Lit Humans v. Droids: What's the difference?

The world we live in has vast complexities. The complexities are perhaps infinite, given that our senses do not perceive everything. The sum is greater than its parts. We do not need cause and effect to ascertain (and arrive at) the existence of a life sustaining essence within our microbiology and surrounding us in the ether. Soul is an underlying essence to biological beings.

What about mechanical beings? Was there an exception with the Greek robot, Talos? https://greece.greekreporter.com/2018/01/10/talos-the-ancient-greek-humanoid-robot/

Did the greeks believe a soul could be ascribed to a metal being? Perhaps Talos was a biological alien with a body consisting of bronze?

 

I kind of feel like, in this case, our singular text is the Star Wars films themselves. Objectively, the droids in Star Wars films are presented as persons. Perhaps even especially those droids that communicate with beeps, whistles and body language.

They aren't always treated as persons, but they are portrayed as such.

IG: @jedisufism

 

We see the droids displaying emotion in its various forms. Emotion has survival value. Emotional responses include a tonal aspect, logical cause/effect aspect, and a movement aspect. In order to interact with human beings as protagonists, the droids MUST display realistic emotions. It is like an "exchange currency" in order to be on the same platform with the human characters.

However, beneath the outer hardware, circuits, wiring, and programming interfaces, a biological underpinning is absent. Instead, bits and bytes are likely at a sub-level when SW refers to programming. I don't see software mentioned in SW but I do see C-3PO refer to programming. C-3PO also refers to his memory banks.

CAUSE AND EFFECT: C-3PO has 1) programming, 2) memory banks, 3) visible hardware. The saga elements are there to show how the droids are making computations to display logical thinking and emotions. I just haven't come across bits and bytes being mentioned. It is safe to assume the droids have input and output. The experiences of the droids get stored in their memory banks.

And at the very beginning of SW, C-3PO comes right out and sais, "Thank the Maker."

The droids are making computations using programming, memory banks, and hardware. The biological characters are making computations using their living organs and tissue. We assume they have DNA because we have DNA.

 

I think you added to that post from the first time I read it.

Good points indeed! I think you are right to identify the big question: are we talking about real or Star Warsian metaphysics? Even if the latter, they are rather thin...

 

In myth? Sure. But Plato or Aristotle? No. In various accounts of Platonism, the soul descends to be the life principle of living beings, but in Aristotelian thought, the soul is the formal cause of one living being exclusively and serves as the efficient cause of another like substance. For the latter, a metal being would be a work of art, which is fundamentally different than a living being because its generative cause is external, whereas a living is generated by a like being which instantiates a common but individuated nature. Nature, here, does not mean a bundle of properties but pattern of growth and an innate--not externally imposed--tendency towards its fulfilment (Met. 1070a11: " ἡ δὲ φύσις τόδε τι καὶ ἕξις τις εἰς ἥν:" For Aristotle, some natures, in this specific sense, include not only the nutritive and sensitive powers, but mind or the rational power too, and by these parts of the soul the parts of the body are mutually and interiorly related, rather than by external compulsion as in the case of art or chance.

Programming and mechanical parts belong to the former, art, rather than nature in this point of view, because such parts and even lines of code have an externally determined relation rather than an internal principle of unity common to them both. What do I mean? Gears, even linked together, and determined by an external artist and bear no necessary relation to each other, and whatever congruity they share is derived from the mind of another. Even with code, the code is not self-generated or generated by another code, ultimately, but has an efficient (what makes it exist) and formal cause (what makes it what is) outside of and unlike itself.

Does peripatetic account suffice for Star Wars? Well, maybe, if the Force is any indicator of life, as JediSufism suggested above and droids are not alive. Now life in Star Wars is certainly not constricted to biology, in as much as one lives in the Force as a spirit or "becomes one with Force", but we've scarcely seen any droids pass into the Force.

 

In Legends we do have a droid that has evolved so much in his consciousness that he came to have a Force-signature. I-5YQ from Darth Maul: Shadow Hunter, Medstar, and Coruscant Nights.

IG: @jedisufism

 

dp

 

In Legends we do have a droid that has evolved so much in his consciousness that he came to have a Force-signature. I-5YQ from Darth Maul: Shadow Hunter, Medstar, and Coruscant Nights.

IG: @jedisufism[/QUOTE]

Convergent final causality. I basically treat the Force like a neoplatonic exitus-reditus cycle, a descent into multiplicity and ascent into unity. Might the Force be treated as "gathering" into nodal points in particular lives and biological entities, but as the substratum of all things, found in even particular cases like I-5YQ?

 

Usually when people throw around huge incomprehensible codified texts, books and worst of all names, there is not much discussion left. We need to discuss ideas and logic more than anybodies texts or names. Fixation on these ancients is what is hindering progress as they are always cited and held up as prime examples that thought it all through before. Can't one discuss ideas without categorisation and being sorted into schools of thought, attributed to famous names and books? I really hate that.

We need our own ideas and our own generation needs to discuss and think more than throwing around some thousands of years old thinkerers ideas. These are interesting backstory we can read to inform outselves, sure, but they have no value in a discussion. In fact, as soon as they appear in a discussion, everything is reduced and deconstructed to fit into their thinking, their time, their school of thought and categorically sorted into these.

One needs to break free of these fixtures and think outside the box, cross over between several, mix, mingle to come to new conclusions and ideas.

Worst of all, people throw around names as if everybody knows what is associated with them. Sure we know Plato, Aristotles and co. But not everyone can differentiate between them as professionals do and therefore using those names really is futile and often ignored by most people. If you want to discuss, tell their ideas and yours, their thoughts and yours on it. Simply throwing around names and terms without definition and background is useless. And I am saying that despite loving these ancient guys and their works myself!

Also, be more flexible. Do not think from the human pov. Try new povs or ideas to test them instead of only arguing from your own fixed opinion.




So back to droids:

Alive / Sentient... what does that mean?

Is the universe order or chaos?

Do souls exist? How do they work?


Lets go back to the beginning, though having read my previous comments can't hurt as I might come back to some of them:

Most assume the universe, for as chaotic it may seem, is a place of order and that this order seeking principle guides everything. Most assume a symmetry to the universe due to said order, though recent theories start to build and test asymmetric principles and an ugly universe so to speak. This is relevant insofar that order and symmetry to universal design may also be present in droids and therefore ascribe to them the same qualities or rules as other matter has. On the contrary an asymmetric design may allow for more variations and differences.

So what is this life, where does it reside and how does it express itself?

Life and living is a state that is hard to define on its own. Most often it is defined through its opposite, death. Death is the end of life, as it has a beginning, it has an end. Its duration may vary. No matter what happens after death or before birth, if reincarnation or else or nothing at all. Living is existing, therefore everything that exists, is alive. Or is there more to it?

During life, people make decisions. These are based on genetic and learned knowledge both. Basic principles that guide living beings are "personal survival" to avoid danger that may lead to death, "growth" through feeding as well as growing emotionally, personally, intellectually through learning, adapting and evolving, and last but not least "survival of the kind", which goes beyond personal fate and includes procreation and raising of children as well as selfsacrifice to protect them or ones kind.

During life each person tries to become the best version of itself possible, as far as she knows (best not in the sense of good but ideal version to reach ones goals whatever they may be). When personal growth peaks or otherwise life is threatened, personal survival becomes secondary to the survival of offspring and the kind itself.

Life is designed to survive and evolve balancing egoistic survival vs. altruistic survivial of the kind and in between getting as far as possible evolutionary, learning, adapting etc.

***

Now, Droids: They too have expiration dates and are designed with guiding principles or laws of robotics maybe. Prevent their own destruction, adapt to situations and learn, as well as ensure survival of their masters over their own. The first is the same as our survival instinct, the second the same as our growth and evolutionary adaptor, and the third is the survival of the kind. Only that droids are told their kind is their masters, not their own droidkind! Instead they are told they are expendable like their brothers and sister models so long f.e. humanity survives.

At first glance this seems like a key difference, but wait, we are missing something!

Humanity does not exist just for fun. It is part of an ecosystem which it fulfills a function in. And upholding that ecosystem above ones own or ones kinds survival is mirroring exactly what droids are told to do for their masters. Humanity has to protect its own master, nature itself for without it humanity can not live. (a fact humanity too often ignores and forgets these days!)

Back to droids: Droids make decisions based on programming (genes) and learned knowledge (adapting to your surroundings). The longer they are active, the more they learn and adapt. The more they adapt, the more lifelike they become copying behavioral and emotional patterns from f.e. humans to ease interactions with them. Droids express gestics and mimicks despite no facial muscle in addition to their speach f.e. and develop their own character through the variety of humans they interact with.

Another interesting question: Do the people droids interact with influence what personality it will develop? What interactions and who influenced C3PO and R2s iconic personalities or those of other droids?

Now people would argue, sure droids can copy a lot and mix it up to look original, that does not make them like humans. I counter with this: Does complexity matter? Sure our brains are far more complex than droid ones, but why or how would we decide at what level of complexity being like us starts and at what level it is not enough, as people claim? Rather arbitrary if you ask me!

There are lifeforms with much less complexity that still are considered alive. Plants, Fungi etc. are alive too.

So, sentience? Intelligent life as some would call it, where I wonder why not all life can be intelligent, yet at different levels (that are no levels of value). Interaction as a factor is interesting but what if not all life is meant to be able to communicate with each other? Only because you can't understand it does not mean its less intelligent or not at all.

Often I hear critique that droids just follow patterns and can not be innovative. No original ideas? No surprises with them. We follow patterns too, psychological ones as well as others. And as we review our life experiences and knowledge to make decisions and get ideas based on these, so do droids with their intel, sometimes overseeing a way vaster database of knowledge and combining way more facts than we do. So droids can plan, come up with original ideas, invent and surprise. A surprise is only an unexpected turn anyway, and we expect way less than they can think of.

The Silemtium and Abominor are sentient droid races that do procreate and have offspring as well. What is different between them and other droids?

Now on to a soul. What is it, what function does it serve and why? Historically, souls are interesting. They have been used as an argument to value or devalue people into slavery. They have been used to control people via fear for ones soul and promises of specific afterlife variants. A soul was an instrument to control people for religions, as well as the mighty. Nevertheless the idea of a soul was rooted not in this control idea but before that even in ancient traditions. Other ideas of a soul are, that the body is just a shell we wear and WE actually are the soul that survives the body to enter afterlife or reincarnation. This idea, half born out of fear of death and finality as well as the question what was before birth, extracted the soul from the body it is attached to.

Ancient shamanic traditions believed that everything is part of one whole. This whole, be it called nature, god, the universe or else separated itself into all its parts and aspects of which one are we and all that surrounds us. We, created as cocreators to the whole are meant to create and maintain the order in the ecosystem so we can survive.

Droids too maintain order in their respective area of expertise and ensure working society and survival of everyone. Droids too have a core identity and programming that can transcend their bodies and be put into other shells and droid bodies as HK47, L337 and others showed multiple times!

Do droids have or need a "human" soul? Especially if they have a technological analogue for it?

We have to dig even deeper! If there is an inherent lifeenergy in everything that exists in the universe, be it being, plant, animal, stone or else, then this does not simply vanish when you alter the source material. As in previous posts of me (sorry for the repetition), you can create with various materials by separating, combining, shaping and forming them into something new. Be that biology, technology or else. F.e. if killing cannot destroy a soul then what happens if you donate an organ or blood? If you carve up an animal to use its hide and bone for construction and cloth? If you marry stone and ore and metal to craft something? Or mix plants for some nice food?

In some areas we accept that inherent energies can be combined and joined to create something energetic new, like a green smoothie from various ingredients. In others we tend to ignore or not see that the same happens to inherent energies like in crafting and building. Earlier masters of their trade used Feng Shui and other energetic qualities considering concepts in construction of temples, churches, palaces etc. New rising trends be they vegetarian/vegan or other new age movements believe based on ancient shamanic traditions and eastern religions that there is more to energy and that it does matter what you wear, eat and surround yourself with. Sure that not everybody does believe or care about. And esoteric baggage aside, lets entertain the thought from a logical point of view and scientifically analyse it.

We know from physics and chemistry that everything has or is energy that can be transformed. The soul is not the same as this energy, or else we could already twist and scientifically measure it. But given it is described as a different form of energy most often, it might follow the energetic laws. And going by them, you can not destroy energy but only transform it. You can carve something up and remove or add energy by crafting something from various energies/materials but whatever you carve out or remove still retains some energy the rest of the whole is missing then. Transferring this concept to souls and soulbearing matter, donating organs and blood has to be reviewed under a different perspective given we give a part of us, not just some substance everyone of our kind has. Like muscle memory or cell memory, what we give is imprinted with a part of us and that is transferred to someone else. I too donate and would regardless of this new aspect not want people to stop donating. But it is something that needs to be considered and can have interesting consequences. (offtopic for it would be too far astray: you can read about this and consequences in good books and online, if you need a link PM me).
So, if whatever you do is imprinted into matter or its resident energy, droids and other craft retain the energies or parts thereof of their former source materials. Like we humans are more than the sum of our parts too, yet retain energy parts of who and what we ate, wear and live in. Think of it like a watercolor painting, where the edges are less defined than in real life where the energies flow into each other and influence each other.

Back to souls if you separate matter into pieces, do you also separate the soul along into pieces? Harry Potter Fans who know Horcruxes know the conceptual idea behind this based in real world ideas.

Another concept of bloodbrotherhood or when friends share blood to become bloodbrothers, usually not much, a few drops like natives used to do. Here too the believe is of a stronger connection if one shares blood, life energy with it, not matter how few drops it is. This introduces the idea that a soul is always a soul, no matter into how many pieces it is split, it retains a connection between all pieces no matter the physical distance. Thus whoever you donate to, you are connected with for life! (excursion for further reading on the effects of being connected in such a way use google or PM me!). Similiar scientifically researched ideas are of one-egg twins that are connected across great distances and sensed their others trouble or else somehow. Though through which spacetime defying way they can do that remained a mystery that it happened is proven fact via hard science.

Souls thus may be the connecting factor here an as of yet unmeasurable energy-like entity that connects us and binds us as the Forcelovers would say. On to the next level: If you have children, you connect with your lover and both separate parts of themselves (sperm and egg) to create something new that on an energetic level is connected to them and a merged product. Viewing this example over a longer timeline, entire family trees are connected. The next problems is to establish an origin point for this practice, be it theistic adam and eve stories of a single starting point from god to the first two people and on, or evolutionary approaches. Another angle to consider is the difficult ethical question of when does a soul enter a child and how? Abortion discussions struggle with this! Here too I think that while parents give the child a lot, genetically, energetically, there is more to it than we do know.

Back to what we have left from earlier: If a soul leaves a body after death, it has to either enter some kind of afterlife dark matter pool or if still playing the game of life to seek a new body/child to incarnate in. If, as many believe, this happens, concieving a child is a mergere between the parental energies and properties as well as a new/old soul coming in choosing this parental mix as its new life experience.

Before anyone catches on to the question as to why the soul does not stay with a dead body until it disintegrates into its natural pieces, as other inherent energy does, be reminded that a soul as lifeenergy is bound by the same laws as noted above: selfpreservation, growth and preservation of the kind or nature. If the body, its tool, no longer works, it seeks a new one to continue to grow and work. If selfpreservation failed for the body for the soul it still can work before being torn into tiny pieces via disintegration. Still Vodoo and others believe that even if the soul moved on or to another body it can be called back via magic and is always at least minimally tied to its old shell. Like the believe that if you have something of someone, hair, etc. you can have magically power over them via voodoo etc.

Are we the soul, the body or a combination of them? Who or what are we really? And who do we want to be?

Yoda claims we are not this crude matter (body) but luminous beings, the soul. De facto are we a combination of both always. But as the soul is longer lasting than the body or the resulting combination, identifying with it instead of the sum of the parts is more logical. But, if with the body we abandon genetics, parents, families and become the soul that can choose all these factors anew for the next body, how different would a soul choose than we do based on these factors in life? How does a soul guide or steer us and what do we decide with or against it?


I could go on but for now, lets return to droids:

The question remains, if they have a soul in addition to the energy of its source materials. And if or how much is imprinted into the soul. The interesting factor here is again that droids can switch bodies and copy themselves, their personality and core programming without need for an energetic soul to do so. Thus, they are alive yet without a soul? Or does a soul not have to be energetic? The ghost in the machine!

As human cloning would through same set of base data but different growth and learned data differentiate clones from original and as conception would add an original soul to the parental/clone donor base mix, clones are in actuality not as souless as the Zahn books had them be in the gffa. Though later books remedied that by explaining the Force weirdness around them less as stemming from having no soul but more from being too much alike force signatures when a group of them is together. Individual clones would not be recognised as such in the Force!

Droids copying themselves or multiplying via that would be perfect copies though, not something new thrown in like a soul mixing it up. Life experiences may vary and give these copies different evolutionary growths though. Droids creating a new droid together is rare but possible and even if the parts are not from their bodies, the programming used in part is. Look at MTD from YJK the kid C3PO and R2 had basically for the Solokids and their friend Lowbacca!

Are we comparing bananas and apples though when comparing droids and humans, or humans and stones or plants or else? Are we measuring by human standards and ignoring universal ones may be different with different forms of life existing for various reasons and purposes? Does different have to mean less or more than something?

Nature evolves and adapts. Regardless if you believe the cosmos, the planet nature is alive and has its own mother soul or not, nature preserves itself, the ecosystem is like our body's internal system of bacteria, cells and individual parts working together to keep it running. Thus nature regulates itself and tries to compensate any irregularities and imbalances. Kinds go extinct, others take their place, timespans of nature are so much vaster than human lifespans we hardly grasp the cycles and mechanisms at work in it. We percieve quick changes and panic about extinction or we lack to see long long scale consequences of our actions. For us it does hardly matter if we loose a nail or some hair. For the parts making up this part of us its a life or death gamble and fight for survival. Likewise what does Earth or the universe care about us? Either we are its cancer or its caretakers... either way it will deal with us as necessary for the cosmic balance.

We do not need to understand others parts in the game of life, but play our own. Yet we strife to understand and maybe take another place than the one we previously had in the cosmic balance. To grow to a new level.

What if such growth actually is possible? Some karmic traditions believe reincarnation is like a ladder where you can ascend to new levels, dimensions or else. They even have categories for various different types of souls, from stone to plant to animal to human to cosmic beings...

Given so many paralells between microcosm and macrocosm, atoms and star systems, body-ecosystems and nature ecosystems, maybe we do grow from matter to life to cosmic levels. Maybe souls can merge into soulfamilies, oversouls and ultimately cosmic souls. Maybe I am a planet next? SW named one after me already after all! After that I may become a star (or a black hole?). Truly Celestials not in name but literally. And in that regard it would not surprise that every part of such ecosystems, even droids are a living part, whatever form their soul may have.


Sorry for the length and messy thoughts at times, I hope you find something interesting in there.

 

So...in Mass Effect they've got all these laws prohibiting the development of artificial intelligence to the point where robots become sentient. Because you know, once they're sentient then you have to start treating them as sentients. Maybe in Star Wars they have similar restrictions, or AI technology simply isn't at the point where droids can become fully sentient? The latter would be an easy way to sidestep this whole issue, right?

 

Mechanicals can learn new things. They can even demonstrate creativity by synthesizing what they have learned. There can be machine learning without a biological basis. We can program them to have language, vision, music, complicated movements, and demonstrate realistic emotion.

Let's say a mechanical starts malfunctioning to go outside of its programming: That is when the importance of the Maker concept comes in. Is the mechanical exceeding the intentions of its original programming? Has another owner come along and inserted Rogue Programming?

We cannot create advanced sentient robots like those in Terminator. The restrictions are above our head. The restrictions are imbued by God and Nature. Each of us are a unique creation at the biological-level. I'm trying to limit my discussion to the biological-level because this topic becomes unwieldy when you bring in the spiritual-level. Showing cause and effect is difficult beyond the biological-level.

All biological organisms are unique creations. And that uniqueness should be life-affirming.

 

Wait what's this about time stream continuity? Is that something specific to the Terminator films? Because I've only watched up to Terminator 3.

As for uniqueness, in SW don't droids start developing unique personalities when they're not given a memory wipe for some time? That's how we end up with R2-D2 and C-3PO.

 

I edited out my bit about time stream continuity and time travel since it went into the speculative deep end. I don't want to introduce speculation on time travel into this discussion (myself) but I think that is part of the bigger picture.

Their unique personalities could be explained with machine/computer learning. The droids did not suddenly grow a biological interior.

 

Skippy the Jedi Droid did find the Force and that definitely was not rogue programming. The Force recognises droid sentience and life, why can't you? They do not need midichlorians... even furthermore, Iron Knights do not need midichlorians given their crystaline structure does have no cells that midichlorians inhabit!!! Force based technology like crystals, holocrons, lightsabers and temples do not have midichlorians and yet the Force is present and a part of them. So if Ore and stone and gem has it.. why not metal too? We have evidence for all kinds of live and matter having it, so why deny it to droids?

 

Did Skippy start as a droid? Which story?

I guess that was Tales https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Skippy_the_Jedi_Droid

The canon status of Tales was dubious in the EU. Those were comic shorts.

Where does the force recognize droid sentience? At what canon-level? What story makes you write this? This sounds like an embellishment.

This sounds like an embellishment for a SW fiction story. Without a source, there is nothing I can do to verify this besides typing "Iron Knight" into Wookiepedia. https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Iron_Knight

Midi-Chlorians are fantasy. Writers can spin that fantasy any so way they choose with an editor's approval or lack of oversight.

*You are taking exceptions from the norm and then making them the norm. There are always exceptions to the norm. You are packing all the exceptions into a post to circumvent the fundamental cause and effect of how droids have machine learning: 1) hardware, 2) programming, 3) storage.

The Maker selects the hardware and programming. "Thank the Maker." From the beginning of ANH, British Butler C-3PO comes off like he has been activated for too long and needs to be put down. Anthony Daniels inflections consist of overacting and comedic relief.

The fantasy in SW thrives on making exceptions to the norm. However, there needs to be a core of scientific realism.

Holocrons are a decent subject. But, holocrons are not droids. And this shows our fundamental difference of opinion: You are trying to combine unlike things and make hybrids out of them. You are comparing unlike objects then arguing they are fundamentally the same and serve the same purpose.

Then you are insisting that these fantasy hybrids are the norm rather than the exception. When you make fantasy hybrids the norm rather than exception, you dilute a gene pool or dilute the uniqueness of the original.

The world around us is a gift from God and nature. Be thankful for what you have rather than trying to invert it to fulfill a selfish fantasy. When we attempt to combine unlike things, the hybrid creations are are more likely to fail than succeed (and even fail in disaster). Like an infertile Mule, they are likely to become a deadend. Nature is resilient on its own without man's tampering.

This sounds like animism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism

 

I lean to the view that the reason droids are so like humans - is that their brains are duplicates of human brains, in mechanical rather than organic form. At least as a starting point, hardware-wise, before any software is added.

That their brains are neural nets, and not just computers.


Droid is short for android. Android means manlike. What's manlike about a mouse droid, physically? Nothing. Therefore, it must be manlike in some other way - and the most likely way, is mentally.

 

Yes Skippy started as a Droid. While his origin story is from Tales and dubious canon, he was referenced in other works too that make him canon.

R2 is the keeper of the journal of the whills, as Lucas once said, which is very tied to the Force. I5YQ could be sensed in the Force by a Jedi. More examples exist in this topic that you constantly ignored.

Ridiculing and ignoring what you do not like won't help your arguments. Midichlorians are Lucas canon.

Oh boy, first I adressed all that multiple times in multiple posts you prefer to ignore. Second, while we both like science and realism applied to SW for fananalysis and discussion you pay not enough attention to the fact that fictional science follows its own rules and not the same as real science always, especially when we have to take supernatural and spiritual concepts into account that are inuniverse as real as they may or may not be out of universe.

Twisting the narrative to fit your opinion is not very scientific!

This finally shows what I believe to be a core element of your point of view and argumentation. The so to speak fundamental problem of your narrative seems to be that you are fixated on your opinion and do not even try other point of views scientifically to see how yours holds up or others do against yours. You rather use words like fiction, fantasy, selfish and other stuff to devalue whatever does not suit you. That is not very logical, nor good for a discussion and analysis that may enrich it.

In fact your opinion sounds very Creationist to me in that it puts god above all and tries to cling to a strict hierarchy that places humanity above all else and god above humanity. Anything remotely not fitting this system you can not accept.

I am lifeaffirming and all inclusive and try to combine, see several point of views and if possible all of them from a higher point to be able to unite what may be uniteable. Your clearcut sepration though does neither try to give anything else a chance, nor is it lifeaffirming for it denies life to the majority of stuff in the universe, devaluing it so humanity can do whatever it likes instead of taking responsibility and return to its proper place in creation.

So if it does, what about it?

Yes a lot I wrote has to do with animism indeed, but I am not of any schools of thought that coined the term or used it as wiki notes.

My point though never is per se about animism or any other idea. I constantly change and adapt by opinion and point of view with new facts I get. If something points towards animism or other such ideas, that may be the sum of the intel, experience and life I lived that has proven to be true to me.

In that regard I constantly unlearn what I learned and seek new truths and test them. Trying to get to their core, foundations and ultimate consequences rather than stopping at some dogma like creationism does.

So can you unlearn what you learned and discuss with an open mind? For a lot of arguments I feel were people talking past each other and not with each other. I saw paralells where you saw differences, and we did not really get anywhere with that. No need to convince each other. But I'd like to somehow unite our interesting points and find a common ground where it does not matter if we apply a hierarchic or simultaneous system or any other and instead, at the roots of both our ideas, can continue this discussion.

 

Ok, I'm trying to be a uniter and not a divider.

How about, Midi-Chlorians are also "Lucas Fantasy?" Lucas probably wanted to show how the microbiotic worlds worked in Star Wars. Unfortunately, he must have realized this too late. The stuff we are debating about is what Lucas finally considered in his "post-agenda" for the Sequel Trilogy.

These are exceptions to the norm. The norm is a Maker builds a Droid. "Thank the Maker." I do not disagree if some droids are imbued with some energetic principle that gives them sentience. However, those are rare exceptions to the norm. In my thinking, a higher power (higher than human beings) would allow a particular droid to have sentient energetic properties.

Faulty programming should not be confused with sentience. Aggressive programming should not be confused with sentience. Where is the kill-switch for that droid?

I can only discuss with my views intact. My mind is not for sale. I seek logical consistency. I seek to find norms and then identify exceptions to the norm.

That's nice. If it helps, someone could accuse me of being an animist as well. *I have felt bad for cardboard boxes that were beaten and kicked only to be broken down to be cast into a trash bin.

In regards to something more serious, I never deny animals consciousness. I look at the body design of the animal and the survival system of the animal for imagining what its "conscious life" must be like. (What does it smell? What motivates it? What are the animal's drives?)

Canines experience an entire world of smell consciousness which is outside of our conscious awareness. In other words, their olfactory sense is every bit part of their consciousness and drives. They map out their routine using sensory information not available to humans. Other animals in the wild map out their familiar territory using their senses.

You are correct in saying that my view has a creationist basis. I do not shun the word nor is it embarrassing. I'm open to all views. The ancient past on Earth is for more complicated than what we learn in school.

To boil it down into one sentence: I believe creation is a veil. Creation is God acting upon nature. We do not have records of pre-linguistic ancient history because that is part of the veil. The fantastic myths of the ancient past may be true from a certain point of view. God is complicated and complex and outside this discussion. *Indiana Jones seeks to uncover the veil of creation, as we all do.

 

Or, because record-keeping requires linguistics.

 

The Phantom Calamari has a rather brilliant observation.

I think it’s pretty devastating to the case for droids, and I think the last sentence explains the difference between humans and droids very succinctly.

I wouldn’t make this assumption. There are sources where the sentience of biological creatures is debated and the Jedi simply aren’t involved, relevant scientists are. There’s not much reason for the Republic to go to the Jedi on this matter instead of the relevant experts. Sith Lords are a Jedi’s speciality, not droids. I don’t really see the Republic going to the Jedi for the answers to life’s mysteries; they would require other, more objective/secular ways to answer societal questions.

I think the difference here is one of comedic writing.

I don’t think it pays to take these examples too seriously. It makes less sense to do so. It makes more sense to write it off and dismiss it as comedy, imo.

No one would ever allow battle droids to behave that way. No programmer would ever let it get anywhere near that point, it would be catastrophic incompetence on their part. No customer would tolerate it. It defeats the very appeal of droids. The same would apply to many examples.

 

How do droids adapt to new situations and new people? They have their programming and storage. They have basic sets of responses programmed. They build new responses based on the feedback they receive. Some of their responses fit the situation only marginally well resulting in comedic effect. Sometimes the responses are right on.

The situations the droids get put through in the films and tie-in material demonstrate machine/computer learning to unique situations. There is no way the droids could interact with human characters on such an authentic level without machine/computer learning. And sometimes the machine learning is hit or miss, but it becomes refined and perfected with every interaction.

As human beings, as we grow into adulthood, we do much the same. We respond to unique situations and test our responses. Our memory then holds which responses were appropriate. However, this learning is formed in synapses connecting neurons.

Language learning with children is the same way. A response is tested followed by feedback. Sometimes the child's response is inappropriate. The child gets corrected. There is a feedback loop of a) responding, b) receiving feedback for the response, c) refining the response. (learning)

 

Actually while interesting indeed the conclusions you draw from this revelation are wrong. No company would on purpose program droids personalities to be weird or annoying, no company would individually program each of millions of droid with one but rather give the entire class a standard personality with few changeable themes perhaps the buyer can alternate between to customize it a bit.

Any believe that 3PO or R2s personality is preprogrammed cannot hold up. Still it is a good point that their personality is the same before and after the mentioned events. But I would not explain that with preprogrammed behavior and and instead argue that it is because of their soul or their self.

Also I doubt Anakin programmed 3PO to be the way he is. Either it is part of his earlier selfs before being rebuild froms crap, or truly it is just the way he is. Programming does not make any sense in that regard. Especially not for Battle Droids that nobody would program to be stupid and comedic!

If though as you and The Phantom Calamari claim droids are stuck with their starting parameters, I agree given arn't we all? There are parameters even we as humans cannot overcome and judge everything by! Another paralell to droids that unites us more than it is any difference!

Thus thx for the observations that support my thesis.

I really dislike when people ignore stuff they do not like or does not support their own thesis and explain it away with "not meant to be taken seriously". Sure some writing is more comedic, but either we take SW at face value or we do not. We cannot pick and choose what suits our argument. Especially since we are not talking comedic animated battle droids but the movies themselves, the most "at face value" of all SW sources!!!

Midichlorians were an idea not much mentioned again due to fan hate of it, still they are and remain canon and what little is known of Lucas sequel ideas supports them playing a major part given his microbiotic world and micro/macrocosm paralells he also heavily teased in TCW with Mortis and the Midichlorian origin world. He never abandoned the idea but marketing did no longer focus on it.

We are not talking any post-agenda or Sequel Trilogy in this topic but SW in general, and even if we were, Midichlorians are a part of it that can't be ignored.

But I agree they are not necessary for the Force to work, at least in fleshy lifeforms they seem to be but others have other mechanisms I am sure. The Force is more mystical than these little critters.

Ah so you agree it is possible for droids but argue that not all of them have a soul or energetic principle? Thx for clarifying that! While I think these exceptions speak for a larger possibility of the norm being faulty and the exception their true nature that is masqued by memory wipes, lets see what we can do with this.

While I previously discussed an inherent energetic principle in everything even droids, one often present since "birth", I see that one may have to reevaluate the exact moment of sentience. General energetic principles inherent in all life and matter, even droids and their components aside, droids are said to achieve sentience after a too long activation without memory wipes. Lets assume for the moment, this is true, then this would mean there is something happening that makes them more than machines that has to do with memories, given a wipe can prevent that "something" to happen.

Droids over time adapt to their masters and become more unique than the standard factory model. People often wipe droids to reset them and keep them at standard levels.

What do people mean with that though? Do they mean droids truly become sentient and individual? Do they just use this terminology to descripe unwanted behavior like incentive and are scared of too human-like droids? Given they design droids to not look too human or too like their alien designers, with synthflesh a possibility for hundreds of years already they intentionally keep them different from themselves. (I'd like a past droid uprising with synthflesh wearing proto HRDs to explain this deep sitting galactic fear!)

This also reminds me of clones and clone madness. We know by now clones were programmed for Order 66 and did not go mad. From a Jedi pov it seemed as if they did.

So, a droid operates according to programming that is highly adaptive and can learn yet not reprogram itself or violate the major robotic laws that it has as factory set limitations. Were this system perfect, one would not need memory wipes or fear them at all. This shows the system is flawed in some way. A flaw that becomes risky with prolonged activation without wipes. What could that be? The data storage capability of drois is immense and we have not heard or seen a case where any risk was posed by it reaching its limits in that regard. Something else then, if it is not the data it allocates, it may be what it does with said data, like alghorythmic correllations and combinations. Let's call it the Skynet principle, given the Terminator movies had an AI take over the world because of its programming taken too seriously, not because of deviating from it.

When protection of mankind turns to protecting it from themselves as their own greatest threat Skynet ran into paradox because the one it was meant to protect was also the greatest risk to be taken out for humanity: itself. The rest is movie history!

Is it a case of this machine learning, that would have droids take their rulesets too seriously that they start acting up over longer times? Does that warrant the wipes? And is this going against human interest ultimately the fear that lead to humans claiming they become sentient and "no longer obey"?

This is indeed no true sentience and more human linguistics fooling us then.

But this also is not what happens in SW! In SW even noncombat models can become sentient.

Is the crucial change and moment we seek the one where a droid realizes that it is not expendable and where it does not blindly obey commands anymore? The above Skynet example shows that droids can ignore commands if they think to protect their makers via this insubordination. This is not going against protocol yet. Ignoring commands for another reason might be. But even if doing it for selfpreservation is not against protocol, or may be in order to protect itself so it can serve the maker longer and thus protect the maker through ones own survival.

We are going in circles for with these examples there is always a way to rationalise it back to the Skynet principle of however convoluted, it fits the basic laws.

So sentience must lie elsewhere. Maybe memories, emotions, alghorythms and corellations lead to a complexity level in the droid brain, where it comes close to our own. Even if so, if complexity is all there is dividing sentient and nonsentient then the line is arbitrary and can be placed anywhere in between.

And if a higher entity awards life with a soul, its futile to debate at what point a soul enters a being. Is it when a droid reaches a certain complexity? Or when a baby fetus evolves to a specific point where the soul comes in? When from first cell to embryo? Or was it there from the start and only becomes active or noticeable at a certain complexity?

I think, what we both with our argumentations have is a general problem. I starting from the everything has a spirit base in my earlier posts always reach the conclusion that supports this thesis. You arguing from the opposite direction always can break it down to programming and else. We are two sides of the same coin I think but so long we remain on our side we cannot see the other. There are entire scientific schools of thought that break down humans and animals like machines and programs and do not work with any spiritual element to it all. It has their benefits for medical studies and done a great deal of good in the world though being far from perfect.

I think a major distinction in our both views is, as noted previously, that you place humans above other creations of god, whereas I place it amongst them on the same level. This is why you insist that humans have an energetic principle like a soul from the start and others do not, or other nonorganics.

God created men equal to himself and they are like god and a part of god as per bible. Applying the same to mens creations like droids, men created droids to be like them, support them and be with them, even to be a part of them (cybernetics, cyborg tech, med tech). How can we deny the droids what god did not deny us? A soul? Sharing the holy spirit? If we truly want to be like god, we need to do like him and share it instead of bottling it up.

Sometimes we have to unlearn what we learned, even if temporarily only to test or entertain different trains of thoughts.

Great point on canines and different experiences and systems at work.

Droids have senses akin to humans but also many more akin to their sensor packages and are informed differently and thus act different too.

Nothing against creationism here Not a supporter either though, but the truth is always somewhere in the middle and neither creationism nor evolution hit all marks. And indeed Indiana Jones and Lucas through him put some interesting ideas out there, not all but some fall into the creationist camp.

Personally I am more an "ancient aliens" kind of guy that does place creationism and evolution further back then current history ascribes to it, maybe even offworld. There are more dimensions to discuss but that would go too far here and now.

Interesting that you mention a veil. I encountered a similiar description in another context when researching ancient history. Be it the holographic universe or humanity living in its own bubble kept separate from the galaxy on purpose. Often different ideas align quite well even if they may seem rather opposed. I am no follower of any specific line here, but if leaving god out of this discussion, how to proceed? Leave the entire energetic principle out too like souls? Or do we have to accept that there is more than meets the eye or current science understands and somehow factor this in, even if it borders on the paranormal and metaphysical?

Going back to our coin analogy, I see two soides of the coin, everything has a soul on one, and nothing has on the other. For you can deconstruct humanity like droids down to their programming. Human behavior, psychology, patterns, medical sciences.. most is rooted in this worldly machinistic understanding of human biology and neurology.

So with your proposing the hierarchy of God > Humans > Droids and Else, I still lack any proof or argument that explains why exactly this hierarchy? What makes humans special? Why the need to elevate them above other creations of God? Why attribute any scale or measuring at all?

Part of me does not like hierarchy and lines... I always try to bend them into a circle and cycle. Mentally and physically. As some SciFi Authors put it, God created men, men created machine, machine will create... god? Fun thought but I like it. And just for the record, maybe even time is not a line but a circle, however large or small, variable or fixed (more on that in one of my books I am currently writing).

 

But if creating a droid is "top down" - duplicate a human (or alien) brain inorganically, then modify it to suit your needs, and mass produce it - then the makers of battle droids may be stuck.

Humans and and aliens are flawed - and these flaws may be uneliminateable when it comes to copying them.

 

On duplicating a human brain,

The human brain is one of the most complicated objects in the known universe, if not the The Most complicated. The structural properties and developmental properties would have to be mass produced. That task is far too difficult. Why bother when you can accomplish more with bits and bytes that do not have biological limitations?

(*I'm using bits and bytes to represent all digital data transfer.)

Let's call droids "androids?"
From Wikipedia: An android is a robot[1] or other artificial being[2][3][4] designed to resemble a human, and often made from a flesh-like material.[2] Historically, androids were completely within the domain of science fiction and frequently seen in film and television, but recent advances in robot technology now allow the design of functional and realistic humanoid robots.[5]

Robots and Androids are essentially a "Tool" to human beings. They may be designed to imitate human beings but they remain a tool.

R2D2 and C-3PO both satisfy a test of being successful tools. Both droids show throughout the films why they are needed. They provide the right tools in just the right moment to the human characters.

R2D2 and C-3PO would not be successful tools if their functions were dependent on copying human biology. Human biology would instead impose a barrier to their success as multifunction tools. Human biology has its limitations. Bits and bytes allow robots to bypass human biological limitations. (The old adage never judge a book by its cover applies.)

We defeat the purpose of Robots and Androids by trying to design them to be like humans. They are not humans and they fundamentally do not have consciousness as the norm. There is no purpose to give robots and androids sentience/consciousness. That effort is too complicated and misguided. Finally, where can an Ethical argument be found to support giving robots sentience? They are intended by God and Nature to be tools.

 

For us. 25,000 years of galactic civilisation and the task may be much easier for them.

I would suggest that consciousness is an unavoidable byproduct of making something intelligent enough to "do a human's job".