From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V5 #305 Reply-To: chakram-refugees@smoe.org Sender: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk chakram-refugees-digest Thursday, December 29 2005 Volume 05 : Number 305 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] [richan@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] [meredith ] Re: [chakram-refugees] ["Laconia" ] Re: [chakram-refugees] [Lee Daley ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 21:53:06 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] On Wednesday 28 December 2005 07:33, meredith wrote: > It was an ambush, and furthermore, it was in a blinding sandstorm. It's > not that she didn't know how to use her sais by then, it's that she > couldn't see what she was doing and honestly thought her life (and > Xena's life) was in danger. Well, it wasn't actually an ambush, though I agree it may have looked like one. I tend to fault Gabby more for not keeping her mouth shut, than for the killing itself. > Her guilt came from realizing what she had done and, I think, thinking > to herself just that: "why didn't I just whack him on the head". Yes. > I hope everyone had/is having good holidays! Good one here... went swimming in the surf at Piha today. Waves were big but water was nice and warm. (Just making all you Northern Hemisphere folks jealous.... cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:46:55 -0500 From: richan@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Lee Daley writes >>The Taboo about killing another human is strong. This is why the military makes a conscious effort to "dehumanize" the enemy. The enemy becomes a "target", no longer a person. This is also what scares Society about someone who would willfully violate the taboo, hence the need for the "Ultimate Punishment" Snipped >>"The Greater Good" is a dangerous concept in general. The greater good may be served, by restricting health care to older persons with chronic health problems, to divert resources to infants and children. But the greater good might be best served by denying health care to severely ill children who will need care for the rest of their lives. It's hard to decide "the greatest good for the greatest number"! Thankfully none of use are in the position to make that decision. Isaac Asimov dealt with "The Greater Good" in his robot series with the the Zeroth law: Zeroth Law: A robot may not injure humanity or, through inaction, allow humanity to come to harm. Following the zeroth law is not without it risks though. R. Giskard Reventlov, R for robot, was the first robot in the series to attempt it. Trying to apply it damaged his positronic brain. Later on in the series another robot, R. Daneel, is able to follow the Zeroth Law with out damage. How does this affect us? Symbolically we are the robots. How does this affect Xena and Gabrielle? I would like to suggest that Xena is somewhat like R. Giskard in that both suffer psycological damage trying to carry out the Zeroth law. Gabrielle and R. Daneel, on the other hand, are both fully affective not to mention effective in carrying out the Zeroth Law. The other laws are: First Law: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, unless this would violate the Zeroth Law of Robotics. Second Law: A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the Zeroth or First Law. Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the Zeroth, First, or Second Law. Asimov has stated that these first three laws are hard wired into a robot's brain. The Zeroth law however can only be derived by extremely sophisticated robots. Presumably each robot must derive it on its on accord from the "clues" or context around it. Is Gabrielle more sophisticated than Xena? The ability to derive the zeroth law might connote freewill though this might be the first time this connection has been made. And between Xena an Gabrielle I've always believed that Gabrielle had more freewill than Xena. The implication is that people are not born with freewill. They generate it from observing the world around them and then reconciling it to their inate programming. Some are more successful than others and unfortunately some never generate it all. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics#Zeroth_Law_added for more info on the development of Asimov's robotic laws. Richan ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:13:54 -0500 From: meredith Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Hi, cr wrote: > Good one here... went swimming in the surf at Piha today. Waves were big but > water was nice and warm. > (Just making all you Northern Hemisphere folks jealous.... Hey, I've been in Tucson for the past week+ ... it was 82F on Christmas Day, just one degree short of an all-time record. No jealousy here ... though of course I have to go back to the frozen Northeast in a couple days. :/ *sigh* - -- =============================================== Meredith Tarr New Haven, CT USA mailto:meth@smoe.org http://www.smoe.org/meth =============================================== hear at the HOMe House Concert Series http://hom.smoe.org =============================================== ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:16:19 -0600 From: "Laconia" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Very interesting. Speaking of free will and innate programming, what is your opinion of people who are religious fundamentalists (of whatever religion)? ***** - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 11:46 AM Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] > Lee Daley writes > > >>>The Taboo about killing another human is strong. This is why the military >>>makes a conscious effort to "dehumanize" the enemy. The enemy becomes a >>>"target", no longer a person. This is also what scares Society about >>>someone who would willfully violate the taboo, hence the need for the >>>"Ultimate Punishment" > > Snipped > >>>"The Greater Good" is a dangerous concept in general. The greater good >>>may be served, by restricting health care to older persons with chronic >>>health problems, to divert resources to infants and children. But the >>>greater good might be best served by denying health care to severely ill >>>children who will need care for the rest of their lives. It's hard to >>>decide "the greatest good for the greatest number"! > Thankfully none of use are in the position to make that decision. > > > Isaac Asimov dealt with "The Greater Good" in his robot series with the > the Zeroth law: > > Zeroth Law: A robot may not injure humanity or, through inaction, allow > humanity to come to harm. > > Following the zeroth law is not without it risks though. R. Giskard > Reventlov, R for robot, was the first robot in the series to attempt it. > Trying to apply it damaged his positronic brain. Later on in the series > another robot, R. Daneel, is able to follow the Zeroth Law with out > damage. How does this affect us? Symbolically we are the robots. How does > this affect Xena and Gabrielle? I would like to suggest that Xena is > somewhat like R. Giskard in that both suffer psycological damage trying to > carry out the Zeroth law. Gabrielle and R. Daneel, on the other hand, are > both fully affective not to mention effective in carrying out the Zeroth > Law. > > The other laws are: > > First Law: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, > allow a human being to come to harm, unless this would violate the Zeroth > Law of Robotics. > Second Law: A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except > where such orders would conflict with the Zeroth or First Law. > Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such > protection does not conflict with the Zeroth, First, or Second Law. > > Asimov has stated that these first three laws are hard wired into a > robot's brain. The Zeroth law however can only be derived by extremely > sophisticated robots. Presumably each robot must derive it on its on > accord from the "clues" or context around it. Is Gabrielle more > sophisticated than Xena? The ability to derive the zeroth law might > connote freewill though this might be the first time this connection has > been made. And between Xena an Gabrielle I've always believed that > Gabrielle had more freewill than Xena. The implication is that people are > not born with freewill. They generate it from observing the world around > them and then reconciling it to their inate programming. Some are more > successful than others and unfortunately some never generate it all. > > See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics#Zeroth_Law_added > for more info on the development of Asimov's robotic laws. > > Richan > ========================================================= > This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with > "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. > Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. > ========================================================= ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:59:34 -0500 From: Lee Daley Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] At 07:16 PM 12/28/2005, you wrote: >Very interesting. Speaking of free will and innate programming, >what is your opinion of people who are religious fundamentalists (of >whatever religion)? Innate programming, or a basis for a successful society, I'll pass on THAT discussion. "True Believers" of any ilk are DANGEROUS! Lee Daley leedaley@optonline.net ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V5 #305 **************************************