From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V6 #41 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 Tuesday, February 14 2006 Volume 06 : Number 041 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] [KTL ] [chakram-refugees] now the dog/cat debate [KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] On Wed, 28 Dec 2005, richan@aol.com wrote: > 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 Fascinating post. But of course, *I* would say Xena has an enormous will. And applies her own free will to maintain her quest for atonement. Which is essentially spending her whole life doing this. And she has always believed that we make our own destiny through the choices we make regardless of what our society or expectations of others for us are. However, I can see where this monolithic obsession with correcting her mistakes can almost pre-empt her free will for making any other choice than to do just what she's doing. Nice slant on this question. KT ========================================================= 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: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 22:13:10 -0900 (AKST) From: KTL Subject: [chakram-refugees] now the dog/cat debate On Tue, 3 Jan 2006, Laconia wrote: > I agree that to be human is to have a tendency > to be a social animal, like dogs. Some people > are more like cats, however, preferring less > company. I wonder if people's innate preference > for affiliation versus solitude has anything to > do with their preference for "fundamentalist" > thinking. There doesn't seem to be a direct > correlation, but I don't know. > > Any thoughts on this? > Uhhhhhh, it seems to me that fundamentalists might be more like dogs in that they like to travel in a pack, that they unswervingly answer to their mistress/master AKA goddess/god and you can make them follow you just about anywhere by either pulling on their leash or making them heel. Cats don't do any of the above so well. KT ========================================================= 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 V6 #41 *************************************