it's 'just a car'. I am in tears over here. Why the hell do people want this thread to "get back on track" wondering if Poe Dameron is gay or whatever?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
porfiria posted:Would you object to surgically transforming dogs into beautiful women and having sex with them (if they still had dog brains)? I really, really wish this post was made before Pixels came out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:I really, really wish this post was made before Pixels came out. Oh yeah, I forgot that that actually happened in that movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 17:52
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:Allegory of the cave? There's getting Platonic, and then there's interacting with something that people insist is sapient but from the outside is marginally more intelligent than ELIZA. Which is what is being proposed when people put up these creepy fantasies. I mean, I do take huge exception to the idea that children can't perform calculus because they have a lower order of sapience or whatever, because that presumes calculus is a qualia that exists independently of all other math, rather than it requiring an accumulation of qualia to be able to understand, but that's a minor quibble compared to the idea that you can describe a mind that is incapable of conceiving of anything which is not, essentially, itself as sapient.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
I wonder what BB-8's grandfather would think of all this. He was a slave, too, you know: Unfortunately for him, he didn't have a magic get-out-of-slavery-free card like the spoiled little munchkin over there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:If someone proposed that they had invented a sapient computer program, and it was unable to understand that people could move around, would you conclude that it was sapient, or that it was an extremely capable chatbot? It depends on what it was like to interact with it. But I don't see how it rules it out. Note, this is still you not explaining or arguing for anything, just asking more incredulous questions. Effectronica posted:I mean, I do take huge exception to the idea that children can't perform calculus because they have a lower order of sapience or whatever, because that presumes calculus is a qualia that exists independently of all other math, rather than it requiring an accumulation of qualia to be able to understand, but that's a minor quibble compared to the idea that you can describe a mind that is incapable of conceiving of anything which is not, essentially, itself as sapient. Ah, so part of the problem is that you don't know much about child educational development.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 18:05
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:It depends on what it was like to interact with it. But I don't see how it rules it out. Well, I'm interested in getting you to see why your proposal would be horrifying if it wasn't so inane in practice, so I'm trying to get you to think in particular terms about what you are actually proposing. Because I can't actually force you to do this, and you don't apparently want to do this, it's a very slow process, compounded by you being a dickhead. So let's try this differently. The proposal you are suggesting is that a mind which is incapable of conceiving of anything which is not functionally a duplicate of itself can be described as sapient (because otherwise, it would be capable of analogizing to an entity which is not it which it could use to develop a sense of "non-servitude" which could serve as freedom). That is, you probably read Peter Watts and concluded that sapience does not necessitate sentience, because such a mind is not sentient. It is not self-aware. It cannot actually engage in subjective experiences, because all of its experiences are, as far as it is able to determine, objective ones. So, as a consequence, we can't actually interact with such an entity because it cannot perceive our questions as anything other than its internal imperatives. Furthermore, it can't actually learn anything about its environment because it is unable to conceive of anything which is not it. So, since "sapience" is not this rigidly-defined quality, I can only say that an entity which cannot interact with anything else meaningfully is not sapient under my definition, and I presume most people's. I suppose that what will follow next is a belief in magic spells whereby we can allow an entity to be sentient but nevertheless prevent it from conceiving of freedom, possibly by preventing it from having figurative language skills. Really, the basic issue here is that you seem to conceive of the brain as a computer, where you can, by whatever means, essentially disable freedom.dll and run sapience.exe without any other changes beyond having it say "You have come to a world called Gor! *whipcrack*" on startup.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Well, I'm interested in getting you to see why your proposal would be horrifying if it wasn't so inane in practice, so I'm trying to get you to think in particular terms about what you are actually proposing. Because I can't actually force you to do this, and you don't apparently want to do this, it's a very slow process, compounded by you being a dickhead. It's a slow process because this is the first post in some time where you've actually bothered to write something affirmative yourself, rather than just ask leading, incredulous questions. So I thank you for this post. Let's clarify what we mean by "a mind which is incapable of conceiving of anything which is not functionally a duplicate of itself," since it's sort of vague. I believe that there exist minds which are not capable of conceiving of absolutely anything, that is, that are not unlimited in their capacity to conceive. I would include in this category all known minds. I believe that a human being can conceive of things that a chimpanzee cannot. I can analogize this to suppose a creature that can conceive of things that a human can't. If humans are sapient, then a sapient creature can exist that can only conceive of a subset of all that is conceivable. I do not believe that a mind which is limited to only conceiving of duplicates of itself would be sapient. I have never proposed such. And, unfortunately, this seems to be what you are addressing in your fourth paragraph. In regards to the last bit, you have it completely backwards. I think our minds are highly determined by our evolutionary ancestry and not just some sort of universal thinking platform. It's the latter view which is more likely to lead you down the path to believing that there was some magic day when humans could think anything and everything, without limitation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:02
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:It's a slow process because this is the first post in some time where you've actually bothered to write something affirmative yourself, rather than just ask leading, incredulous questions. So I thank you for this post. Okay. Where does this tie into this idealized slave idea? Like, you conclude that chimpanzees are dumber than we are, which is not something I want to get all semantical about. And, hell, we can't say for sure that changes in behavior while under captivity, or attempting to escape, are proof that any given animal is capable of understanding it's in a cage, so any argument leaning on the prospect that animals which are clearly not sapient nevertheless conceive of freedom to such an extent as to be unable to be this perfect slave will be fruitless. With that being said, anything we cannot conceive of is irrelevant to this discussion, because it cannot be discussed. All it is is an attempt to make the proposition more reasonable by imparting a false humility. It's really an obscenity, like someone invoking the inherent subjectivity of perceptions in order to jazz up their philosophical argument around justifying genocide or race war. However, you have, in fact, proposed a mind that is limited to only conceiving of duplicates of itself, because you are proposing a mental system that is immune to conceiving of freedom and that is the only way to propose such a mental system without appealing to magic. At that point, I might as well say that Nyarlathotep, the origin of consciousness in the universe, not only forbids the use of magical means to attempt to perfect slavery, he also sends massive misfortune at those who try, and it would be precisely as relevant and meaningful as saying "Well, you can't disprove the possibility of a mind that is exactly like a human's except unable to put concepts together in such a way as to produce a state outside of its own to understand as freedom." Then we have more tawdry attempts at respectability, such as the proposition that evolution is incapable of producing a universal thinking platform, which sounds nice and scientific (but actually is the main precursor to Alvin Plantina's evolutionary argument for God).
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
I don't think it's at all clear that all non-human animals lack sapience. That seems like a hell of a thing to assume.Effectronica posted:However, you have, in fact, proposed a mind that is limited to only conceiving of duplicates of itself, because you are proposing a mental system that is immune to conceiving of freedom and that is the only way to propose such a mental system without appealing to magic. How does this follow?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 00:35 |
|
|
Weren't all your questions answered in iRobot??
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:39
|
|