From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V5 #306 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 Saturday, December 31 2005 Volume 05 : Number 306 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] ["Laconia" ] Re: [chakram-refugees] ["Laconia" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 20:11:29 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] On Thursday 29 December 2005 14:59, Lee Daley wrote: > 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 'course there's an even dangerouser one... didn't someone just suggest that Gabby was more sophisticated than Xena? Not in this universe... (I think that's all I better say on that subject....) 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: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 20:02:43 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] On Thursday 29 December 2005 13:16, you wrote: > Very interesting. Speaking of free will and innate programming, what is > your opinion of people who are religious fundamentalists (of whatever > religion)? > > ***** Flamebait? cr > > ----- 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. > ========================================================= ========================================================= 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: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 20:14:15 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] On Wednesday 28 December 2005 14:01, Lee Daley wrote: > >Yeah but - I'm less charitable. I wanna watch the Warrior Princess, not > >Gabrielle's Struggles with her Conscience > > That did become a MAJOR THEME for TOO long. Although one could > argue that it a major part of the theme from Episode 1. One that I tried to ignore... "Show's called Xena" In fact, Gabs' conscience didn't seem to bother her much in the first three seasons - she seemed to be more intent on being Xena's uninvited conscience (and all the more irritating for that) (snip) > >To put it another way - if Xena wasn't sure what she was doing was right, > > she oughta stop doing it. This is why I didn't care for much of Season > > 4 - the Worrier Princess (TM). > > IRL season 4 wouldn't have lasted real long, they both would have > been killed in short order. I'd agree there. > >Interesting point - I like Xena because she isn't just a gung-ho > > shoot-em-up goody-goody. She does have a dark side, and doubts - this > > is good. But not when the doubts get so great that they start to impede > > her functioning. Then it isn't fun to watch any more. Shark Island > > Prison (LUATD) was like heresy to me. > > I liked the crabs! Would have re-baited the warden and gotten > another few bushels TPTB obviously weren't doing an homage to James Bond.... remember in Doctor No, the fiendish Doctor had Honeychile Ryder staked out overnight on Crab Key, and Bond was staggered when she turned up next morning quite unharmed. She said they smelt a bit musty and tickled a bit, but they really weren't interested in her. Must be a different species of crab in the vicinity of Shark Island. I guess we should investigate.... Gabby, can you spare a moment. Come here Gabby, we have a little job for you..... > > > "The Greater Good" is a dangerous concept in general. > > > >Yeah. BUT, unless people act in accordance with what they see as > >the good of > >society, civilisation would be impossible. > > But the 'martyrs' on 9/11 also thought they were pursuing "The > Greater Good" I'll trust to 'enlightened self-intrest' You could argue that they thought they were acting out of enlightened self-interest - they thought they were going to heaven as a reward. (Some of them may have thought that, at least - exactly how convinced they were, or whether any of them didn't really believe in heaven but thought the cause was worth it anyway, is arguable but probably best not debated on this list :) You could probably argue that Adolf Hitler was sincerely convinced that he was acting in the best interests of the German nation. The point I was trying to make, though, is that *most* people usually try to act for the good of society, and most of them get it nearly right most of the time. (Just as most people are sane and fairly rational, most of the time). There are certainly spectacular exceptions, but (IMO) if most people didn't do that, then society would be impossible. > >For example, why bother to pick up your own litter if there's nobody > >around to > >see you dump it? Of course not everybody does. But I think society > >largely works because *most* people, most of the time (and when it doesn't > >conflict too seriously with their own interests), act in accordance with > > what they see as 'the good of society'; and most of the time, they get it > > near enough right. > > Sounds like enlightened self interest to me. If I let one person > merge in front of me, then the next person might just follow suit and > let me merge in. This of course DOES NOT work in NYC where only the > strong survive. And if you _don't_ let the guy merge in front of you, then you don't need to worry about the guy behind him letting you in or not... but still (most of the time) you let the guy merge. (At least I assume you do...) (snip) 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: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 18:44:18 -0600 From: "Laconia" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] I agree with your entire reply. ***** - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee Daley" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 7:59 PM 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. > ========================================================= ========================================================= 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: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:52:44 -0600 From: "Laconia" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] No, this was a serious question. I have heard of a "religious" gene which makes people more likely to get into organized religion. So I'm wondering about any other innate factors that may contribute to religiosity, whether it's moderate religiosity or fundamentalist religiosity. ***** - ----- Original Message ----- From: "cr" To: Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 1:02 AM Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] > On Thursday 29 December 2005 13:16, you wrote: >> Very interesting. Speaking of free will and innate programming, what is >> your opinion of people who are religious fundamentalists (of whatever >> religion)? >> >> ***** > > Flamebait? > > cr > >> >> ----- 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. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V5 #306 **************************************