Star Trek vs Wars: Robot Slavery?

[Trekker4747]

In Star Wars The Force is analogous to the Holy Spirit ...

Hmm... Might be analogous, but I think it's a poor or incomplete analog. I don't know anyone that feels Holy Spirit enables them to be superior combatants or provides telekinetic abilities. And you also have the thinking of people from non-"Christian" lands that don't believe in/follow the concept of Holy Spirit and instead follow/embrace a similar, yet different concept. Now, if you want to broaden the analog to include all forms of mysticism such as Karma, etc... then I would think you were on to something.

So maybe in Star Wars the question of sentience breaks down to one of spirituality?

Yeah, I think that is mostly what I was aiming for. In Star Wars The Force is similar to/an analogue to internal spirits or some other individual posession of an extension of a deity.

I didn't literally mean The Holy Spirit as there's nearly zero evidence Jesus or God exsists in the SW universe. Just that The Force is their "religion" and that everyone has The Force in them (as everyone has a soul in them) and some's soul/Force gives them abilites. (We'd probably consider such people demigods, saints, prophets, or any number of other things.)

My point remains though, and I wish more had commented on what I said.

Oh well.

 

[zenophite]

Isn't that essentially what our reactions are: the result of a rather complicated (though perhaps not elegantly designed ) set of non-sentient systems, to wit, our nervous system and various glands spread around our body?

Not really, an expert system no matter how complex has limits because it is designed by a preexisting entity and as such is subject to the limit of the cleverness of that originating entity.

In terms of the human system we are talking about consciousness as an emergent phenomena (that is if we are speaking in purely mechanistic/materialist terms) that arises out of the complexity of the underlying soggyware of the nervous system. we have no "programmer" and in fact we don't even know the programming language nor do we really have a deep understanding of the hardware.

 

[Maurice]

I would honestly argue that the emotion chip prevented Data from being sentient. If he were sentient, I feel like he would have been able to evolve and develop emotions on his own.

I think people conflate sentience and self-awareness. Data was apparently incapable of experiencing emotions without his emotion chip, but that didn't make him not self aware. And if part of your brain were missing, you might find yourself devoid of emotion, too.

Yes, he was "curious" and liked to mimic humanity, but that doesn't mean that his reactions were based on anything other than what his brain told him a human would probably do. He had no instinct.

Isn't that a non sequitur? Instinct isn't a measure of self awareness or sentience. Clams act on instinct, after all.

 

[Hermiod]

I would honestly argue that the emotion chip prevented Data from being sentient. If he were sentient, I feel like he would have been able to evolve and develop emotions on his own.

I think people conflate sentience and self-awareness. Data was apparently incapable of experiencing emotions without his emotion chip, but that didn't make him not self aware. And if part of your brain were missing, you might find yourself devoid of emotion, too.

Data was incapable of experiencing emotions at the time he installed the chip, sure. However, his daughter was able to experience emotions only a short time after being activated, proving that the positronic network technology was capable of eventually developing them.

Unfortunately, however, she was unable to cope with those emotions and integrate them with her otherwise purely logical mind.

When talking about the success of Dr. Soong's work, we should generally use Lore and his recreation of Julianna Soong as they were more advanced than Data.

 

[Cicero]

^ It was my impression that Data was more advanced than Lore, but that Soong had originally omitted the former's emotional capacity (perhaps for safety reasons, considering how Lore developed).

Regarding Data's sentience, we should remember that he had the ability to dream, which would indicate a subconscious level to the workings of his neural net.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Of the droids in the Star Wars series, only R2-D2 has shown demonstrable sentience that might be considered adult (remember, children lack rights in our society).

Well they have some rights, at least that's what the doctors said when I tried to get the neighbor kids' memories wiped when they started becoming unruly.

 

[Hermiod]

^ It was my impression that Data was more advanced than Lore, but that Soong had originally omitted the former's emotional capacity (perhaps for safety reasons, considering how Lore developed).

Regarding Data's sentience, we should remember that he had the ability to dream, which would indicate a subconscious level to the workings of his neural net.

Data had a few mechanical upgrades that are probably due to nothing more than the availability of better parts. However, his positronic brain and his programming were not as advanced as Lore's because Lore was too much like a human and that scared the people Soong expected him to be able to live with. Soong purposefully built a less realistic android.

We know that Soong was capable of constructing androids that were indistinguishable from humans. Only Data was able to realise that Julianna wasn't human when he noticed that her blinking patterns were based on the same algorithm as his own and that she her violin performance was 100% identical in her rehearsal to the final performance.

Coupled with an emotion chip and no knowledge of her true nature, Julianna divorced Soong and even fell in love with and married another man.

 

[zenophite]

the point of fact is that none of these developments really prove sentience. dreams and the divorce etc could all be part of a very complex program.

 

[Hermiod]

^Ultimately, life-forms that consider themselves to be sentient are the ones who decide what qualifies as such.

 

[Cicero]

the point of fact is that none of these developments really prove sentience. dreams and the divorce etc could all be part of a very complex program.

Scientifically, we can't even yet prove sentience for ourselves.

 

[3D Master]

Isn't that essentially what our reactions are: the result of a rather complicated (though perhaps not elegantly designed ) set of non-sentient systems, to wit, our nervous system and various glands spread around our body?

Not really, an expert system no matter how complex has limits because it is designed by a preexisting entity and as such is subject to the limit of the cleverness of that originating entity.

In terms of the human system we are talking about consciousness as an emergent phenomena (that is if we are speaking in purely mechanistic/materialist terms) that arises out of the complexity of the underlying soggyware of the nervous system. we have no "programmer" and in fact we don't even know the programming language nor do we really have a deep understanding of the hardware.

Neural net processing is exactly that: a blank slate and let the robot learn. Also, computer chips get more complex every day, and not because we designed them that way, but because we let most if not all of the design be done by computers, who in turn can create greater and more complex design tools, etc. etc. etc. In other words, the increasing complexity of computers is ALSO an emergent property.

Besides, I think you're selling the cleverness of us humans short.

 

[Orintho]

Part of the choices in the Trek universe in regards to robots or androids is not all about the robots. There was a very strong concern expressed over the fate of humanity should they become overly reliant upon robots. This theme has been revisited many times since TOS.

Its hard to answer this question for Star Wars because unlike Star Trek, Wars is not true science fiction. Its more of a science fantasy mix and such issues as technologically-created slavery really do not matter to the main story, so they never get addressed. The robots' place in their society is simply accepted fact.

And the difference with science fiction and fantasy is this - in Star Wars, the technology really does not make a difference. The technology is a prop, a detail of the plot. You could retell the story in a medieval setting, have R2 and 3P0 morph into the comic-relief commoners, and there would be little difference in how their characters were treated. Light sabers turn into magic swords, and Sith Lords turn into evil wizards and you could still have the same story. And no one would be asking if the 'commoner' class were really slaves because it never be an issue of the story.

In science fiction, the technology or related social impacts are much more the central theme of the story. Course, I have not read a lot of the Wars novels - do they go into these kinds of topics more?

 

[captcalhoun]

no. the only time any issues of droid rights come up is in the New Jedi Order when the Yuuzhan Vong, a technophobic extra-galactic race, invades and starts slagging them...

 

[Hermiod]

Droids get treated strangely in Star Wars right from the off. Nobody considers that the escape pod might contain droids just because there's no lifesigns (the Simon Pegg, I believe, argument being that the gunner on Vader's ship who failed to destroy that pod is responsible for the fall of the Empire).

When the Falcon is brought aboard the Death Star and they find the droids, they are just ignored and allowed to move around freely.

 

[Trekker4747]

Droids get treated strangely in Star Wars right from the off. Nobody considers that the escape pod might contain droids just because there's no lifesigns (the Simon Pegg, I believe, argument being that the gunner on Vader's ship who failed to destroy that pod is responsible for the fall of the Empire).

When the Falcon is brought aboard the Death Star and they find the droids, they are just ignored and allowed to move around freely.

As I said. Droids are treated as machines and tools. You wouldn't worry about a droid moving around a ship anymore than a home-invader would worry about a Roomba. And those in the Empire being xenophobic humanists notice or care even less about droids and underestimate their capability.

 

[TheArsenal]

(the Simon Pegg, I believe, argument being that the gunner on Vader's ship who failed to destroy that pod is responsible for the fall of the Empire).

Off topic: It's fascinating to hear Simon Pegg interviews and learn just how much enormous thought he's put into Star Wars.

On topic: I don't think there is a straight forward answer as to whether robot slavery exists in the SW Universe because there's a certain inconstancy in the way it, and the robots, are portrayed. I wouldn't be able to come down one way or another. Even so, the entire business of restraining bolts is fairly damning when arguing the "non-slavery" side.

 

[Unicron]

Why? The restraining bolt exists to prevent droids from doing things they're not supposed to do - particularly the less intelligent ones. If your power droid is about to walk off a cliff because it doesn't realize there's nothing to walk on, wouldn't it be better to halt it with a command to the bolt? It can certainly be a measure of control, but I see no evidence that most droid owners do that just so they can treat the droids as slaves. As a simple tool, the restraining bolt is no different than Data's off switch, or his ethical programming which keeps him from doing evil.

 

[Klagg]

^ I guess I missed the part where restraining bolts are there to keep driods from walking off cliffs. I remember dialog that said they are there so the driods don't run off.

I figured that regular programming allows droids to avoid walking off lifts.

 

[TheArsenal]

Why? The restraining bolt exists to prevent droids from doing things they're not supposed to do - particularly the less intelligent ones. If your power droid is about to walk off a cliff because it doesn't realize there's nothing to walk on, wouldn't it be better to halt it with a command to the bolt? It can certainly be a measure of control, but I see no evidence that most droid owners do that just so they can treat the droids as slaves. As a simple tool, the restraining bolt is no different than Data's off switch, or his ethical programming which keeps him from doing evil.

I understand what you're saying. And slapping a restraining bolt on a droid may be SOP no matter what kind of droid it is. But the two I saw given a restraining bolt had pretty sophisticated threat assessment and self preservation programs in place. As sophisticated as a human's, from what I could see. So, I'm not so sure R2 or C-3PO were ever in danger of wandering off cliffs and the like. However, as was pointed out, and demonstrated when R2 did run away first chance given, they were likely to act on a "desire" to leave, and needed to be electronically shackled not to.

 

[Unicron]

To be fair, it's difficult to judge since we really only saw one instance in the films. I'm less familiar with how the bolts might have appeared in other media. However, I'm not sure R2 is a valid example because Leia modified his programming to find Obi-Wan. He acted like he did because he was compelled to do so, not because he just wanted to leave. I do agree that with more intelligent droids, like C-3PO, there's far less of a need for a restraining bolt to control their movements.