Robot beacon story?

Sherm Pendley wrote:

> Dave S <davidsteinhoff.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > I can't remember or find a story that Asimov wrote where robots on a
> > remote space station were there to keep a communications beacon
> > focused on distant Earth. The humans eventually died off and the
> > robots grew sentient and came to worship the beacon as their pipeline
> > to the deity.
>
> Sounds a bit like "Reason", one of the short stories in "I, Robot".

Or it might be part of the "Robot City" series.

> > It's a cute story about how faith becomes the
> > explanation for innate character elements.
>
> Actually, no. It's a discussion of the merits of reason alone (hence
> the title) vs. the scientific method. It points out a flaw in the
> former by showing how blind belief in an untested hypothesis can lead
> to irrational behavior.
>
> There's also a subtext of tolerance. In the end, the robot is left to
> believe as it will, because its superstition doesn't affect its job
> performance and doesn't harm any humans.

Powell says that Cutie refused to obey him and Donovan because Cutie knew
that he could keep the energy beam to Earth more stable than any human
could, so the First Law (no harm to humans) compelled Cutie to take control
of the energy beam. However, Cutie doesn't believe that there are any
humans at the other end of the energy beam, so why would the First Law even
apply?
 >> Stay informed about: Robot beacon story? 

Dave S wrote:

> That's it. Thanks!

But the humans don't die off in "Reason".

>
> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>
> >Dave S <davidsteinhoff RemoveThis @comcast.net> writes:
> >
> >
> >>I can't remember or find a story that Asimov wrote where robots on a
> >>remote space station were there to keep a communications beacon
> >>focused on distant Earth. The humans eventually died off and the
> >>robots grew sentient and came to worship the beacon as their pipeline
> >>to the deity.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Sounds a bit like "Reason", one of the short stories in "I, Robot".
> >
> >sherm--
> >
 >> Stay informed about: Robot beacon story? 

[note massive cross-posts]
In article <44C71D79.213063BE DeleteThis @pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>, Tim Bruening writes:
>Sherm Pendley wrote:

>> Sounds a bit like "Reason", one of the short stories in "I, Robot".

>> Actually, no. It's a discussion of the merits of reason alone (hence
>> the title) vs. the scientific method. It points out a flaw in the
>> former by showing how blind belief in an untested hypothesis can lead
>> to irrational behavior.
>>
>> There's also a subtext of tolerance. In the end, the robot is left to
>> believe as it will, because its superstition doesn't affect its job
>> performance and doesn't harm any humans.
>
>Powell says that Cutie refused to obey him and Donovan because Cutie knew
>that he could keep the energy beam to Earth more stable than any human
>could, so the First Law (no harm to humans) compelled Cutie to take control
>of the energy beam.

Did Powell say that? That's not how I remember it. As I remember it, QT
was keeping the beam perfectly steady because he believed that it was his
divine mission to so do.

Humans were the reason that Powell and Donovan were worried about QT,
not the reason that QT did his job properly.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
A bad day sailing is better than a good day at the office.
 >> Stay informed about: Robot beacon story? 

Michael Stemper wrote:

> [note massive cross-posts]
> In article <44C71D79.213063BE.DeleteThis@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>, Tim Bruening writes:
> >Sherm Pendley wrote:
>
> >> Sounds a bit like "Reason", one of the short stories in "I, Robot".
>
> >> Actually, no. It's a discussion of the merits of reason alone (hence
> >> the title) vs. the scientific method. It points out a flaw in the
> >> former by showing how blind belief in an untested hypothesis can lead
> >> to irrational behavior.
> >>
> >> There's also a subtext of tolerance. In the end, the robot is left to
> >> believe as it will, because its superstition doesn't affect its job
> >> performance and doesn't harm any humans.
> >
> >Powell says that Cutie refused to obey him and Donovan because Cutie knew
> >that he could keep the energy beam to Earth more stable than any human
> >could, so the First Law (no harm to humans) compelled Cutie to take control
> >of the energy beam.
>
> Did Powell say that? That's not how I remember it. As I remember it, QT
> was keeping the beam perfectly steady because he believed that it was his
> divine mission to so do.
>
> Humans were the reason that Powell and Donovan were worried about QT,
> not the reason that QT did his job properly.

Yes, Powell said that the First Law was the reason why QT seized control of the
energy beam, knowing that he (QT) could keep the beam more steady than any human
could. However, since QT didn't believe that there were any humans at the other
end, I believed that the First Law should not have influenced QT in the energy
beam matter.
 >> Stay informed about: Robot beacon story? 

Tim Bruening wrote:
> Michael Stemper wrote:
>
> > [note massive cross-posts]
> > In article <44C71D79.213063BE.RemoveThis@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>, Tim Bruening writes:
> > >Sherm Pendley wrote:
> >
> > >> Sounds a bit like "Reason", one of the short stories in "I, Robot".
> >
> > >> Actually, no. It's a discussion of the merits of reason alone (hence
> > >> the title) vs. the scientific method. It points out a flaw in the
> > >> former by showing how blind belief in an untested hypothesis can lead
> > >> to irrational behavior.
> > >>
> > >> There's also a subtext of tolerance. In the end, the robot is left to
> > >> believe as it will, because its superstition doesn't affect its job
> > >> performance and doesn't harm any humans.
> > >
> > >Powell says that Cutie refused to obey him and Donovan because Cutie knew
> > >that he could keep the energy beam to Earth more stable than any human
> > >could, so the First Law (no harm to humans) compelled Cutie to take control
> > >of the energy beam.
> >
> > Did Powell say that? That's not how I remember it. As I remember it, QT
> > was keeping the beam perfectly steady because he believed that it was his
> > divine mission to so do.
> >
> > Humans were the reason that Powell and Donovan were worried about QT,
> > not the reason that QT did his job properly.
>
> Yes, Powell said that the First Law was the reason why QT seized control of the
> energy beam, knowing that he (QT) could keep the beam more steady than any human
> could. However, since QT didn't believe that there were any humans at the other
> end, I believed that the First Law should not have influenced QT in the energy
> beam matter.

Just because Powell said something, it doesn't mean that he was
correct. At the time he was relieved that millions of people hadn't
been killed by the beam being mis-directed (and at a personal level he
wouldn't be convicted of mass man-slaughter), so he probably wasn't
thinking at his most rational at the time.

Cheers,
Nigel.
 >> Stay informed about: Robot beacon story? 

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:02:42 -0500, Michael Stemper wrote:

> [note massive cross-posts]
> In article <44C71D79.213063BE.DeleteThis@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>, Tim Bruening writes:
>>Sherm Pendley wrote:
>
>>> Sounds a bit like "Reason", one of the short stories in "I, Robot".
>
>>> Actually, no. It's a discussion of the merits of reason alone (hence
>>> the title) vs. the scientific method. It points out a flaw in the
>>> former by showing how blind belief in an untested hypothesis can lead
>>> to irrational behavior.
>>>
>>> There's also a subtext of tolerance. In the end, the robot is left to
>>> believe as it will, because its superstition doesn't affect its job
>>> performance and doesn't harm any humans.
>>
>>Powell says that Cutie refused to obey him and Donovan because Cutie knew
>>that he could keep the energy beam to Earth more stable than any human
>>could, so the First Law (no harm to humans) compelled Cutie to take control
>>of the energy beam.
>
> Did Powell say that? That's not how I remember it. As I remember it, QT
> was keeping the beam perfectly steady because he believed that it was his
> divine mission to so do.
>
> Humans were the reason that Powell and Donovan were worried about QT,
> not the reason that QT did his job properly.

In fact, so far as QT believed, there weren't any humans on Earth. So it
certainly wouldn't harm any humans if he let the beam deviate!
--
Alexey Romanov

"Sam? No one's chasing us."

"What? There's supposed to be an angry mob hot on our heels!
The inspector promised us an angry mob!

"Helix, I believe we've been stood up."

Freefall <http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff900/fv00822.htm>
 >> Stay informed about: Robot beacon story? 

In alt.books.isaac-asimov Tim Bruening <tsbrueni.DeleteThis@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:

: However, Cutie doesn't believe that there are any humans at the other end
: of the energy beam, so why would the First Law even apply?

They explain that in the story -- Cutie can't help obeying the First Law
even if he thinks that he isn't.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr.DeleteThis@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"I've lost my harmonica, Albert."
 >> Stay informed about: Robot beacon story? 

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 06:50:37 +0000 (UTC), schultr.RemoveThis@mail.biu.ack.il
(Richard Schultz) wrote:

>In alt.books.isaac-asimov Tim Bruening <tsbrueni.RemoveThis@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>
>: However, Cutie doesn't believe that there are any humans at the other end
>: of the energy beam, so why would the First Law even apply?
>
>They explain that in the story -- Cutie can't help obeying the First Law
>even if he thinks that he isn't.

Which strikes me as a trifle superstitious in it's own right.
 >> Stay informed about: Robot beacon story? 

In alt.books.isaac-asimov David Johnston <rgorman.TakeThisOut@block.net> wrote:
: On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 06:50:37 +0000 (UTC), schultr.TakeThisOut@mail.biu.ack.il
: (Richard Schultz) wrote:
:>In alt.books.isaac-asimov Tim Bruening <tsbrueni.TakeThisOut@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:

:>: However, Cutie doesn't believe that there are any humans at the other end
:>: of the energy beam, so why would the First Law even apply?

:>They explain that in the story -- Cutie can't help obeying the First Law
:>even if he thinks that he isn't.

: Which strikes me as a trifle superstitious in it's own right.

I don't think so. The QT series was designed to keep a beam in focus on
the earth. It seems to me that a reasonable circuit design would have put
those elements subsidiary in the same positronic circuit as the First Law
directives so that the robot would *always* do that job. That is, the robot
was *designed* so that not keeping the beam in focus would activate its
First Law circuitry. Otherwise, a psychotic human aboard the space station
could order the robots not to do their jobs, and the robots, not knowing that
failure to do the job would lead to harm to humans, would obey them. QT's
failure to understan that there were humans on the earth was a design flaw
somewhere else in the brain -- that's the kind of thing for which beta-testers
like Donovan and Powell are there for. Whether Donovan and Powell, or the
designers of QT, knew the difference between "its" and "it's" is something
that I could not tell you.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr.TakeThisOut@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
 >> Stay informed about: Robot beacon story? 

<ncwaite RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153983669.081162.263060@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tim Bruening wrote:
> > Michael Stemper wrote:
....
> > Yes, Powell said that the First Law was the reason why QT seized control
of the
> > energy beam, knowing that he (QT) could keep the beam more steady than
any human
> > could. However, since QT didn't believe that there were any humans at
the other
> > end, I believed that the First Law should not have influenced QT in the
energy
> > beam matter.

> Just because Powell said something, it doesn't mean that he was
> correct. At the time he was relieved that millions of people hadn't
> been killed by the beam being mis-directed (and at a personal level he
> wouldn't be convicted of mass man-slaughter), so he probably wasn't
> thinking at his most rational at the time.

The form of the Robot stories was problem-resolution-explanation. I don't
think Asimov was in the business of providing unreliable explanations.

J/
 >> Stay informed about: Robot beacon story? 

Westprog wrote:
> <ncwaite DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153983669.081162.263060@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Tim Bruening wrote:
> > > Michael Stemper wrote:
> ...
> > > Yes, Powell said that the First Law was the reason why QT seized control
> of the
> > > energy beam, knowing that he (QT) could keep the beam more steady than
> any human
> > > could. However, since QT didn't believe that there were any humans at
> the other
> > > end, I believed that the First Law should not have influenced QT in the
> energy
> > > beam matter.
>
> > Just because Powell said something, it doesn't mean that he was
> > correct. At the time he was relieved that millions of people hadn't
> > been killed by the beam being mis-directed (and at a personal level he
> > wouldn't be convicted of mass man-slaughter), so he probably wasn't
> > thinking at his most rational at the time.
>
> The form of the Robot stories was problem-resolution-explanation. I don't
> think Asimov was in the business of providing unreliable explanations.
>

He did in "Nightfall". The explanation for the madness that overcame
civilisation was given by the psychologist character as being a
reaction to the coming of the darkness, in spite of the observational
evidence that this only affected ten percent of the population. The
real explanation was the appearance of the magnificent night sky that
was revealed by the eclipse.

Cheers,
Nigel.
 >> Stay informed about: Robot beacon story? 

ncwaite RemoveThis @hotmail.com wrote:

> Westprog wrote:
> > <ncwaite RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1153983669.081162.263060@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Tim Bruening wrote:
> > > > Michael Stemper wrote:
> > ...
> > > > Yes, Powell said that the First Law was the reason why QT seized control
> > of the
> > > > energy beam, knowing that he (QT) could keep the beam more steady than
> > any human
> > > > could. However, since QT didn't believe that there were any humans at
> > the other
> > > > end, I believed that the First Law should not have influenced QT in the
> > energy
> > > > beam matter.
> >
> > > Just because Powell said something, it doesn't mean that he was
> > > correct. At the time he was relieved that millions of people hadn't
> > > been killed by the beam being mis-directed (and at a personal level he
> > > wouldn't be convicted of mass man-slaughter), so he probably wasn't
> > > thinking at his most rational at the time.
> >
> > The form of the Robot stories was problem-resolution-explanation. I don't
> > think Asimov was in the business of providing unreliable explanations.
> >
>
> He did in "Nightfall". The explanation for the madness that overcame
> civilisation was given by the psychologist character as being a
> reaction to the coming of the darkness, in spite of the observational
> evidence that this only affected ten percent of the population. The
> real explanation was the appearance of the magnificent night sky that
> was revealed by the eclipse.

If the Nightfall planet's people ever make it into space, they will have severe
difficulties due to being able to see all those stars with no atmosphere to block
them out by distributing the glare of the six suns.

They might reach space someday. In the expanded version of Nightfall, a religious
cult was able to restore order after the eclipse and start rebuilding
civilization.
 >> Stay informed about: Robot beacon story? 

<ncwaite.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154593688.466798.15840@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Westprog wrote:
> > <ncwaite.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1153983669.081162.263060@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Tim Bruening wrote:
> > > > Michael Stemper wrote:
> > ...
> > > > Yes, Powell said that the First Law was the reason why QT seized
control
> > of the
> > > > energy beam, knowing that he (QT) could keep the beam more steady
than
> > any human
> > > > could. However, since QT didn't believe that there were any humans
at
> > the other
> > > > end, I believed that the First Law should not have influenced QT in
the
> > energy
> > > > beam matter.
> >
> > > Just because Powell said something, it doesn't mean that he was
> > > correct. At the time he was relieved that millions of people hadn't
> > > been killed by the beam being mis-directed (and at a personal level he
> > > wouldn't be convicted of mass man-slaughter), so he probably wasn't
> > > thinking at his most rational at the time.
> >
> > The form of the Robot stories was problem-resolution-explanation. I
don't
> > think Asimov was in the business of providing unreliable explanations.
> >
>
> He did in "Nightfall". The explanation for the madness that overcame
> civilisation was given by the psychologist character as being a
> reaction to the coming of the darkness, in spite of the observational
> evidence that this only affected ten percent of the population. The
> real explanation was the appearance of the magnificent night sky that
> was revealed by the eclipse.

That was explained, though. It was the conclusion of the story. There's
nothing in the rules of the game to prevent incomplete and inaccurate
hypotheses being put forward until the real solution is arrived at.

--

J/

BOTW: "The Man Who Knew Infinity" - Robert Kanigal
 >> Stay informed about: Robot beacon story?