|
Post by sofiaoh on Nov 14, 2012 21:48:33 GMT
Whoa hey, why are we arguing about desires now, and what is or isn't possible?
All Jones has said is that as far as she knows she doesn't experience emotions, and that, like a stone, she experiences "no desires or feelings of any kind". I don't think, from this, we can't be sure that: A) She has no experiences whatever, or B) She has no thoughts or other motivational drives.
I think perhaps in the Gunnerkrigg universe, one can speak and rationalize and behave without having experientially-based drives (which I assume isn't possible in this universe), i.e., without having an etheric soul.
Moreover, I am not sure that not having "feelings" is the same thing as not having "experiences" generally. Maybe that is what Tom intends, but the comic isn't explicit about it so far. Clearly she perceives things in some sense, although she has no pain or temperature sensors like humans do. For example, she can see Annie in front of her, and can sense when she's stepping on or through something. She also seems to lack an emotive architecture, i.e., she doesn't cry, smile, etc., even internally (i.e., she is not Spock, who's just really good at hiding it).
So I gather that the things Jones might be described as finding "amusing" or "interesting" are somehow 'intellectually' or 'conceptually' amusing or interesting rather than hahaha- or oooooh-'emotively' amusing or interesting. She does not seem too strictly curious about things (she does not seem uncomfortable with not knowing what she is), but she does seem to be able to express intellectual investment.
If you could have a purely disinterested being, with some capacity for reflection and rationality, I think you'd get Jones. I repeat, I think she's just a purely material being, plus some perceptual and rational capacities. It makes sense that she has no drives if she's not alive (she doesn't need food, doesn't feel discomfort; make a list if you want).
|
|
|
Post by sofiaoh on Nov 14, 2012 21:54:27 GMT
Secondarily, I think on this basis you can make sense of some of her behavior.
Why stick around Eglamore and be nice to the guy? Well, he sure seems to rely on her. She has no preferences herself, so she's probably okay with defaulting to other people's.
Person A's preference: Kill a bison. Get help killing bison. Jones' preference: None. Result: Jones helps killing bison.
Person B's preference: See a Vincent Price movie with Jones. Jones' preference: None. Result: Jones watches Vincent Price movie with B.
The interesting question is what she would do in a case of CONFLICTING desires!
|
|
|
Post by zimmyzims on Nov 14, 2012 21:57:10 GMT
Whoa hey, why are we arguing about desires now, and what is or isn't possible? All Jones has said is that as far as she knows she doesn't experience emotions, and that, like a stone, she experiences "no desires or feelings of any kind". I don't think, from this, we can't be sure that: A) She has no experiences whatever, or B) She has no thoughts or other motivational drives. I think perhaps in the Gunnerkrigg universe, one can speak and rationalize and behave without having experientially-based drives (which I assume isn't possible in this universe), i.e., without having an etheric soul. Moreover, I am not sure that not having "feelings" is the same thing as not having "experiences" generally. Maybe that is what Tom intends, but the comic isn't explicit about it so far. Clearly she perceives things in some sense, although she has no pain or temperature sensors like humans do. For example, she can see Annie in front of her, and can sense when she's stepping on or through something. She also seems to lack an emotive architecture, i.e., she doesn't cry, smile, etc., even internally (i.e., she is not Spock, who's just really good at hiding it). So I gather that the things Jones might be described as finding "amusing" or "interesting" are somehow 'intellectually' or 'conceptually' amusing or interesting rather than hahaha- or oooooh-'emotively' amusing or interesting. She does not seem too strictly curious about things (she does not seem uncomfortable with not knowing what she is), but she does seem to be able to express intellectual investment. If you could have a purely disinterested being, with some capacity for reflection and rationality, I think you'd get Jones. I repeat, I think she's just a purely material being, plus some perceptual and rational capacities. It makes sense that she has no drives if she's not alive (she doesn't need food, doesn't feel discomfort; make a list if you want). She may well precisely have an interest in gathering experience, in observing things. Considering that she has quite a longevity and cannot be destroyed, I think that seems only reasonable. Come on people, we are in any case talking about a being that does not breath, eat, shit, age, get injured and so on. You try to get into her mind? Fat chance!
|
|
|
Post by johnwwells on Nov 14, 2012 22:14:50 GMT
Bingo. People attribute desires to natural things. A river "flows homeward to the sea." Thunder "roars angrily." Nature is "beautiful, but pitiless." And if Coyote is right, this creates gods.
I think that to some extent, Jones acts the way she's expected to. To many humans, nature and the earth are servants to be mastered with technology - so she acts like a servant. To the cave people, nature was a strong power that could help or harm, but would aid in the hunt if placated.
But she knows not to confuse the shapes she has been molded into with wants of her own. Does she have wants? She may be erring on the side of caution and saying no, as it's quite possible that she has done bad things for people as well as good.
|
|
|
Post by Doomrider on Nov 14, 2012 23:36:59 GMT
The question here is less "What if she doesn't desire, then how can she do?" and "What if she doesn't desire due to the fact that she is, at this point, insane, or such an alien intelligence that it is incomprehensible to humanity?"
Personally, I'm hoping for insanity. Sanity is for the weak.
|
|
|
Post by 0o0f on Nov 14, 2012 23:40:44 GMT
Come on people, we are in any case talking about a being that does not breath, eat, shit, age, get injured and so on. You try to get into her mind? Fat chance! But part of the fun with fiction is trying to get into the mind of someone (or something) else, no matter how different, so why the heck not?
|
|
|
Post by Lightice on Nov 15, 2012 1:00:59 GMT
Secondarily, I think on this basis you can make sense of some of her behavior. Why stick around Eglamore and be nice to the guy? Well, he sure seems to rely on her. She has no preferences herself, so she's probably okay with defaulting to other people's. Person A's preference: Kill a bison. Get help killing bison. Jones' preference: None. Result: Jones helps killing bison. A very good summary for what I've thought about Jones's motivations even before this page, when I still thought she was Galatea. Even then I had the impression that Jones acts as a mirror to the needs and desires of others to her best ability to fill the void inside her. Though there is one exception that doesn't fit to this theory: Jones has done nothing to conform one person's desires, and has actively tried to oppose them: the Coyote. Is this because he's an ethereal entity with no physical existence, and thus no contact surface with Jones, or because he has done the impossible and managed to irritate her? I don't know, but I'm really curious to find out.
|
|
wheat
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by wheat on Nov 15, 2012 1:30:14 GMT
Crosspost from different forum:
Human beings use two facets to explain what humanity uses to explain life on this earth.
Jones is history, the facet derived from observation, evaluated with reason and set in stone. As human beings are the only ones to keep track of history, she takes form of a human being; this is why she wandered without seeing any likeness since the start of Earth. Why she existed at the start of Earth is because we can look back in time to observe what things were roughly like (through the geologic record and such) before we were even here.
This is the counterpoint to the facet of imagination/myth humans use to explain life that we saw in the previous chapter, that facet represented by Coyote. What led me to believe this was how both characters explicitly made a declaration to being non-extant--in two chapters that seem to have been mindfully placed one after another (probably to draw attention to this fact). Of course, the things Jones and Coyote admitting to are similar, but different: Coyote's admission was "I have never been real." Jones's admission was "I have always been, and always will be in a way that transcends life."
It would fit nicely into the theme of technology/reason vs. spirituality/superstition that the rest of the story has. When people die, we go in the ether while the concrete world continues to spin without us (pup).
|
|
|
Post by sethram on Nov 15, 2012 6:20:32 GMT
So is she saying that Eglamore broke her stone?
|
|
Rymdljus
Full Member
Beautiful songbird
Posts: 207
|
Post by Rymdljus on Nov 15, 2012 9:26:01 GMT
I just find this so fascinating!
If we compare Jones to a flowing river, then it follows that she, like the river, only does anything because of outside forces. Then she doesn't act, just react. We know what forces of nature make a river flow. A river can't help but flow. Is it that way for Jones as well?
|
|
|
Post by bansheekitty on Nov 15, 2012 14:53:43 GMT
She may well precisely have an interest in gathering experience, in observing things. Considering that she has quite a longevity and cannot be destroyed, I think that seems only reasonable. I think this is definitely the case, given that Tom has said that her favorite thing is "Discovery". Which makes sense- she's pretty much seen everything already, so it must be at least interesting to her (assuming any emotions at all) to run into something new.
|
|
krael
Junior Member
Posts: 95
|
Post by krael on Nov 15, 2012 16:03:02 GMT
The interesting question is what she would do in a case of CONFLICTING desires! Great question, and you know the answer: She would remain 'not-beholden-to-anyone'.
|
|
|
Post by davidm on Nov 15, 2012 18:19:04 GMT
The true story about Jones.
Kat strived to make a better robot. First she made birdbots. That is how her lab got the nickname "SkyNet". After that she tried making a human looking robot.
The other humans became concerned that the robots Kat made were too powerful and would replace humans and tried to shut down SkyNet.
In time each side sent forces into the past, to destroy Skynet or to protect its beginning. Meanwhile in future they kept making bigger and deadlier bombs, first kilo-ton, then megaton, then even gigaton bombs that detonated in middle of ocean. (By then earth above oceans was already uninhabitable, not much atmosphere and regularly hit by fragments of what was left of moon)
Jones, one of the Terminators made by Skynet felt regret at how robots and humans were about to all be destroyed. So she set the time machine dial back as far as possible, set up a delayed erase of own memory and jumped in.
Jones is really a robot made from liquid metal, just doesn't know it.
For more information, watch "Planet of The Terminators", coming soon to a theater near you!
|
|
alexh
Full Member
Posts: 113
|
Post by alexh on Nov 15, 2012 20:30:52 GMT
hey that's my theory >
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on Nov 15, 2012 23:06:09 GMT
Were she speaking to a stone, I imagine she'd say: "yes, I'm like a stone, but I'm not quite like you...." *Jones grabs a human from her drawer*"Therefore I define myself as a human, because I have a lot of qualities in common with them as well... " *Jones holds up the human*"of course the metaphor isn't perfect..." *Pop* Yes, but this picture doesn't really diminish fascination. ^_^
|
|