MIQ@PSUVMA.BITNET (02/28/86)
OK, hang on. It's my turn to jump into the fracas.
>>>In STAR TREK III McCoy even comments on all those arguments that Spock
>>>lost. Now since argument should be an exercise in logic . . . [Spock]
>>>should not lose an argument.
>>
>>He never did. That's McCoy's opinion, that Spock lost arguments.
>I think it was also the opinion of the director. Why else would Spock
>have a puzzled expression on his face and Kirk and McCoy have smiles of
>apparent victory?
Perhaps he was puzzled at their victorious smiles? Look over the old
episodes more carefully-- you'll see that McCoy lost most (if not ALL) of his
arguments with Spock (and usually was reduced to ranting & raving. "You're
the most cold-blooded person I've ever known!").
>>Regarding Spock's decisions at the end of "The Galileo Seven":
>>
>>>I would have thought that what Spock did was the only logical thing to
>>>do, but the script has Spock accept it as an emotional action.
>>
>>Not at all. Spock says it was logical to take an illogical action.
>But it wasn't an illogical action. It is a contradiction in terms to
>be logical to take an illogical action. In this case the logical
>action is to take whatever action is possible. The emotional response
>would be to either do the same or to give in to pessimism and not try.
>I would rather have the logical entity making the decisions, not an
>emotional one.
Emotions are, by Vulcan definition, illogical. Spock admitted to his act
being one of "desparation," and therefore emotional, and therefore, illogical.
However, he argues that such an act was their only hope, and therefore it was
the logical thing to do. In short, it was logical to take an illogical action.
Paradox resolved, and Q.E.D.
>>> STAR TREK says emotion is better than logic;
>>On the contrary, Star Trek says they are different,neither is superior.
>>Accept both as useful in their own circumstances. IDIC.
>Maybe that is what they are saying, since I think everyone involved
>thinks Spock is pretty useful to have aboard. I am not sure in what
>situations the emotional mind is actually better than the logical one.
>An unfeeling piece of logical machinery, assuming it is properly
>programmed for the situations it will face, and assuming that
>programming has the proper sets of priorities, should match or beat the
>emotional approach every time.
There is a major hitch here-- the fact that a piece of logical machinery,
in doing the most logical thing, is perfectly predictable. This would spell
doom in any battle or conflict, whether in space or on a chessboard.
"The Captain plays most illogically-- I expected him to move his rook."
>>>Spock, as he is in the TV series is pretty close to an ideal . . .
>>>It is McCoy and occasionally Kirk who seem to have problems . . .
>>>Spock seems comfortable with his origins when there isn't someone else
>>>trying to rub his nose in them.
>>I agree 95 per cent. Spock wasn't comfortable until the end of
>>"Star Trek: The Motion Picture".
>Yes, but that story was contrived to say that Spock saw something
>better in the mixed approach. It was making the false statement that
>creativity and pure logic are mutually exclusive. As a mathematician I
>know that is balderdash. There is nothing illogical about curiosity or
>creativity. In pure mathematics logic, creativity and curiosity come
>together very well.
Why is any story that has Spock take a good look at the value of his
human half "contrived??" As far as creativity and logic being mutually
exclusive, I saw no indication of that in ST I. What I did see was Spock
realising that "...with all his amassed knowledge, V'ger is barren, cold,"
and that "Logic and knowledge are not enough." These were Spock's own words--
and they appear in the novelised version of ST I by Gene Roddenberry. (I know,
I know, an appeal to authority isn't a valid basis for a logical argument.)
>>The half-white, half-AmerIndian analogy only applies if the person had
>>tried to suppress his white half for years and only recently came to
>>terms with the fact that his white half is valuable; he is not a whole
>>person as long as he suppresses half of himself. That's what ALL of
>>the first Star Trek movie is about.
>I don't follow why you say the analogy isn't applying. Spock's soul
>wasn't human. If anything it was better than human.
If you mean "human" as humans generally are today, I agree 100%. If you
mean it in the sense of the human ideal, I'd say Spock represented that ideal
precisely. We humans have a pretty high image of ourselves, but it's not
necessarily unattainable.
>>> Spock denied being human (he does so in ST3).
>>Context, please?
>Sorry it was ST2. I was listening to it as I was writing. I haven't
>had a chance to go back and find the line again.
>>>[the eulogy] was a comment that . . . Spock, if he were alive, would
>>>have denied . . .
>>I disagree strongly. He would have said, "Why, thank you, Captain."
>He did point out that he wasn't human in ST2 so I disagree with you.
He did point out in ST II that he wasn't human-- in the physiological sense.
The scene I believe you refer to is:
"Are you out of your Vulcan mind?? No human could tolerate the
radiation in there!"
"Doctor, as you are so fond of observing, I am not human."
Beyond the fact that he was referring to his physical makeup, the only
reason he said it at all was to get McCoy to move out of the way.
One final note: I think you misunderstand the basis of the Human-Vulcan
conflicts in Star Trek. From what I've seen, they're based on the Vulcan's
cold, machine-like attitude vs. the compassion and warmth associated with
humans. (Idealistic maybe, but not that far off base.) Emotional responses
were often put in an unfavorable light, such as in "Balance of Terror," with
LT Styles' bigotry and "Obsession," where Kirk goes overboard due to a very
human weakness.
Well, I'm through pontificating. Next, please?
-------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
| | U.S. Mail: |
| James D. Maloy | |
| The Pennsylvania State University | James Maloy |
| | 48 Atherton |
| ihnp4!psuvax1!miq@psuvma.bitnet | University Park, PA 16802 |
| | |
| | |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S'wahu?
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) (03/02/86)
In article <4474MIQ@PSUVMA> miq@psuvm.bitnet.UUCP writes: ... > There is a major hitch here-- the fact that a piece of logical machinery, >in doing the most logical thing, is perfectly predictable. This would spell >doom in any battle or conflict, whether in space or on a chessboard. No. There are situations where the most logical thing to do is to make a ran- dom decision, for precisely the reason that it's less predictable--making the unpredictable decision has a higher probablilty of producing the desired result than any predictable decision. If a machine makes a predictable decision in such a situation, it isn't "doing the most logical thing". -- "We are going to give a little something, a few little years more, to socialism, because socialism is defunct. It dies all by iself. The bad thing is that socialism, being a victim of its... Did I say socialism?" -Fidel Castro Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!whuxcc} !jhunix!ins_akaa
ins_bbdg@jhunix.UUCP (James T. Kirk) (03/04/86)
[replace this line with your favorite redshirt] In article <2054@jhunix.UUCP> Ken Arromdee writes: > In article <4474MIQ@PSUVMA> miq@psuvm.bitnet.UUCP writes: >> There is a major hitch here-- the fact that a piece of logical machinery, >>in doing the most logical thing, is perfectly predictable. This would spell >>doom in any battle or conflict, whether in space or on a chessboard. > No. There are situations where the most logical thing to do is to make a ran- > dom decision, for precisely the reason that it's less predictable--making the > unpredictable decision has a higher probablilty of producing the desired > result than any predictable decision. If a machine makes a predictable > decision in such a situation, it isn't "doing the most logical thing". > Kenneth Arromdee I disagree. If two giant computers were playing chess, both had equal information, and both had equal capabilities, then both would be able to figure out all possible moves, all possible consequecnes of all possible moves, all possible consequenses to all possible consequences, etc. Then, each would try to find the most advantageous moves possible. Therefore, the one who moved first, should win, since he chooses the most advantageous move with which to open. Similarly, if two gigantic battle computers were working on ships, the battle would never exist, since each computer would be working on the best time and the most advantageous plan along with the most favorable situation, while also computing what the other computer would be computing, trying to second-guess it, and work *that* into the situation. If you're curious for further explination, see the Dr. Who episode entitled "Destiny of the Daleks" with Tom Baker. Sorry if I've rambled, but I wanted to explain it without missing a nuance. -- Lad, you're gonna need somethin' ta wash thaet down with. Y'ever try any Saurian Brandy? UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs \ BITNET: INS_BBDG@JHUVMS ihnp4!whuxcc > !jhunix!ins_bbdg P13I2691@JHUVM allegra!hopkins / CSNET: ins_bbdg@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_bbdg%jhunix.BITNET@wiscvm.WISC.EDU
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) (03/05/86)
>>> There is a major hitch here-- the fact that a piece of logical machinery, >>>in doing the most logical thing, is perfectly predictable. This would spell >>>doom in any battle or conflict, whether in space or on a chessboard. >> No. There are situations where the most logical thing to do is to make a ran- >> dom decision, for precisely the reason that it's less predictable--making the >> unpredictable decision has a higher probablilty of producing the desired >> result than any predictable decision. If a machine makes a predictable >> decision in such a situation, it isn't "doing the most logical thing". >I disagree. ... If you're curious for further explination, see the Dr. >Who episode entitled "Destiny of the Daleks" with Tom Baker. This episode is generally considered a bad episode. I certainly think it is, and this bad game theory is one of my reasons. (I have redirected followups to net.tv.drwho) -- Kenneth Arromdee | | BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM, INS_AKAA at JHUVMS -|------|- CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET -|------|- ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA -|------|- UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!whuxcc} -|------|- !jhunix!ins_akaa | |
leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) (03/06/86)
> OK, hang on. It's my turn to jump into the fracas. I don't think there is room in this fracas for all of us. And frankly I would like to be the one who leaves. (I guess that sentiment is pretty close to being unanimous.) >Emotions are, by Vulcan definition, illogical. Spock admitted >to his act being one of "desparation," and therefore >emotional, and therefore, illogical. However, he argues that >such an act was their only hope, and therefore it was the >logical thing to do. In short, it was logical to take an >illogical action. Paradox resolved, and Q.E.D. Ah, but this was not an act of desperation. Webster calls desperation the state of surrendering to dispair and giving into rashness. Since when is taking your best shot at survival rashness? It is just the opposite of giving in to dispair. Spock did not admit that the act was of desperation, the scriptwriter claimed that. Had Spock just sat there and said there was no hope, that would have been giving in to dispair. > >>>> STAR TREK says emotion is better than logic; > >>>On the contrary, Star Trek says they are different,neither is superior. >>>Accept both as useful in their own circumstances. IDIC. > >>Maybe that is what they are saying, since I think everyone involved >>thinks Spock is pretty useful to have aboard. I am not sure in what >>situations the emotional mind is actually better than the logical one. >>An unfeeling piece of logical machinery, assuming it is properly >>programmed for the situations it will face, and assuming that >>programming has the proper sets of priorities, should match or beat the >>emotional approach every time. > > There is a major hitch here-- the fact that a piece of logical machinery, >in doing the most logical thing, is perfectly predictable. This would spell >doom in any battle or conflict, whether in space or on a chessboard. > > "The Captain plays most illogically-- I expected him to move his rook." I'll bet you are a whiz at computer games! After all the processor that runs them is perfectly logical, more so than Spock. Therefore everything that happens in a computer game must be perfectly predictable and you must win every time. The flaw in all this is that it may be perfectly logical in some circumstances to follow the dictates of pseudo-randomizer which is also perfectly logical. As long as the randomizing element is hidden from the opponent long enough the opponent still does not know what is coming next. > >>>>Spock, as he is in the TV series is pretty close to an ideal . . . >>>>It is McCoy and occasionally Kirk who seem to have problems . . . >>>>Spock seems comfortable with his origins when there isn't someone else >>>>trying to rub his nose in them. > >>>I agree 95 per cent. Spock wasn't comfortable until the end of >>>"Star Trek: The Motion Picture". > >>Yes, but that story was contrived to say that Spock saw something >>better in the mixed approach. It was making the false statement that >>creativity and pure logic are mutually exclusive. As a mathematician I >>know that is balderdash. There is nothing illogical about curiosity or >>creativity. In pure mathematics logic, creativity and curiosity come >>together very well. > > Why is any story that has Spock take a good look at the value of his >human half "contrived??" Because the virtues he claims were human, that he was missing as a Vulcan, were probably more the virtues of a perfectly logical mathematician than they are of most humans. Probably the most Vulcan-like character outside of the Star Trek mythos was Sherlock Holmes who had a mind like a thinking machine. He certainly had curiosity and creativity, but for him they were perfectly logical. The difference is that the Holmes stories are trying to impress us with the capabilities of perfectly logical mind. Star Trek is trying to give us a nice cushy feeling that we already are the greatest things we can be... we're human! I just don't buy that attitude. >As far as creativity and logic being mutually exclusive, I saw >no indication of that in ST I. What I did see was Spock >realising that "...with all his amassed knowledge, V'ger is >barren, cold," and that "Logic and knowledge are not enough." But Vulcans, even pure Vulcans, are not barren and cold. If they were there would be no need for some to attain Kohlinar. They would already be at that state. Nor were Einstein, Von Neumann, or the fictional Sherlock Holmes. Barren and cold is a functionary in a dull, non-creative job who trudges to work every day, puts in his time and goes home to watch TV where he is told how great it is that he is human. These are the least logical and Vulcanlike amongst us. The most Vulcanlike and most purely logical are anything but barren and cold. >>I don't follow why you say the analogy isn't applying. Spock's soul >>wasn't human. If anything it was better than human. > > If you mean "human" as humans generally are today, I agree >100%. If you mean it in the sense of the human ideal, I'd say >Spock represented that ideal precisely. We humans have a >pretty high image of ourselves, but it's not necessarily >unattainable. We are back to this, are we? Yes, and when a bigot says "mighty white of you" he means it in the best sense of the bigot's idea of idealized white. Nobody said it wasn't intended as a compliment. I was saying that it was a bigotted thing to say. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper