User talk:Mindrec

Welcome, from Journalist

Robotics

Discussion on Intelligent Design moved from Talk:Three Laws of Robotics.

"Some amateur roboticists have evidently come to believe that the Three Laws have a status akin to the laws of physics; that is, a situation which violates these laws is inherently impossible. This is incorrect, as the Three Laws are quite deliberately hardwired into the positronic brains of Asimov's robots. In fact, Asimov distinguishes the class of robots which follow the Three Laws, calling them Asenion robots. The robots in Asimov's stories, all being Asenion robots, are incapable of knowingly violating the Three Laws, but there is nothing to stop any robot in other stories or in the real world from being non-Asenion."

An incomplete answer, at best. A bias, more likely. This statement isn't reasoned from the perspective of why someone would deliberately hardwire these particular laws (rather than others, or none) into a robot, in the first place. That is, it assumes that robots are decidedly un-human and / or that laws applicable to them would be somehow different than those applicable to humans. This is to say, it fails to take into account a human to robot cause and effect development (which would, if implied, also suggest intelligent design). Likely the author makes this error of judgement because this new line of reasoning would suggest god (to one who we might assume has a bias against religion or in favor of science as correlation without causation).

Note: The author doesn't hesitate to suggest intelligent design on the part of humans regarding the creation of robots ... contradictorily.

This bias is more evident because of the pejorative term applied to roboticists who believe these laws are immutable (i. e. they are amateurs). This sets the author up as an expert in contrast. This argument from authority may as such be designed to keep people from questioning the statement (or even to hide the author's bias from the author himself).

Mindrec

Well ... the idea here, I think, is that robots which do NOT have the Three Laws installed are perfectly capable of breaking them, but some people supposedly think that it applies to all robots, Asenion or no. I've never heard of this before reading this article, actually, and I think that's a much better reason to question the paragraph. --Yar Kramer 19:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One's explanation of a design, and whether it is intelligent or not, decides whether that which conforms to such a design is, likewise, intelligent.--Mindrec 23:29, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

... What? --Yar Kramer 00:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is using intelligent as an adjective modifying design such that intelligent design might be understood as a subset of a larger set, design, and that which conforms to such a design (a robot) as fitting into the larger design lawfully (or at least conforming to it which would nonetheless show the same relationship of intelligence to robot regarding any number of unspecified even larger designs, ad infinitum). I'm using this to show that whatever usefulness Asimov got out of these laws (as literary devices, for example) stands as a priori evidence in favor of their being intelligent and subsequently of their being necessary to establish such intelligence.--Mindrec 01:35, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Um, all right. I'm still not entirely sure what your point is. Yeah, I can see how you might say that saying "amateur roboticists" might introduce bias, but I'm not sure what your comment about intelligent design has to do with what I said before. --Yar Kramer 03:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, there's merit to the original statement (which you initially pointed out). Second, it seems better to take the word amateur out of the piece than to argue about it. And I'm little better than the author of this piece to cast doubt on his character than he is to call names. Finally, this has become a discussion on intelligent design rather than a comment on the article (thus I've moved it to my user page).--Mindrec 09:57, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

...

Some things to take into account:

How does fiction compare to the real world?
How does Asimov compare to other people?
How do Asenion robots relate:

1. Within a fictional setting?
2. As regards their creator?
3. As to a real world setting?
4. So as to regard other people?

My arguments:

Fiction is to the real world as Asimov is to other people.
Asenion robots are to real robots as Asenion is to Asimov.

--Mindrec 16:20, September 11, 2005 (UTC)