Asimov gets me depressed

In article <1107268030.56649.0.TakeThisOut@despina.uk.clara.net>, "Nick"
<nick.TakeThisOut@yourstuff.com> writes:

  > > I tried to read each one of the Killer B's sequels, bot the plots are so
  > > entangled, not to say awkward, and there are so many characters to learn,
  > > that I stopped in the middle of each one, disappointed.
 >
 > Which was the daft one that centered around some "characters" thrashing
 > things out inside a computer? That really peed me off - I just kept
 > thinking "But they're just SOFTWARE - I really don't CARE!!!!" I stuck
 > with that book to the bitter end, hoping that there would be a clever
 > twist that somehow redeemed it.... I was disappointed.

Well, the others are just fictional characters.

More to the point, one of Asimov's best characters is certainly Daneel.
However, he's also "just SOFTWARE", unless the fact that he can move
about and offer Baley his swallowed-but-undigested food makes him
somehow better.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Asimov gets me depressed 

"Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply" <helbig RemoveThis @astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote in message
news:ctojfa$g31$1@online.de...
 > In article <1107268030.56649.0 RemoveThis @despina.uk.clara.net>, "Nick"
 > <nick RemoveThis @yourstuff.com> writes:
 >
   >> > I tried to read each one of the Killer B's sequels, bot the plots are so
   >> > entangled, not to say awkward, and there are so many characters to learn,
   >> > that I stopped in the middle of each one, disappointed.
  >>
  >> Which was the daft one that centered around some "characters" thrashing
  >> things out inside a computer? That really peed me off - I just kept
  >> thinking "But they're just SOFTWARE - I really don't CARE!!!!" I stuck
  >> with that book to the bitter end, hoping that there would be a clever
  >> twist that somehow redeemed it.... I was disappointed.
 >
 > Well, the others are just fictional characters.

Yes yes, very funny! ;o)

 > More to the point, one of Asimov's best characters is certainly Daneel.
 > However, he's also "just SOFTWARE", unless the fact that he can move
 > about and offer Baley his swallowed-but-undigested food makes him
 > somehow better.

Yeah, but a robot affects things in the real world (ok, the sci-fi real world) whereas a bunch of
ones and zeros "feeling" things inside a computer has no relevance - unless they end up changing
things in the real world. Whatever - I was wanting my money back after that one...<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Asimov gets me depressed 

 >
  >>More to the point, one of Asimov's best characters is certainly Daneel.
  >>However, he's also "just SOFTWARE", unless the fact that he can move
  >>about and offer Baley his swallowed-but-undigested food makes him
  >>somehow better.
 >
 >
 > Yeah, but a robot affects things in the real world (ok, the sci-fi real world) whereas a bunch of
 > ones and zeros "feeling" things inside a computer has no relevance - unless they end up changing
 > things in the real world. Whatever - I was wanting my money back after that one...
 >

Why do "ones and zeros" inside a computer have no relevance? Why is
that any less relevant than nerve impulses in a brain? Nerve impulses
are just as irrelevant unless they affect things in the "real" world as
well. A robot is a machine, but so is a human. Just a very different
machine. One's metal, the other's organic. It's all about perception.
This is so existential...<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Asimov gets me depressed 

In article <ggcvd2-9tj.ln1 RemoveThis @yamato.spacedock.8inchfloppy.com>, Dave
Stubbs <dave.stubbs RemoveThis @utoronto.ca> writes:

   > >>More to the point, one of Asimov's best characters is certainly Daneel.
   > >>However, he's also "just SOFTWARE", unless the fact that he can move
   > >>about and offer Baley his swallowed-but-undigested food makes him
   > >>somehow better.
  > >
  > >
  > > Yeah, but a robot affects things in the real world (ok, the sci-fi real world) whereas a bunch of
  > > ones and zeros "feeling" things inside a computer has no relevance - unless they end up changing
  > > things in the real world. Whatever - I was wanting my money back after that one...
  > >
 >
 > Why do "ones and zeros" inside a computer have no relevance? Why is
 > that any less relevant than nerve impulses in a brain? Nerve impulses
 > are just as irrelevant unless they affect things in the "real" world as
 > well. A robot is a machine, but so is a human. Just a very different
 > machine. One's metal, the other's organic. It's all about perception.
 > This is so existential...

There is an interesting book by Rudy Rucker called "Software" which
deals with many of these issues. In one scene, there is a female robot
in a bar, waving a magnet around her head while the biological patrons
drink alcohol. A guy comes on to her, then backs off when he realises
she's a robot, saying "there's just metal" behind her face. She then
asks what is behind his face and whether that is even more aesthetic.

The novel is quite interesting and explores many issues, though in some
respects it is rather off the wall.

Under the name Rudolf v. B. Rucker, Rudy Rucker is also a mathematician.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Asimov gets me depressed