|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Apr 3, 2020 7:02:47 GMT
Looks like Robot may no longer self-identify as male (or will shortly). [edit] With regard to what I posted before about who the not-angel probably was, looks like Kat was indeed monitoring so that's why Robot wasn't elevating her as he might otherwise have. Or maybe I misgendered the not-angel (though in my defense I did mention that it wasn't certain that the not-angel was female.)[/edit] |
|
|
|
Post by philman on Apr 3, 2020 7:08:50 GMT
Ok so I was wrong about it being Sky Watcher.
Looking forward to seeing what form Robot will take, will he end up being a literal flying cherubim as he appeared in this chapter?
|
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Apr 3, 2020 7:17:21 GMT
Not sure about the wings but the representation of the not-angel probably looks like what Robot is thinking about when planning what his body will look like. The Seraph robots did have wings but what their function was (if any) is unknown, but it appears they can't fly (outside of a reality distortion). Even so, they did appear to be articulated so he may retain some code relating to moving them (even if they were just decorative they might show emotions or emphasize words or something) or he may miss them... or maybe he just wants real wings. With wings that work he could fly with Shadow (who can at least glide).
|
|
|
|
Post by madjack on Apr 3, 2020 7:18:36 GMT
[edit] With regard to what I posted before about who the not-angel probably was, looks like Kat was indeed monitoring so that's why Robot wasn't elevating her as he might otherwise have. [/edit] Given she asks him how it was going, she's probably not watching too closely. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Apr 3, 2020 7:21:56 GMT
[edit] With regard to what I posted before about who the not-angel probably was, looks like Kat was indeed monitoring so that's why Robot wasn't elevating her as he might otherwise have. [/edit] Given she asks him how it was going, she's probably not watching too closely. Kat probably wasn't observing the interface or paying much attention to the jacked-in robots but she was in the vicinity and Robot would have known that she was around. |
|
|
|
Post by theonethatgotaway on Apr 3, 2020 8:19:41 GMT
Given she asks him how it was going, she's probably not watching too closely. Kat probably wasn't observing the interface or paying much attention to the jacked-in robots but she was in the vicinity and Robot would have known that she was around. I imagine it was somewhat like looking at the Matrix code. You get some sense of what's happening, but there's too much information to get the details exactly. Is Robot... The One? Could he make the jump on his first try? What if he does? |
|
|
|
Post by wies on Apr 3, 2020 8:53:20 GMT
So I was wrong about the Guide not being Robot.
This was one of my favorite chapters of the whole series.
Tom earlier surprised us with this version of Robot's body, so I suspect he will in a later chapter just drop the newest body on us without warning.
Also very curious to what else next week might come besides a new chapter.
|
|
|
|
Post by bicarbonat on Apr 3, 2020 9:17:42 GMT
Okay so my original guess was right. The biggest April Fool's was the zig that Tom zagged along the way. |
|
|
|
Post by dramastix on Apr 3, 2020 9:41:14 GMT
Also very curious to what else next week might come besides a new chapter. As the resident OB, my guess is Baby Announcement! But no really this was a lovely chapter and I'm so curious for the fallout when the court finally cottons on to what's happening. |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Apr 3, 2020 12:37:19 GMT
Oh, please don't give S13 the same body we just saw as the "I-am-not-the-angel-I-just-look-like-one" guide. I can't stand this smug face.
|
|
|
|
Post by netherdan on Apr 3, 2020 12:50:10 GMT
Oh but it won't have wings, Robot. It won't have wings.
|
|
|
|
Post by fia on Apr 3, 2020 14:58:08 GMT
Also very curious to what else next week might come besides a new chapter. As the resident OB, my guess is Baby Announcement! !!! *o* !!! I mean it's possible but I think it more likely it has to do with that potential animated series. |
|
Earin
Full Member
Posts: 115
|
Post by Earin on Apr 3, 2020 15:31:46 GMT
"I want to look like two interlocked flaming wheels covered with eyes."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2020 15:43:53 GMT
"I clicked the Wikipedia article on Renaissance painting yesterday. It changed my life." PS. Robot's aspiration towards becoming more like Jones (he wouldn't be the first such character in GkC) is undercut by his not having figured out yet that she doesn't smile and never was inclined to. Not even on happy occasions. PPS. K6BD parallel #113: the zealous talking statue that doesn't accept Randomise buttons deciding that "this shell is not my body" (I'm kidding...) I do think that this was one of the best chapters in recent years, but with the exception of p. 2283 (and p. 2282 because I like the link with Jeanne's perception of her sword), it could have done largely without words -- I particularly don't like the "ecosystem" line; I consider it an abuse of technical terms anticlimactically drafted by a sentimental truism. For another example, I think page 2286 likewise would be better wordless. The bucket, the ocean, the Interface all don't require any explanation (or am I seriously underestimating the Internet's stupidity), especially not since we were already going to learn, within the same chapter, whose representation the Interface is (although if bicarbonat's trace was the author's intended route, that was well-designed), something "we" would have been brooding about even if the Piper had not shown any curiosity. The chapter also fails to convince me that the robot has indeed acquired a more acute mind rather than the wonderful human ability of veiling the same old automatisms in self-deluding imagery, but I might be a black-hearted and autonomously-nosed pragmatist in that regard. What is interesting, though, is the still-open question of why exactly the new body goes along with a new mind here. |
|
|
|
Post by ctso74 on Apr 3, 2020 16:38:54 GMT
Well, first thing next week will be a chapter title page. Maybe, he means there will be something in the bottom comment, or the title page will be epic? Both?...
|
|
|
|
Post by bicarbonat on Apr 3, 2020 17:05:43 GMT
"I want to look like two interlocked flaming wheels covered with eyes." iwouldliketoseeit.gif Now that I think on it, what would be a Robot approach? We know he's a zealot and a half, but he keeps it under wraps from everyone but his little cadre of robots. Since he's been serving as the field guide for robots getting new bodies (peppering in a bit of "Angel" agenda as he goes), it might behoove said agenda to take the form that these robots remember from what is tantamount to a religious experience. Now, if( /when) sh*t hits the fan and Robbie hits the crisis point of all terminal zealots (regardless of what triggers it)...then the sweet little seraph can Digivolve into an absolute unit of flaming wheels and eyes. Ever been proselytized to by an ophan? Well, you're gonna be. |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Apr 3, 2020 17:24:22 GMT
"I want to look like two interlocked flaming wheels covered with eyes." iwouldliketoseeit.gif Now that I think on it, what would be a Robot approach? We know he's a zealot and a half, but he keeps it under wraps from everyone but his little cadre of robots. Since he's been serving as the field guide for robots getting new bodies (peppering in a bit of "Angel" agenda as he goes), it might behoove said agenda to take the form that these robots remember from what is tantamount to a religious experience. Now, if( /when) sh*t hits the fan and Robbie hits the crisis point of all terminal zealots (regardless of what triggers it)...then the sweet little seraph can Digivolve into an absolute unit of flaming wheels and eyes. Ever been proselytized to by an ophan? Well, you're gonna be. |
|
|
|
Post by migrantworker on Apr 3, 2020 19:10:47 GMT
iwouldliketoseeit.gif Now that I think on it, what would be a Robot approach? We know he's a zealot and a half, but he keeps it under wraps from everyone but his little cadre of robots. Since he's been serving as the field guide for robots getting new bodies (peppering in a bit of "Angel" agenda as he goes), it might behoove said agenda to take the form that these robots remember from what is tantamount to a religious experience. Now, if( /when) sh*t hits the fan and Robbie hits the crisis point of all terminal zealots (regardless of what triggers it)...then the sweet little seraph can Digivolve into an absolute unit of flaming wheels and eyes. Ever been proselytized to by an ophan? Well, you're gonna be.Huh? I'm sure I can see ' Das war es wert' written on this poster on the left. |
|
|
|
Post by wies on Apr 3, 2020 19:18:51 GMT
I do think that this was one of the best chapters in recent years, but with the exception of p. 2283 (and p. 2282 because I like the link with Jeanne's perception of her sword), it could have done largely without words -- I particularly don't like the "ecosystem" line; I consider it an abuse of technical terms anticlimactically drafted by a sentimental truism. For another example, I think page 2286 likewise would be better wordless. The bucket, the ocean, the Interface all don't require any explanation (or am I seriously underestimating the Internet's stupidity), especially not since we were already going to learn, within the same chapter, whose representation the Interface is (although if bicarbonat's trace was the author's intended route, that was well-designed), something "we" would have been brooding about even if the Piper had not shown any curiosity. I don't understand how "ecoystem" was used anticlimactically. And I think you would get an entirely different feel if this chapter was done largely without words. Robot's voice functions here as a recurring motif, guiding both Dannybot and the events, making it clear this is done at Robot's will, this is orchestrated by him (and Kat). Was that voice not there, it would have felt more that Dannybot did this more voluntarily. But we all know he was kinda thrown in it. The voice is a slightly sinister note. About the concerns whether this new mind makes a difference: well, it could allow them entrance to the Ether, for what that is worth. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2020 3:28:28 GMT
Nothing indicates that "emotion, experience and knowledge" constitute an "ecosystem". For one, which of these are the abiotic parts? One might as well have used "crucible", "accretion disk", "variable-length array" or "collectible card game deck" depending on the bridge deemed necessary; at heart, this sentence just uses "ecosystem" because that word fulfills the meaning of "set of things that interact with each other", with the connotation that this happens harmoniously if left alone. But anyone knows, in the abstract, that emotion, experience and knowledge are interwoven and one should strive to make of them a chymical marriage; we read philosophy for opinions on the particulars of how (and why) to do this. Not to soothe ourselves over our birthright. Inaccuracies can always be glossed over when the effect is artful (language is, for the most part, a necessary crutch which only produces good effects because humans are both sensible and irrational and "read not words, but shadows of words"). This isn't the case here; it's vulgar to exalt one's own mind when it is not productive -- all delusions begin with that (which is unfortunate, because sometimes it is fruitless to argue precisely due to a gap in emotion, experience or knowledge). Thus, anticlimax: the set-up is for something precise, something profound, but it peters out into a generality not far removed from gushing about chakras; I'm aware that this analogy risks derailing my point. For one, Descartes (who thought about artificial minds) would disagree that emotion should even be a part of the ideal mind, while Spinoza (who to my knowledge thought about the artificial minds of humans only) acknowledged that all that can replace emotion is a stronger emotion, despite preferring, in principle, the governance of reason unimpeded. Perhaps owing to his work as an optician, he considers the jolts of happiness in production justified -- which recalls the stance explained by the ancient robot in Give and Take). The Guide's statement is thus not even a truism; it is a truism employed in favour of sentimentality. I might contain An Ocean as well, and that alone will not even convince you of my opinions on this comic. In particular, it wouldn't help if I appealed to my containing An Ocean, especially since this would have to entail, tacitly, that it can beat your Ocean any day of the week. tldr; the Interface isn't nearly as good as Jones at knowing when not to speak, which is understandable since she was created by fewer people and has had less time to learn; si tacuisses irgendwas mansisses PS. www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCNRgfkeWXsYes, making it clear, which is unnecessary. You can infer as much once you see the bonus page; we've seen for years of chapters now that Kat and Robot are both remarkably unconcerned with others' agencies when they have something on their mind (and, in Kat's case, half of the previous chapter alone showed this). This is my single biggest gripe with Gunnerkrigg Court as it is today. The Treatises didn't need dialogue. Divine had ample dialogue, but almost none of it was devoted to Zimmy explaining what she was doing, or that the pigeon was a representation of Kat's mind without acquired ethics. Apart from that, the Interface finger-snapping to disintegrate the bucket already clues you in that her seraphic RPG character is aptly chosen. I know it will have some effect on the story. I meant that, if this chapter was meant to convince me of the mazelike wonders of this new mind, or a human mind, it didn't achieve that, except on page 2283; the Interface's narration mentions nothing interesting about it. Once again, contrast Divine: we still don't know why Jones was naked, or what Annie was thinking beneath the cherry tree. true PS. all this should not overshadow that I think that the visual art in this chapter was notably good; making the Interface imitate Venus Anadyomene as well as the Copenhagen Little Mermaid at once, in monkish clothes (as has all been pointed out before), was a great decision |
|
|
|
Post by sleepcircle on Apr 4, 2020 5:21:52 GMT
"soothe ourselves over our birthright?" are you saying that's what the guide was doing, or tom? i can't rectify this interpretation with anything i read in the comic either way.
"it's vulgar to exalt one's own mind when it is not productive" is this something you feel very passionately about? that the fact human consciousness exists at all is not remarkable or interesting in any way except when justified by some worthwhile output? many great scientists and poets would disagree.
honestly, it sounds like you have a philosophical objection to something in the comic and are at least partly conflating it with an artistic critique of the writing quality, to the confusion of others.
|
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Apr 4, 2020 7:07:13 GMT
Hmmm... I think the analogy of the robot's mind to an ecosystem is intellectually defensible once the physical aspects (organic-like components, inorganic components) and the emergent products in and beyond the robot mind are taken into consideration, along with the fact that this fictional universe derives magic from what are arguably errors in reasoning. Also there is clear succession between the generations of robots in multiple ways which is reminiscent of an ecology, I suppose... However I think I agree with @korba 's main point that the analogy isn't particularly evocative. What I did find to be thought-provoking about page 2285's dialogue was the robot's last comment, "I am the ocean. And everything it may contain." The reason that turn of phrase caught my eye is that it would seem to include things that aren't (but presumably could be even if they will never be) in the robot's mind in that category of things that define what/who the robot is. I think I wrote about that elsewhere. In the final analysis, if the goal of the dialogue was to provoke thought in the readers I'd say it was successful. |
|
|
|
Post by wies on Apr 4, 2020 7:38:23 GMT
Inaccuracies can always be glossed over when the effect is artful (language is, for the most part, a necessary crutch which only produces good effects because humans are both sensible and irrational and "read not words, but shadows of words"). This isn't the case here; it's vulgar to exalt one's own mind when it is not productive -- all delusions begin with that (which is unfortunate, because sometimes it is fruitless to argue precisely due to a gap in emotion, experience or knowledge). Thus, anticlimax: the set-up is for something precise, something profound, but it peters out into a generality not far removed from gushing about chakras; I'm aware that this analogy risks derailing my point. If you mean with "artful" not in the same meaning as "artistic" but in the meaning of "what I consider to be well done", that is a difficult point to argue with because de gustibus non disputandum est. And if so, the root of your opposition seems to be to it was invalid to use "ecosystem" as a metaphor for the mind because it celebrates the mere fact of having a mind, instead of working in and with it. (I am restating all this because I am unsure whether I understand your point. So if I am wrong, please say so. Though, if your intended meaning of "artful" is alike "artistic", then we just have to flat-out disagree, since the usage of "ecosystem" here is undeniably an artistic effect for me. Hence why I use the other intepretation to continue our discussion.) You are right in that there is no emphasis on how humans have to work in and with their minds. (Though I disagree that being gifted a new mind in itself would not merit a celebration. But I agree that this chapter has not been clear on what the differences in workings are between the electronic and biological mind.) But I feel that is implied and shown in the pictures of this comic itself. We see DannyBot going through several ordeals to feeling their mind out and understand it. In a metaphorical way, of course. No one is literally pulled along warm currents, though I have felt like that at heated moments. I imagine more of that struggle will be shown in later chapters. The proof that this chapter is not just about having a unproductive mind lies largely in its art. And I don't think the climax was the usage of the ecosystem. It was Dannybot's realization that after all the struggling they were truly this bewildering mind. For one, Descartes (who thought about artificial minds) would disagree that emotion should even be a part of the ideal mind, while Spinoza (who to my knowledge thought about the artificial minds of humans only) acknowledged that all that can replace emotion is a stronger emotion, despite preferring, in principle, the governance of reason unimpeded. Perhaps owing to his work as an optician, he considers the jolts of happiness in production justified -- which recalls the stance explained by the ancient robot in Give and Take). The Guide's statement is thus not even a truism; it is a truism employed in favour of sentimentality. I might contain An Ocean as well, and that alone will not even convince you of my opinions on this comic. In particular, it wouldn't help if I appealed to my containing An Ocean, especially since this would have to entail, tacitly, that it can beat your Ocean any day of the week. I assume with that last sentence of the first pharagraph that you agree that emotion should not be part of the ideal mind. This is even a harder point to argue with, since like sleepycircle said, this is less artistic critique and more philosophical. A fair form of criticism, of course. But I think it is more productive for discussions over art to be about how well it expresses its point instead of what point it should express. I will just say that for me emotion is an indispensable part of the mind. Hence why it is easy for me to agree with the Guide's statement, of course. I am not sure what you mean with your last two sentences. The point why the Guide says we all have an ocean is less to convince others of opinions, and more to point out some common ground. And specifically the now common ground between humans and robots. No one is talking here about beating one's Ocean with your own. Yes, making it clear, which is unnecessary. You can infer as much once you see the bonus page; we've seen for years of chapters now that Kat and Robot are both remarkably unconcerned with others' agencies when they have something on their mind (and, in Kat's case, half of the previous chapter alone showed this). This is my single biggest gripe with Gunnerkrigg Court as it is today. The Treatises didn't need dialogue. Divine had ample dialogue, but almost none of it was devoted to Zimmy explaining what she was doing, or that the pigeon was a representation of Kat's mind without acquired ethics. Fair enough. I agree Tom could have gotten across the point the Guide was kinda forcing it on Dannybot with less words. I meant that, if this chapter was meant to convince me of the mazelike wonders of this new mind, or a human mind, it didn't achieve that, except on page 2283 Again, yeah, I too would like more elaboration on that. But it might be that the main point of it is that the human mind allows to produce and process a greater and more intense variety of emotion. That it allows for an understanding of the world with emotion. And, well, since you seem to disagree with emotion being part of the ideal mind, you will likely remain dissatisfied with this part of the comic, since Robot and Tom seems to think otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by speedwell on Apr 4, 2020 9:39:27 GMT
I hate to break it to everyone (not so much here but in the comment thread of the main page itself), but there are no female angels in the Judeo-Christian tradition (i.e. the ones that would have been depicted by Renaissance artists in the way Robot imagines). That doesn't necessarily mean they are male, just that all of the ones mentioned have male names, and the word for angel has the masculine gender. The ancient Jews would have laughed with surprise at the notion that angels, the favoured messengers of God with magical superhuman powers, had any such glaring weakness as that of being female. I think "elevated and refined beauty" is the ideal they are going for, and for human beings, that necessarily implies delicacy and softness, brightness, slenderness. There is, however, that telltale mention in Genesis of the divine beings (sons of God) choosing human women (daughters of men) to have children with, and though this is probably derived from a shared mythological tradition of heroes and demigods in general, it does show that gender is not strictly irrelevant. I think Tom is aware of this; note that the Robot Angel is, well, completely flat-chested. The fabric of the gown billows out in back exactly as much as it does in the front. We habitually underestimate Tom's extreme care in depicting things. Eh, I'm not even religious, so I am actually fine with female angels; I'm just a mad stickler for accuracy. Carry on  |
|
|
|
Post by wies on Apr 4, 2020 9:58:31 GMT
Is it not a common interpretation that Angels and God are genderless?
|
|
|
|
Post by speedwell on Apr 4, 2020 10:46:46 GMT
Is it not a common interpretation that Angels and God are genderless? Common, but incorrect in the context of mainstream Judeo-Christian tradition until about the mid 1960s. I am aware of poetic passages in the Bible and Jewish poetry where God is compared to a mother, but it is clear that God and the angels are overwhelmingly regarded as male. It isn't traditional that God and the angels are genderless, it's progressive. For reasons I won't get into here because of the dry-as-dust technicalities, it is impossible for God to be female in the alchemical tradition. To greatly oversimplify, this is because God is solar. With regard to the Holy Trinity, the waters are muddied a bit, but in terms of the Alchemical Marriage, God and the spiritual are the active, masculine principle, and matter and the body the passive, feminine, lunar object of the solar principle's activity. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2020 11:29:38 GMT
]is this something you feel very passionately about? that the fact human consciousness exists at all is not remarkable or interesting in any way except when justified by some worthwhile output? many great scientists and poets would disagree. How have said great scientists and poets come to your attention such that you call them great? Presumably, due to some output you consider worthwhile, their attempts to conquer the carcer of time and tissue. You might prefer to admire what you construe as the mind behind the output, but that is beside the point. If you insist on an argument from authority, I don't know if you consider Shakespeare a great poet (this might sound like sarcasm but isn't), but his sonnets on fertility happen to agree with my philosophical objection (and technically indicate nothing about William Shakespeare's own thoughts; but humour me): You're right. There's the simile not jiving as such, and there's the Interface ostensibly lauding the new mind, and those are not inextricably linked. I don't agree that I've written to the confusion of others; anyone who replied seems to have perceived this. I'd also argue that, beyond trivial mistakes of grammar and syntax, and pointing out lexical errors (if "ecosystem" was one), critiques of writing must be philosophical by default. A writer has to structure perception (using a third-party library which makes some presuppositions about this, no less, which may or may not prove helpful to their task), and a writer has to establish what they consider necessary to express. Both of these tasks belong to philosophy. Eh, I'm not even religious, so I am actually fine with female angels; I'm just a mad stickler for accuracy. Carry on Since I happen to be a mad stickler for accuracy as well, which I'm trying my damnedest to prove: "Spirits" refers to the fallen angels of Lucifer's host, in context. Of course, whether you consider Milton authoritative on the Judeo-Christian tradition is up to you (he was anti-Catholic if nothing else; it can be argued he was "progressive", sure; likewise Dante had few kind words for e.g. Pope Boniface VIII and, IMHO, contributed far more to Christianity than the latter, but again, anyone must decide for themselves who gets a say in "tradition"), but my point is that he would probably have seen himself as such (other passages from this poem are also quoted in this comic, though that indicates very little). You are correct anyhow that angels have no determinate sex, which has never barred artists from their mental forays, nor from their productive trade. Incidentally, GkC robots also did not have a sex, but people in the comic tended to refer to Robot with "he" even before New Data, which is a delusion from applying a categorizing routine to a stimulus deemed "close enough" to the sensible target. This process also tends to be very productive in art. I'm talking like the Interface at this point. Next card. Though I disagree that being gifted a new mind in itself would not merit a celebration. But I agree that this chapter has not been clear on what the differences in workings are between the electronic and biological mind. No, I'd fully agree with what you write here. IMHO the chapter mostly fails to convey (with a remarkable exception in p. 2282-83) why the new mind should be celebrated (or, more precisely, why it is new: the robot even blushes while in the bucket, is that not emotion; he thinks of his pipe-work, isn't that experience), when I would expect that it should be. As concerns the structure of the chapter, I think you're right. I meant "anticlimax" wholly within the confines of that one sentence about an ecosystem. It builds up to say something about the human mind; then it doesn't, because the generalities are clear to everyone. I can only repeat: imagine the "I am the ocean" page without the Interface's speech bubble (leave the Piper's intact!) -- isn't it better then? Doesn't she succeed all the more at suggesting what that line was meant to suggest? Doesn't her line take away from the Piper's self-assertion? It may have been intended, since it undercuts Robot (or the Interface, if there is any difference) by showing that he (or she) cannot shut up even when he (or she) has nothing to add -- again, he has not learned non-intervention (like Jones, ostensibly, has). I don't think my philosophy matters a lot to this particular point, although it has likely motivated it. I brought up Descartes and Spinoza chiefly to illustrate that what she says isn't even trivially true for the philosophy of mind. It has the same effect as if I had written "Gunnerkrigg Court contains an entire ecosystem of characters, motifs and plotlines" or something of the like. Then Future Korba will barge in through Donny's door to argue that "plotlines" are subsumed wholly under "motifs", because that is very important, paraphrase seven musicians on the subject, and people will surmise that Future Korba thinks that plots shouldn't exist in fiction. What I mean is that were I to point to my experience and emotions and knowledge forming a vast oceanic ecosystem, you wouldn't suddenly agree with me, and mainly due to you being able to make the same claim, at which point it becomes the classic struggle of whose emotions and experience and knowledge hold more value (which everyone will evaluate differently). That the standoff of oceans is not happening here is precisely my point. I pointed it out to underscore that output alone, i.e. our attempts to reason with each other, will and should decide this disagreement. That, and the tiresome limitations of language, because I guarantee we're both not expressing half of what we're thinking about this matter; the mind is that bountiful. I don't know what Tom Siddell thinks and am fine with any character that errs for the sake of a good story, under a compulsion they are not aware of. For the record, my own thoughts are closer to Spinoza's than Descartes' as I gave them above; to purge the mind of emotion is as nonsensical as to accept emotion unconditionally as integral to the mind. There goes the (worn-out) adage that great errors are as worth remembering as great successes, though. e: What I did find to be thought-provoking about page 2285's dialogue was the robot's last comment, "I am the ocean. And everything it may contain." The reason that turn of phrase caught my eye is that it would seem to include things that aren't (but presumably could be even if they will never be) in the robot's mind in that category of things that define what/who the robot is. You're right. That's good. Anything you perceive must necessarily interface with an "adapter" (used loosely) in your mind; all signifiers exist within the perceiving mind only, even if the signified exists independently -- so whatever the robot will place in its ocean must have been possible to create via the ocean, and was therefore already a part of it, just at a lesser stage of maturity or accessibility: the seed to the flower (to the fruit). (Since biology seems to be artistic.) |
|
|
|
Post by wies on Apr 4, 2020 13:15:47 GMT
I don't agree that I've written to the confusion of others; anyone who replied seems to have perceived this. To be fair, sleepycircle's reply clarified that for me. Though perhaps I would have gotten that on my own. critiques of writing must be philosophical True, but there clearly a difference of degree in how philosophically a critique can get. Critizing this chapters for being too wordy in places, and for apparently celebrating the mere gift of the mind (Though I think you are too harsh on the chapter in that respect, but more on that later) don't have the same degree in philosophy. So there is a distinction that matters. Reduncancy also comes near when you state all categories of criticism are philosophical. Because one can argue almost all of life is philosophical, using a certain definition of philosophical. No, I'd fully agree with what you write here. IMHO the chapter mostly fails to convey (with a remarkable exception in p. 2282-83) why the new mind should be celebrated (or, more precisely, why it is new: the robot even blushes while in the bucket, is that not emotion; he thinks of his pipe-work, isn't that experience), when I would expect that it should be. Agreed. Though the comic has touched that point earlier, and I expect it will be touched later on, clarifying the diifference. Yes, I know they are talking about the body. But I think the point will be that body and mind are more intertwined by humans than robots. I can only repeat: imagine the "I am the ocean" page without the Interface's speech bubble (leave the Piper's intact!) -- isn't it better then? Doesn't she succeed all the more at suggesting what that line was meant to suggest? Doesn't her line take away from the Piper's self-assertion? It may have been intended, since it undercuts Robot (or the Interface, if there is any difference) by showing that he (or she) cannot shut up even when he (or she) has nothing to add -- again, he has not learned non-intervention (like Jones, ostensibly, has). Interesting imaginative exercise! I actually think the Piper's speech would have less oomph without the contrast of the sober words of the Guide. It is hard to explain, but if it was just the piper's speech, they would have floated a bit aimless on the page, being burdened with too many impression of having to linger in the reader's mind. Instead, it reads like a wondrous flash, a quick soaring into the higher spheres of the mind and then brought as quickly to the ground by the Guide. I don't think my philosophy matters a lot to this particular point, although it has likely motivated it. I brought up Descartes and Spinoza chiefly to illustrate that what she says isn't even trivially true for the philosophy of mind. It has the same effect as if I had written "Gunnerkrigg Court contains an entire ecosystem of characters, motifs and plotlines" or something of the like. Then Future Korba will barge in through Donny's door to argue that "plotlines" are subsumed wholly under "motifs", because that is very important, paraphrase seven musicians on the subject, and people will surmise that Future Korba thinks that plots shouldn't exist in fiction. Gotta admit I don't understand you at all here. I blame my greater lack of knowledge on this. Like, I don't know much of the philosophy of the mind, so no idea what even would be true for that. I have also no idea how plotlines could be subsumed under "motifs", since they are different. And I have no idea at all how to interpet that remark of the seven musicans. What I mean is that were I to point to my experience and emotions and knowledge forming a vast oceanic ecosystem, you wouldn't suddenly agree with me, and mainly due to you being able to make the same claim, at which point it becomes the classic struggle of whose emotions and experience and knowledge hold more value (which everyone will evaluate differently). That the standoff of oceans is not happening here is precisely my point. Well, yeah, I wouldn't suddenly agree with you. But it is or should not be a struggle of whose emotions and experience and knowledge counts more. I see this more as us both sharing with the other our emotion, experience and knowledge. Less beating one's oceans with the own, and more like sharing and swapping of water streams. (I almost said 'fluids' before I realized the unfortunate connotations that would go with that) And that is also a bit, though not wholly so, is what Robot and Kat are doing. Sharing the experience of the Ocean with them. (Yeah, the Ocean is individually experienced, but still, there is now a Ocean where there was not, isn't?) I pointed it out to underscore that output alone, i.e. our attempts to reason with each other, will and should decide this disagreement. That, and the tiresome limitations of language, because I guarantee we're both not expressing half of what we're thinking about this matter; the mind is that bountiful. Agreed!  Also, typing is an even more abstracted form of language. Were we to talk to each other, our body would function as a welcome complement and clarifying of our arguments. Now on to Speedwell: Is it not a common interpretation that Angels and God are genderless? Common, but incorrect in the context of mainstream Judeo-Christian tradition until about the mid 1960s. I am aware of poetic passages in the Bible and Jewish poetry where God is compared to a mother, but it is clear that God and the angels are overwhelmingly regarded as male. It isn't traditional that God and the angels are genderless, it's progressive. If an idea is 60 years old, should it not be considered as traditional on its own? |
|
|
|
Post by speedwell on Apr 4, 2020 13:36:56 GMT
Common, but incorrect in the context of mainstream Judeo-Christian tradition until about the mid 1960s. I am aware of poetic passages in the Bible and Jewish poetry where God is compared to a mother, but it is clear that God and the angels are overwhelmingly regarded as male. It isn't traditional that God and the angels are genderless, it's progressive. If an idea is 60 years old, should it not be considered as traditional on its own? I'll be 55 this year. It's hard to consider 60-year-old patches on three-thousand-year-old britches "traditional". |
|
|
|
Post by wies on Apr 4, 2020 13:42:37 GMT
It didn't stop the protestants.  Though to be fair, they saw it as a return to tradition. Imo, if an idea is alive in a community for more than one or two generations, it should be considered a tradition on its own? |
|
Also, typing is an even more abstracted form of language. Were we to talk to each other, our body would function as a welcome complement and clarifying of our arguments.