|
|
Post by darthgeek on May 7, 2010 9:24:59 GMT
I remember this being covered in one of the recent comic threads, but I'm too lazy to find it at the moment.
I think it's less a question of belligerence/ambivalence towards robots than it is of Jack's desperation- he's willing to do just about anything to get what he wants. Back in 'residential', he hasn't been subverted as much by the "spider", and he's able to get along with people- and laser cows- like anyone would. He hasn't been driven to insanity yet, so nothing was really 'in his way'.
Recently, he's obviously desperate to find Zimmy, and he has a very clear idea of how he'll do that. Anything that would try to prevent him from turning on the power station- like the comic-relief guardbot- is now in his way.
I don't think he's actively belligerent towards anyone or anything at the moment, and I don't think his [change in] attitude towards robots is particularly special or unique. He just has no regard for collateral damage. Of course, that situation might change for the worse.
|
|
blue
Junior Member
Posts: 69 
|
Post by blue on May 7, 2010 13:45:58 GMT
"Kill" usually applies to something that is animated. "Broken" usually applies to something that is stationary. In any case, the chapters detailing the robot societies do show that the robots really are as alive as we are, relevant implications in other chapters show the same thing, and Tom's Formspring answer that says something along the lines of "Aren't piles of meat and bone capable of forming souls?" shows that robots can at least have souls, which supplements the implications that they do. I think the psychopomps are racist against robots. Muut called the Thousand Eyes "electrical appliances", which may extend to all robots. It may be that the birds have incredibly simple brains and cannot form souls, making them just electrical appliances, though. Heh, yes it is true that people apply the word kill to many things. Like, I kill processes on my computer when they are unresponsive. Or, "I just totally killed that test." Or, "I'm in your base, killing your dudes". However everyone knows that things are not really dying in these situations, it is just using the word colorfully. I like that you allow for the birds to just be electrical appliances. Like once you build a big enough microchip it gets a soul. Now, outside of GC I agree with you. I am all for AI rights and these guys would probably pass the turing test pretty good. Also I do not think that souls are even a real thing! Even our brains are just complicated computers. But! In the world of GC, a soul is a definitely real, detectable phenomenon, put in men by some giant eyeball guy or something. I do not think some giant nose guy put them into robots. |
|
|
|
Post by the bandit on May 7, 2010 14:51:06 GMT
In any case, the chapters detailing the robot societies do show that the robots really are as alive as we are, relevant implications in other chapters show the same thing, and Tom's Formspring answer that says something along the lines of "Aren't piles of meat and bone capable of forming souls?" shows that robots can at least have souls, which supplements the implications that they do. No. Here's the quote: Is it possible for a robot to, through its actions, accrue enough spiritual energy for that energy to coalesce into a new soul - its soul? Is a pile of meat and bone able to create a soul with the energy in its brain? Answer: No. A soul is not created by the energy in an animal's brain. This does not shut off the possibility of robot souls, since that wasn't really the question, but Tom's not being obtuse as much as pointing out the absurdity of the original question. Other evidence points to the lack of robot souls: no robot afterlife, and a robot taken over by Reynardine would not die when Rey left (someone else can try to find that Word of Tom). The Gunnerkrigg Robots are more than just programs: that is what Tom has demonstrated, expertly, in Chapter 25. He has not demonstrated or even implied that they have "souls," i.e., a spiritual existence beyond their physical one. Another problem is the vagueness of the word soul. Robots are more than just the sum of their parts; they have a unique mind, which could be defined as a soul. You would think that minds given to superfluous overanalyzation would bother to define terms. |
|
|
|
Post by foresterr on May 7, 2010 15:13:47 GMT
Maybe Jack's spider-provided ethersight (which, at the time of Residential, was still only starting to become usable) made him see robots in a different light? (As mere toasters, that is.) Really, he would be better off just using his common sense... oh... wait.
|
|
|
|
Post by King Mir on May 7, 2010 17:11:49 GMT
Tom did say that robots have souls. He spent an entire chapter showing that they are alive. The are alive, but they do not have immortal souls. So if anyone's ideology requires a soul to feel compassion for that being, then robots can be smashed without care. . . . unlike ants. |
|
blue
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by blue on May 8, 2010 3:57:46 GMT
Ok so if robots are basically the technological equivalent of a human, what is the robotic equivalent for, like, a cactus? A desk lamp?
I am thinking what you guys are calling "alive" you actually mean "sentient". Or do you really mean that anything that moves is alive? Where are you drawing the line?
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey on May 8, 2010 4:22:09 GMT
I think the robots clearly possess self-awareness, introspection, metacognition, and emotion. You can debate about the semantics of "alive" or "soul" or "sentient" or whatever, but that's sort of missing the point. The robots are clearly not just machines, and one is clearly destroying something more than mechanical parts if one destroys a robot.
|
|
blue
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by blue on May 8, 2010 13:22:55 GMT
Yes they are also computers and if you destroy them you break electrical components as well as the mechanical ones. If they want to avoid data loss in the case of hardware failure then they should undergo regularly scheduled backups, like any computer.
Souls are where consciousnesses come from.
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey on May 8, 2010 17:48:43 GMT
You're making two assumptions in your response. One is that data backup is possible with these robots. They aren't normal machines, I don't know why that point is so hard to sink in. Two, if you were able to download all your memories into a computer, and then you died, and then they uploaded your memories into another body, would you be the same? There's a difference between "data" and opinions, feelings, personality, hopes, fears.
The flaw in your argument is most clear in your use of the phrase "like any computer". Besides being a rather dismissive thing to say, it completely sidesteps the point that these robots are not like any computer and as long as you keep thinking like they are, you're not going to get it.
Edit: I had a postscript here that addressed your last sentence of your post, but I'm editing to remove it because I decided that THAT argument was not one to be had on these boards.
|
|
blue
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by blue on May 8, 2010 19:24:27 GMT
The flaw in your argument is most clear in your use of the phrase "like any computer". Besides being a rather dismissive thing to say, it completely sidesteps the point that these robots are not like any computer and as long as you keep thinking like they are, you're not going to get it. Hahahaha The flaw in my argument is that I think I'm right. Let me try. Your argument completely sidesteps the point that these robots are exactly like any computer and as long as you keep thinking like they're not, you're not going to get it. Are you suddenly convinced now? I suspect that you are not. So! "Data backup" Yeah I can imagine that if no one cared about the data you wouldn't need to give them capacity to do backups. How much data could you possibly need about not being able to whistle after all. "They are not normal machines" I find nothing out of the ordinary about them. If I was curious though, I would ask an expert. Someone who knew something about "synovial joints". Or I would consult chapter 113 of the student handbook. "If you died and uploaded your memories etc.." No I would not be the same, it would just be a puppet that acted like me because my soul would not be in it. For things that never had one to start with, yes it would be exactly the same. "There's a difference between "data" and opinions, feelings, personality, hopes, fears." I am not aware of any difference. Those sound exactly like data. As an aside, I am curious: What do you guys think of the times that Robot defeated the Bigger Robot and Jeanne thrashed the shelf of robots, respectively? Murderer and Mass Murderer? |
|
|
|
Post by Casey on May 8, 2010 19:42:48 GMT
Your argument completely sidesteps the point that these robots are exactly like any computer and as long as you keep thinking like they're not, you're not going to get it. Maybe you should read this. |
|
blue
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by blue on May 8, 2010 19:49:44 GMT
Oh so dang he basically addressed all this crap like a month ago. You could have saved a lot of typing on both our parts, guy!
Ah well. I still don't feel too steamed re: jack vs guard since it says right in the student handbook that they're just appliances.
Still ok we can definitely add Robot, Jeanne, and Jack to the "Has Committed Murder" list.
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey on May 8, 2010 20:02:07 GMT
I often make the mistake of assuming that everyone else has read the same sources I have, otherwise I would have linked it before.
I don't think Jeanne actually destroyed any robots, since cam-bot was still intact to show the videos. People specifically asked Tom on formspring if Jack destroyed Guard-bot's CPU when he smashed him, and the answer was yes. In order to decide if Jeanne was a robot murderer too, we'd have to know the equivalent info about those little robots, and we don't know.
In the case of Bull-bot, Reynardine stated at the time that it was a scripted play, leading me to believe that Bull-bot was not a fully sentient robot like Diego's other robots, but rather a preprogrammed mechanical puppet. That's also debatable though, lacking more specific information.
|
|
blue
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by blue on May 8, 2010 20:10:43 GMT
Ok well seeing as how "successful" they were or how sentient their victims were is something unknown to all parties except Tom, I'll move them all to "Attempted Murderers".
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey on May 8, 2010 20:13:46 GMT
For Jeanne, I'm fine with that label. She wasn't perfect... no one in Tom's stories is. For Robot though, I think he lacked the necessary mens rea to be held responsible for destroying Bull-bot. |
|
blue
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by blue on May 8, 2010 20:18:01 GMT
Eh? I would think that would hold for Jack instead? Jack thinks he is breaking an appliance - Robot is a robot and knows about it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey on May 8, 2010 20:32:04 GMT
|
|
blue
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by blue on May 8, 2010 20:56:19 GMT
Meh - that just shows that he's good with robots. Like I said before I'm good with computers and I think it is a shame when I come across one that has 50 toolbars installed in Internet Explorer 5.0 (the only browser on the system), but if one's in my way I won't think twice about using the rebar.
But! Ok so I have to reveal that I've been kind of waiting for you to say that second part there. Robot is innocent because he is under the influence of the new body which changed his perceptions and manipulated his emotions.
Jack? What a creep!
Of course that last part is an average of popular Jack consensus. It is a harsh double-standard! Then again I frequently read comments like "guys did you notice that Jack looks more tired than usual" followed by "Whaaaaat wow I didn't even notice I wonder if he has not been sleeping well maybe he is worried about his taxes?" So maybe not everyone even remembers the whole Zimmy/Spider thing.
Now to respond to what I guess the whole point of the thread was to start with!
Yeah Jack is getting progressively worse over time. Also that spider on his face is doing webs and getting bigger. That's weird.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mezzaphor on May 8, 2010 21:07:24 GMT
Jack is in control of his actions, so the only mitigating factor in his case is that he's not at full mental capacity. It's not outright stated, but it's possible that Robot was not in control of the actions of S1's body.
|
|
blue
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by blue on May 8, 2010 21:23:43 GMT
Jack is in control of his actions, so the only mitigating factor in his case is that he's not at full mental capacity. It's not outright stated, but it's possible that Robot was not in control of the actions of S1's body. Haha ok so Jack is definitely in control of his actions but maybe robot was not in control. Is there another one of those formspring answers where Tom says "oh yeah that spider is just a cool etheric tattoo he got". Robot doesn't say "it was like I couldn't control my body", it was " ". So this is a valid excuse for a robot but not for Jack. |
|
|
|
Post by Casey on May 8, 2010 21:48:25 GMT
I think an argument could be made that Jack isn't in control of his actions; that the spider's influence (whether it be through corruption or direct control) causes Jack to be operating at "diminished capacity". Others have made that argument and I for one am willing to accept the possibility that Jack the boy is not really at fault.
|
|
blue
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by blue on May 8, 2010 22:07:12 GMT
In the land of maybes and probabilities that is as close to a success as I can claim, I think~
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey on May 8, 2010 23:01:56 GMT
If asserting that Jack may not be fully responsible for his actions was your goal from the start, you should have said so. I said several days ago that I think it's possible Jack might not be at fault for what he's done.
|
|
|
|
Post by penguinfactory on May 8, 2010 23:30:02 GMT
I don't know whether this has been brought up before, but maybe Jack was so nice to the laser cows because they referred to him as "sir Hyland" or whatever it was, rather than because he's become more insane in the meantime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Casey on May 9, 2010 0:01:39 GMT
Are you saying he -hasn't- become more insane in the meantime? Really?
And LC 15 referred to him as Mr. Hyland. Is that what you meant?
|
|
blue
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by blue on May 9, 2010 0:51:19 GMT
If asserting that Jack may not be fully responsible for his actions was your goal from the start, you should have said so. I said several days ago that I think it's possible Jack might not be at fault for what he's done. Nah, my goal from the start was to show that who cares about robots they are just toasters. However when it was revealed through Word of Tom that emergent intelligence also 'counts' then it chuffed me that people are much harsher against Jack than Robot. |
|
|
|
Post by Casey on May 9, 2010 2:17:55 GMT
Well... at the risk of repeating myself, I personally thought that it was pretty clear that Robot was riding shotgun in the head of another robot (S1) who was programmed to run an elaborate play. He had no ability to control or override the program. So I don't think that any harshness is due to Robot.
On the other hand, we don't really know what's going on with Jack. It's entirely possible that he, like Robot, is now riding shotgun to something else's actions through his body. It's possible, even, that we're seeing an intentional parallel by Tom... he is certainly a good enough writer to make it a deliberate moral parallel. In another Formspring answer, Tom said that it was his hope and design that people were as conflicted and in disagreement about Jack... I'll see if I can dig it up. I think it's certainly possible that Tom intentionally wrote a character where people love the guy, but hate his deeds, and end up conflicted about whether it's really his fault or if he's really to blame. It's better programming than you get on TV.
|
|
