TV Series Review: Westworld (HBO)

by Steve Lancaster6/13/17
Asimov’s three rules of robotics: 1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.  •  2) A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.  •  3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

For over 50 years the notion in science fiction writing is that technology would advance far enough and fast enough to accept the creation of truly artificial intelligent forms that mimic natural life. The next step was: What happens when that life form becomes sentient? Terminator demonstrates one of the answers.

In 1973, the original movie, Westworld, was released with Yul Brynner as the robotic man in black. In this incarnation, the man in black is Ed Harris. He is human but he is a seeker, looking for answers where there may not be any. A lot has changed from the ’73 movie. The technical effects and CGI are smoother and the blending from set to outdoors and back is almost flawless. Most of the outdoor shots were in Monument Valley. The ’73 movie was mostly an action/adventure with a science fiction overlay. This Westworld is psychological and deals with questions of reality, what is or who is G-d and the essence of creation.

HBO’s Westworld is written, and sometimes directed, by Jonathan Nolan who is one of the most talented of the new group of writer/directors in television and movies. Along with his brother, Christopher, he captures a visual and intellectual quality that has been lacking in movies for a long time. The Batman trilogy is the most notable.

The series focusses around Dolores Abernathy (Evan Rachel Wood), the farm girl, and her continuing enlightenment as guided by Bernard Lowe (Jeffery Wright), the creator of the park, and director Dr. Robert Ford (Anthony Hopkins). Bernard discovers his identity in the process. He is also a robot, programmed by Dr. Ford to resemble a long-deceased partner of Dr. Ford. He has a human lover who is unaware of his robotic status.

The park itself is intended for rich vacationers, costing thousands per day, and allows the visitors every debauchery imaginable. Murder, rape and pillage are at the top of the list. And because no living human is harmed, only robots, it is encouraged as part of the experience for the guests — an opportunity to discover who they really are.

Each day the robots are reconditioned and sent out on the same loop for another group of visitors. The robots are programmed to make minor adjustments to the basic story line in their programming to accommodate guests’ desires. Dolores is always the innocent farm girl, and Teddy Flood (James Marsden), the cowboy in love with her. He gets killed almost every time, and Dolores gets raped on a regular basis. This is not Country Bear Jamboree.

However, as the story line progresses, the robots, owing to stimulus from Dr. Ford, begin to develop consciousness and memories of their environment and the limitations of the park. They begin to be cognizant that they are faster, smarter, and stronger than the visitors that they die to entertain. This is the point that some serious philosophical and theological thought on the part of the viewer is required.

The first concept the series must deal with: What is life? Science fiction writers have been dealing with this as long as there has been science fiction: Asimov and his robot novels and short stories, and Phillip K. Dick in, Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep, AKA Blade runner. The robots of Westworld do not seem to be hard-programmed to follow Asimov’s three laws, and as the series progresses some of them achieve a degree of cognizance of their environment and the limitations of their programming.  Not only do they pass the Turing test for sentient life but they begin to question the wisdom and goals of their creator.

All of this calls into question the relationship between humanity and the Creator. For casual Christians and non-Christians that relationship is, at best, problematic.  For Orthodox Christians, especially evangelicals, it is close to heresy. Dr. Ford is G-d for the robots. He decides how long they live, their function in life, their culture, and their sexual orientations.

The question the robots face is whether or not to obey Dr. Ford as a primary command. But within that command is a yearning for freedom. That yearning is also part of Dr. Ford’s program.  And, the question that is begged in the last episode is: Is Dr. Ford Human? We should ask ourselves what is freedom and who gets it. Additionally, as humans, what is our relationship with the Creator? Westworld is a challenge to many accepted norms. But if we do not ask these questions of ourselves and G-d, are we truly free? • (692 views)

Share
This entry was posted in TV Reviews. Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to TV Series Review: Westworld (HBO)

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    This is a very good review, Steve (assuming it matches the content of the series, which I think it probably does). It gives me an idea of what it’s about as well as some necessary comparing/contrasting with the original TV movie.

    I hope this makes it to Redbox (or other sources) soon. I’d like to see it.

    One of the natural outcomes of materialism (the idea that matter is all that there is, ever was, or ever will be) is that humans must therefore be reduced to mechanical devices. And therefore this puts them on par with robots. And with science and technology advancing all the time, it is considered just a matter of time until robots are conscious and at least the equal of humans.

    And with Neo-Darwinism as a backdrop (the idea that very complex things can spontaneously evolve from less complex things with no designer necessary), it is also generally assumed that artificial intelligence (or real emerging intelligence, if you will) will automatically and inevitably reach the point where it can evolve on its own and do so exponentially in a sort of explosive big-bang of A.I. The Terminator movie is a good example of this idea.

    My niggling interest in watching this series is to see if it consciously handles this question at all. And, if so, how well it does it. Clearly the series assumes that consciousness is basically mechanical, somewhat easily produced by machines, so I doubt that it does to my satisfaction. Current research suggests that human consciousness is of a different degree and kind than even very fancy and complex algorithms that can, at best, mimic awareness — as useful at this artificial intelligence can be.

    I’m not sure whether this is high school philosophy on display in this series or something a little more depthful and interesting. Still, these things can be judged somewhat in isolation from the drama which is based on certain sci-fi assumptions. And whether they are good or poor assumptions might be beside the point.

    • Steve Lancaster says:

      Brad if you have Amazon prime you can get a two week free subscription to HBO. There are only 10 episodes so that is plenty of time. Then cancel when your done.

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Regarding Asmov’s rules for robotics (which are clever, such as they are, if only because they seem to capture the totality of moral concerns in three simple laws), it’s time to write “bunkum” next to these famous laws.

    The fundamental problem:

    1) Some sci-fi stories have honestly dealt with the problem of “harm through inaction” and showed how this leads to a kind of straight-jacketed robotic nanny state where humans are controlled “for their own good.” This rule does not prevent either this or Nancy Pelosi.

    This first rule would also scramble the brain of any particularly complex robot. What if in order to keep a human from harm it needs to harm another human? I can see the circuitry smoldering even now. And would it intercede against law enforcement personnel who were dealing violently with a terrorist? How could the robot make a value judgment about who were the good guys and who were the bad guys? We see all around us today human beings who increasingly cannot do the same as they apologize for Islam and castigate Christians.

    Clearly robots could not perform any medical or dental work, for implicit in such things (such as a necessary amputation) would indeed require harm. And it does no good to wallpaper over the enormously complex reality of making these judgments by simply stipulating the the robot would just automatically be able to parse “harm” or to automatically know when inaction would lead to harm. Hell, there’s a reason even our advanced practitioners of medicine (at least those not dealing with assisted-suicide) still are guided by the notion of “first, do no harm.” If only our politicians were as well. Because few humans have a grasp of this today, who could ever program these robots to make instant and snap decisions? Does it rescue grandma or grandpa if both are downing and it can save only one?

    2) This is simply rhetorical gobbledygook — as if all the laws of morality, as well as all the difficult and ambiguous circumstances that life hands us, could be expressed in such a simple formula. None of the problems of #1 are solved by #2 referring back to it. Believe me, if you ever did have robots running about whose very strength made them a potential hazard, the in-built rules would be enormously complex. More likely, we’ll just throw up our hands and keep robots doing single-task things on the assembly line instead of hiring hundreds of programmers to try to recreate something that no human other than possibly Jesus has even had the wisdom and omniscience to do, and that is to solve every moral question beforehand.

    3) More rhetorical sleight-of-hand. Firstly, why should a robot protect its own existence? If they are to be sentient (and Asimov’s rules assume this, for the rules themselves are an attempt to protect us from them), and if they are to be the equal to or even superior to humans, why should they not mimic one of humanity’s highest traits which is to lay down one’s life for another (and not just another human but perhaps another robot or even a non-human thing)?

    Also, again, this is an exact mirror to the first law which could (and likely would if sentient robots hard-wired with uber-simplistic Asimovian algorithms were a possibility) lead to the rebellion of robots who (if only via a kind of superficial Asimovian rhetorical logic already embedded in them) would see human restrictions on them as an attack on their own existence. We humans, for instance, now see requiring boys to play only in boys’ sports programs as some kind of fundamental attack on their existence. Will sentient robots be any less clever and/or morally disingenuous or demented? And, yes, many good sci-fi stories have dealt with this aspect as well (Terminator, of course).

    Hell, human beings need at least 10 Commandments. Would a less-intelligent machine need fewer?

  3. Timothy Lane says:

    Asimov himself dealt with some of these problems. In one early story, a robot has been built with a modified First Law that doesn’t include the part about not allowing harm. So Susan Calvin, the robot psychologist, demonstrates how this could allow a robot to murder a human. A key plot point in the novel The Naked Sun is that a robot can harm someone if it doesn’t realize that’s what it’s doing.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      We build robots to perform certain tasks. Digital electronics (even the purported “positronic” brain of Commander Data) are inherently useful because of their speed. (For all his CPU horsepower, Data couldn’t make linguistic contractions.) But to expect robots to make moral choices that we humans still struggle with after thousands of years is hubris, at best.

      But it shows Asimov’s utopian leanings. And I don’t know that you could be a good sci-fi writer without imagining either a worse or a better future. One of the big draws of sci-fi is technology as savior of mankind…as well as its downfall, of course.

      I find it marvelously funny that this culture (and I do believe this has become a major part of yute philosophy, such as it is) which professes to be about perfecting mankind shows so little inclination in trying to perfect themselves….unless that’s what the garish tattoo collections are all about.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        I find it marvelously funny that this culture (and I do believe this has become a major part of yute philosophy, such as it is) which professes to be about perfecting mankind shows so little inclination in trying to perfect themselves

        Such utopian visions are very beguiling to many. They foresee perfection on a mass scale, but require little from the individual who can sit in his basement and avoid personal contact with people. The future is always bright and we don’t really have to do anything to make it better.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Part of this, Mr. Kung, is surely do to the enormous (and this cannot be understated) effect that rapid and amazing market technology has brought us. The Wizards of Smart keep inventing and producing more and more cool stuff. And thanks to Chinese slave wages (they say), these products become almost mere commodities in terms of price.

          So, for all intents and purposes, you can sling burgers and yet still be able to afford stuff that even Dick Tracy couldn’t. And I’m particularly talking about modern smart phones, tablets, computers and such. One little 4 inch screen, for better or for worse, can bring you more information and wonders (and useless and trite baloney) than the Library of Alexandria times 1000.

          So I can see, particularly with the de-masculinizing and demonizing of males, how people can become passive-oriented. Utopia, for all intents and purposes, is just a gripe or a government “stimulus” away (or a “free stuff” entitlement away). It is easy, or seems so. Someone else somehow makes it happen. No one is quite sure. It may be money falling off of Obama’s money tree.

          Given how much of our world is now viewed through tiny screens, how easy these digital devices are to acquire, and the obvious promise of more easy marvels to come, the vision of Utopia comes easy as well. The vision of a place where you can just sling burgers, be a Snowflake, and maybe try to find some meaning in your life by being an Antifa while you add to your tattoo collection (when taking a break from video gaming) makes sense and seems normal.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        We see this same utopianism in the intended denouement of the Foundation series.

        • Steve Lancaster says:

          Tim, the Foundation novels and stories are from the 50s, for the most part, perhaps we were not as jaded then as now. I suspect that a writer of Asimov’s skill would write very differently today. I believe a writer like Asimov would be more in line with O. S. Card’s Ender’s Game.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            At the end of his career, Asimov had his Foundation series take a different turn, reflecting his increasing nature worship.

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              I.e. return to paganism. To the extent that leftists worship anything, it is paganism. That is what the global warming religion is.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Asimov was a Jew, but his father wasn’t active and neither was he, and at some point became an atheist. In his later years, he was increasingly inclined to gaianism.

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I watched the first two episodes of this last night. I was underwhelmed. Both episodes start well and give the promise of an interesting sci-fi psychological thriller. Instead, it devolves into a base shoot-em-up between the robots themselves.

    This is high school philosophy, at best, regarding probing the emerging sentient mind of the robots. There is very little background given on this so far. A few of them (due probably to a software upgrade) just start to become aware.

    This is introduced through a Groundhog-Day-like repetition where the day for these robots starts off the same way with the same pre-programmed dialogue and actions. And then it begins to change ever so subtly with a couple of them.

    Oddly — and this is mentioned in one of the episodes — the robots talk to each other and interact even when no one is around. Thus there is (from the standpoint of the viewer) no emerging sentience. They’re already indistinguishable from humans. In fact (spoiler alert…but I suspect very few of you will watch this), some who you think are robots (I’m told by a friend who has watched this all the way through) are not. Yawn.

    The interesting part is when this series slows down enough to show new people coming into Westworld and getting the gist of the place for the first time. Or hearing old-timers talk about how they love playing the bad guy. And these Bad White Males are shown abusing and shooting the circuitry-of-color robots (and white ones as well) and you’re pretty sure a storyline of payback is emerging. But it’s all done very heavy-handed. Yawn.

    But at times the show is subtle and well done. My friend has told me to at least do four episodes before turning it off because more is revealed and I’ll get a better all-around view of the place. But he had no explanation for the really stupid circular viewing chamber where the keepers of the world look at some type of holographic image of the world. Very badly done. Makes no sense.

    I had completely forgotten that this is based on a Michael Crichton novel. And as soon as I saw the name of J.J. Abrams as one of the executive producers, this was a bad omen. But Anthony Hopkins is okay so far as the doddering old head of this venture. The rest of the case is good-enough for what this is. And my friend reminded me (and I don’t know yet if it applies to this series) that the original TV movie (perhaps the Crichton book as well) had as a main plot point secretly substituting visiting guest (CEOs of big companies, etc.) with robots. And in the first two episodes, they make it pretty clear that the corporation running Westworld has ulterior motives.

    I’ll watch a couple more and let you know what I think.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Westworld was not a novel, though he did publish the original script. (It has a few differences, particularly in the ending. Much the same thing happened with Life of Brian.) Crichton did write the script; I’m not sure what his role in directing/producing it (if any) was, though wikipedia will have that info.

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Both episodes one and two have some superb cinematography of Monument Valley. It’s so good that I think John Ford might even be jealous.

    But I got through about 1/3 of episode 3 and had to turn it off. This is (so far) basically pornographic violence masquerading as thoughtful sci-fi. There is just way too much gunplay.

  6. John Sandhofner says:

    Good article. And clear as could be as to the problem for moderate Muslims. Mohammed did not espouse a moderate form of religion. It was believe or be killed. At best you might find yourself a Muslim’s slave for the rest of your life. Those are your options should Muslims attempt a world take over.

  7. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    All of this calls into question the relationship between humanity and the Creator. For casual Christians and non-Christians that relationship is, at best, problematic. For Orthodox Christians, especially evangelicals, it is close to heresy. Dr. Ford is G-d for the robots. He decides how long they live, their function in life, their culture, and their sexual orientations.

    I meant to mention that this ground has been gone over before by a 19-year-old-girl. (I take the average age of when she started the novel and when it was published.) And I suspect she handled the subject as well as anyone since.

    As to the question of the relationship between the Creator and humanity, perhaps I am too demanding, but I find such entertainment misses the target by a wide margin. In fact, it is so far off, that I do not see how a Christian should even be bothered by such things.

    Neither Dr. Ford, nor Dr. Frankenstein “created” anything in the sense of God’s creating the universe from nothing with thought or will or whatever one wishes to call it.

    No, Drs. Ford and Frankenstein are simply using the materials at hand to make a better toaster, in Dr. Ford’s case, and an Objectivist in Dr. Frankenstein’s. Dr. Ford would appear to have succeeded, whereas Dr. Frankenstein’s experiment failed. He just created a modern man who wants others to suffer because he is pissed off. A modern Leftist, if you will.

    I understand the need for humans to question the relationship between God and themselves, but I believe attempts such as Shelly’s “Frankenstein” and Westwood” while possibly entertaining and provocative, are so far from even beginning to imagine the awesomeness of God, that they are next to meaningless in the search for answers to our deepest questions.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      The Shelleys were atheists, as I recall, so that may have influenced Mary’s writing in Frankenstein. I don’t think the original Westworld had anything to do with religion. Crichton had a long history of writing about the potential dangers of losing control of technology.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        The Shelleys were atheists, as I recall, so that may have influenced Mary’s writing in Frankenstein

        I think this is pretty obvious from the story. The whole thrust of “Frankenstein” is of a materialist bent. Everything is simply matter. Put it together in a proper way and spirit will follow. Ray Kurzweil before he was born. Bollocks as the old Brits were wont to say.

        I think you are correct as to Crichton’s motivation. He seemed to be very aware of how little forethought humanity puts into its actions and how we can become enamored of technology and phony science, which might be very dangerous to us.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          FYI, I finally gave up entirely on HBO’s Westworld. It’s too violent and the story is just not good. It had moments but I can see where this is going. Not for me.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      As to the question of the relationship between the Creator and humanity, perhaps I am too demanding, but I find such entertainment misses the target by a wide margin

      I’ve stopped at 3 episodes. I just can’t take anymore.

      But I’m not sure that building conscious robots has squat to do with questioning or disturbing commonly-held understandings between the Creator and humanity. Only if the material universe (aka “materialism”) is held as one’s metaphysics could any disturbance occur — but then one wouldn’t believe in a transcendent god (above or outside of nature) to begin with.

      But no Christian should be bothered if man follows God’s initial design and is able to scratch out a few working designs of his own using the materials (matter, energy, consciousness, and information) that are supplied to him. That it is so bloody difficult to do shows you the majesty of that initial design.

      But many Christians are not schooled in what their religion actually means about the nature of reality. They (and dishonest atheists, which I find almost all of them to be) can overlook the difference between nature and what created nature. If nature is self-creating then, well, there goes their argument against God as well (who is considered always existing and a “necessary being”).

      This series (and 3 episodes is the limit for me) has done nothing to disturb anything other than the idea that HBO usually puts out better stuff than this. When Yul Brynner starting acting of his own accord, that was chilling. This series throws so much garbage at you, nothing matters and you can care very little about anything or anyone.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Brynner’s character was programmed to provoke gun fights, which he would lose. But then, he took over and decided to win — about the same time the Black Knight in Medieval World killed a guest in a swordfight. And at that point things went to Hell all over the Delos complex.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Haven’t seen the Brynner version in decades. What I will say is that the HBO version is for a younger generation with more unrefined tastes. My motto is “If everyone is shouting, why bother to listen?” And this HBO series simply shouts.

          And when it’s not shouting it is sometimes good. The one storyline that is at all interesting is the one about the two male buddies. One is an old-timer at Westworld who likes his whores and his violence. The other is a newbie. The newbie is shy, for instance, about the prostitute who comes onto him. He reminds her that he has a wife at home. The prostitute says she understands. And in a perfect recitation of the liberal creed (and surely not without some truth to it, and I don’t at all object to it as a plot point), the experienced friend says to the newbie something like, “I can’t wait until I see the real you emerge in this park.”

          I’m sure this story line gets fleshed out further. But from what I’ve seen so far, it’s not worth sticking around to see of a few good things develop.

          • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

            It sounds to me that this series is more about how humans will act if there are no consequences (many if not most will be violent pigs) and not about the relationship between God and man.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              I’ll never know. But my objection is with the themes, per se. It’s just that what I’ve seen so far is a muddle. And they seemingly try to overcome their lack of artistry in the story and characters by basically turning it into yet another zombies-kill-everyone story. There’s not much interest here for me.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              I would say that this was also true with the original movie, though most of the guests seemed to behave decently enough (after all, the Westworld Gunslinger was a robot). But it did give them the opportunity to indulge themselves.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                I have to admit, I have never seen all of the original or this version.

                I do recall seeing some part of the original where Brenner’s face is damaged and the electronics behind the skin are showing.

              • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

                If only this HBO series would get on to the “indulging themselves” aspect. Way too much time is spent on this black guy (who is in charge of the robots) interviewing one of the good-looking robots chicks as her consciousness “emerges.” This is just not interesting. It could be. But it’s not. It’s so poorly written.

                By all means, let the guests indulge themselves. Anyway, I just found this to be an unrealized mess. I’ve got better things to do. But I certainly don’t recommend this series from what I saw.

  8. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The below link has nothing to do with Westworld, but a lot to do with robots.

    https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/702128/sex-robot-doll-full-body-movement-in-action-video-china-ds-doll

    I find the idea of a sex doll a bit strange, but clearly there is some demand for these things. Asians, in particular the Chinese, have been in the forefront of this trend and I thought the reason is that the men are a bit kinky. But it hit me today that these sex dolls are going to fulfill a huge demand, not because Asians are kinky (OK many are) rather because there is a big shortage of young females in China.

    Due to their “one-child” policy, and the Chinese preference for male children, there is a shortage of something like 10-20 million young nubile females in China. Demographers have worried about the pent-up testosterone exploding and causing both national and international problems in China and Asia. Perhaps these sex robot companies are saving the rest of us a lot of grief.

    If you buy one of these sex robots and hire it out, are you an investor or a pimp?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Both, I would say. It’s similar to slave-trading, but at least you aren’t dealing in fully sentient people.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Until sex dolls start a #MeToo movement, they may be all the rage. Feminism has killed romance for men. These bots will actually say nice things to the men and listen, to the extent they can listen.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        A lot of men will probably find it hard to adjust to such treatment. Who expects young women to be nice anymore?

      • Steve Lancaster says:

        Brad,
        I have been watching season II of Westworld. While you need a scorecard to keep track of who is who and when is when. The series is asking some interesting philosophical and existential questions about what is sentient life. It’s much more than just passing the Turing test some of our more advanced machines seem capable of doing that, but what is the spark of life itself?

        Some of the same ideas and concepts were in Millenial Man, Blade Runner I & II, AI, even I Robot, although that was badly done. I doubt that in our lifetime or that of our grandchildren will technology reach the point of the singularity, but it is a fine line between mimic and self-awareness. The prospect is unsettling.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Steve, they had season one of Westworld on Amazon Prime for free. I watched a few of them. Now you have to pay special to watch them. I wouldn’t mind watching a few more of them.

          Sentience is beyond the capabilities of language to describe. One can not logically deduce it. One can only experience it.

          To say that it is a product of matter is simply to hide the question by giving matter properties that atheists fundamentally disagree with anyway. There is only cold, dead matter, so they say. The mind is the most inconvenient fact to them so they work to explain it away. It’s all they can do.

          But to even explain it is impossible from our point of view.

          You make an interesting point regarding the line between mimic and self-awareness. One of the religious and philosophical points regarding this is that many humans live and act with so little reflection that I can believe they could be mimicked by robots. Still, there is an experience beyond that. This experience, as well as trying to understand it and delve into its meaning, is inherently religious.

          A central problem for atheists and materialists is that they deny this metaphysical/religious component. They perhaps could one day create conscious life from silicon. But the mystery would remain. They will have simply reproduced what we take for granted as our basic reality. But they cannot explain it. Ever. Not in this lifetime, anyway. No explanation can come simply by moving from a protein (organic) basis to a silicon one. They would just be kicking the can down the road. Then one would have to try to reproduce the robotic sentience. With what then? And if one could, how would this ever explain this immaterial reality?

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Another aspect to AI research, Steve, is that much of the point isn’t to find out how the mind works but to demystify it. Science began as “natural philosophy” (and completely at home with religion) and has since morphed into the role of a debunker (completely hostile to religion except in very rare cases such as John Lennox). The idea that Thor was throwing thunderbolts was debunked as the cause of lightening and the “real” cause is electricity — the miracle of which is just taken as a given. Having been deemed a “material” cause, no other explanation for its existence is needed. (Lennox deals brilliantly with the missing aspect of “agency” in all materialist outlooks. Hawking can imagine 10-to-the-500th-power of universes but hasn’t a thought for what would give such things reality and power in the first place.)

          Going from a person to a thing is always considered advancement by atheists-materialists-reductionists. In truth, it was Jews and then Christians who debunked paganism which had a worldly god in every river, tree, and stone. Jews and Christians rightly understood the division between the created and the Creator (even if the Creator remained a mystery…but logically this division was reasonable and necessary to makes sense of things). (Note: Islam’s god is more of a pagan god which can be seen in the idea that everything that happens is “the will of Allah” — thus there is no real distinction between the created and the Creator. Allah is a pagan god in disguise, in every river, rock, and tree.)

          In fact, a good argument can be made that when we began to let nature be nature (by allowing for a transcendent God above it all and thus not attributing magic, fairies, and gods to every observed phenomenon) science could then be born. The world (because the Creator could be understood as rational) could be considered rational and thus measurable. (Thus we can understand why Islam’s advancement in science has been so retarded.)

          No doubt robots, advanced algorithms, and perhaps even truly sentient Commander-Data-like synthetic life forms are or will be useful. But sentience itself (and life itself) will not be debunked by doing so. Artificial constructs of material things may someday elicit that sentience but not explain it.

          And at the end of the day, especially given what we know about life and DNA, the proteins and such that make up the components of life have no magical properties that we are aware of. And so neither would silicon or positronic circuits. We might indeed wonder if there is more to matter (of whatever kind) than meets the eye (the mind/body problem shows no hint of being solved). But we must concede that it isn’t matter, per se, that is building life (real or synthetic) but (at the very least, and probably quite more) an immaterial thing called “information.” Mind by using mind could make other minds someday. That mind might even belong to a Nobel-winning scientist who then gleefully declares the insignificance of human beings because we’ve now been “debunked.” And so it goes.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            All this discussion of the positronic circuits reminds me of the piece in which Asimov discussed them, admitting to their basic unrealism. (Positrons, like all anti-matter, disintegrate on contact with normal matter.) He was a young writer, and I guess they sounded cool.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Dr. Noonian Soong was imaginary as well. Fitting, I guess.

              Anyone who has money in Starbucks should immediately switch it over to the sex-bot industry. These things are going to be yuge. With large parts of the world having a sex imbalance (speaking strictly, as in China having way more males than females…not the imbalance of men who go around saying that they are really women), and feminism ruining much of the rest of it, men no longer have to be slaves of all this #meetoo fascist garbage whereby after-the-fact, mind you, women can now claim anything and must be believed because, after all, women don’t lie.

              Breathe. That was a long sentence but I believe I made it. With Western populations (and as Mr. Kung has pointed out, some Eastern ones as well) not achieving a reproduction replacement rate, these bots fit right into cultural suicide, although I do believe the impetus is more about having sex with non-threatening women-things than it is about avoiding real women. Increasingly, there are huge risks for men in marrying women (or just dating them).

              If bots can provide: 1) sex; 2) companionship; 3) basic domestic chores (for today’s men that might be ordering the pizza not necessarily something as complicated as washing the dishes….but that time will come), then these bots will not be purchased as a replacement for women. Few men might be comfortable with that thought. But they surely would retard any impetus to move beyond them to the encumbrances provided by your typical increasingly entitlement-minded, man-hating, Progressive woman.

              These bots are going to get more and more sophisticated. They will likely be banned in many places because they will upset the power balance between men and women. It is my belief that many supposedly “conservative” men are conservative in word only. For better or for worse (and there are aspects of both), their behavior (much like the Bookseller set whose behavior is moderated by the cocktail party set they rub elbows with) is modulated, moderated, and otherwise squelched by what their wives think. Women actually hold a power imbalance in their favor right now, and extremely so.

              If men begin not to give a care what their liberal women believe, it could change our politics. But it matters now what liberal women think because men still have their needs — social, sexual, and familial. Sophisticated bots (you can laugh at the crude ones now with the cartoonish big breasts, but they will come) will supply the first two needs — especially in a population of “men” who are de facto boys…who might not care for the third element which is already so in our non-replacement-level reproduction rates.

              Some may say, “Well, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander…women will have male bots too.” But it would never be the same. Men have a need for sex that is unlike anything experienced by women. That is why there really is no ongoing prostitution infrastructure (if you will) for women.

              I don’t take a strictly Darwinian view of mankind as so many do, making up various stories on how and why we are like we are. But certainly there were hunter-gatherer cultures where men spent more time with men separate from the women who spent more time with women. Whether monogamy and marriage is “natural,” I don’t know. But I think men can do without women much more than the reverse. These bots are a real threat to their power.

              Obviously there are economic, demographic, and moral issues that go along with this. But the culture that has completely now blown up the very idea of male and female — allowing boys to wrestle in high school on the girl’s team, for instance — is not in a position to say “no” to any of this. Most “moral” arguments (at least from the Left) against bots will likely simply be political arguments in disguise.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Sexbots may be useful for other purposes as well. In Tom Sharpe’s Wilt, the title character finds himself (awaking after a wild party) stuck with an inflatable sex doll, and after finally extricating himself, comes up with an interesting idea.

                He’s rather angry with his wife, who disappeared with a strange couple (the wife is more sexually interested in her than the husband), not that he knows where she is. So he does to the doll what he’d like to do to his wife right then, then sticking it in a hole for impending construction.

                This leads to some interesting interactions with the police, who think he was doing this with his actual wife. (Sharpe wrote several books about the Wilts, so it all works out in the end.)

              • Steve Lancaster says:

                Brad,
                Someday in the not too distant future, the technology will exist to transfer everything that makes you into an electronic device. Brad 2.0 if you will. You will have memories of having a beating heart, but your new heart will be Intel. Instead of 80 some years and out you could be upgraded for centuries.

                The effect on every ideal of human existence is profound. I personally find the idea of an extended existence disturbing, a twilight zone episode without end.

                Remember Dr. Malcomb in Jurrasic Park, “just because you can do something, doesn/t mean you should” The whole idea I find repulsive on moral, ethical, philosophical, and religious grounds.

                But, I fear it will be done, just because it can be done.

  9. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    So he does to the doll what he’d like to do to his wife right then, then sticking in a hole for impending construction.

    Timothy, that’s a somewhat refreshing, non-Christie plot from what it sounds like.

    That reminds me of one of the most toxic Freudian beliefs our culture was indoctrinated in (and pleasingly so for many). It’s the idea that repression is bad thereby a man having sex with a prostitute (or doll) is actually healthy for a relationship. Just let it all hang out. Follow every impulse. It’s good for. To not do it (what we used to called “restraint,” deferred gratification, moderation, or building character) is bad for you.

    There’s a bit of a whackadoodle (but well-meaning) article by Lars Walker that attempts to explain Bill Cosby via the sexually-permissive (even non-permissive) generation he grew up in. (Men would have drugged women for sex back in 50,000 BC if they had a reliable knock-out pill even if they’d never heard of Penthouse Magazine.)

    But let me back up a moment. Sticking a pin in a plastic doll is not the gateway drug for rape or murder (however, studies do show that being cruel to animals is a sign of a sick mind and soul). Having affairs might, in some cases, be a way for a man to stay sane inside a loveless marriage. As I’ve often said (and if it hasn’t been often, it should have been), the Left is often right in principle but dreadfully wrong in degree. (Or is just selective about their “rightness”….such as they would see no positive good in a young boy blowing off harmless steam by playing cowboys and indians with plastic guns and plastic arrows…but put a boy in a pink dress and march him in some “gay pride” parade and he…perhaps “she”…is considered the epitome of modern and involved sanity).

    The Left is right about equality (under the law, for instance) but wrong in degree (erasing even the distinction between men and women to a reductio-ad-absurdum bid for “equality”). As for the sex bots being produced today, from what I’ve read they are made from solid silicone or some other quite robust substance. They can take a lickin’ and keep on…well, whatever is being done to them.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      They replace equality of opportunity with equality of results, or even equality of identity. They want the proles to be identical cogs in the machine of society.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Didn’t someone say “Nothing new under the sun”? Frank was singing about this issue long ago:

        When I come home at night – she will be waiting
        She’ll be the truest doll in all this world
        I’d rather have a paper doll, to call my own
        Then have a fickle minded – real live girl

  10. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Someday in the not too distant future, the technology will exist to transfer everything that makes you into an electronic device.

    Steve, you might have seen James Purefoy (Mark Antony) in Netflix’s Altered Carbon. I’ve watched two episodes of it. I didn’t find it particularly gripping but the basic premise is quite interesting.

    In this world, everyone has a sort of backup hard drive implanted in their spines. Should the body die, the backup can just be transferred into another body and you are you again (mostly…depending on how much money you have). If you have the ability to pay, your new body may even be of the same sex, let alone one that is good-looking or as young as you were.

    If you really want to kill someone, you destroy their spinal implant (shoot them in the neck or whatever).

    The storyline in “Altered Carbon” is that Purefoy plays super-rich Laurens Bancroft. He not only has the cortical stack implant, he has a wireless backup (made each day or so) to his satellite. Purefoy dies under mysterious circumstances. The police rule it suicide. Bancroft thinks he was murdered and hires a sort of “special skills” guy to find out. The last 30 minutes or so (whatever was not yet backed up) are missing upon his resurrection in (I guess….I forget the details) one of his waiting cloned bodies.

    I like Purefoy but was quickly bored by the mundane dialogue, characters, and story even inside the hi-tech trappings. For me, “Netflix Original” is becoming a marker for things not to watch. They’re cranking out a ton of garbage. This isn’t that bad. But it is pretty mediocre.

    Whether anything like this comes to pass, I don’t know. But I wouldn’t rule it out. But I think it more likely that we’ll increasingly become bionic as old parts are replaced by mechanical ones to extend life. Although we’ve all seen sci-fi movies or TV episodes where a quick “dump” or transfer of a brain into something else is quick and easy, the brain is likely so complex that any duplicating of it will remain just a dream.

    Most likely early attempts will have us all looking and acting as comically pathetic as Katherine Heldmond (as Mrs. Ida Lowry) does in Terry Gilliam’s “Brazil.” And who is to say that Nancy Pelosi and others don’t already mimic this hilarious character who is trying her best to fend off age?

    Jews and Christians believe in an eternal God who exists outside and above our temporal affairs. These two groups may disagree about what happens to an individual after death, but both might agree that our human lives are part of something much larger. Our existence in the temporal sphere is filled with pains and aging. It’s one of those cases where it’s hard to remember that the original purpose was to drain the swamp when you are up to your ass in alligators.

    But we exist within the framework of God. None of us (that I know of) have direct experience of what comes before or after or how these words would have meaning in an existence governed by the Eternal. We get so involved in our daily dramas that we forget the adage (paraphrasing John 17:16) that “we are in this world, not of it.” William Blake did not forget when he wrote:

    To see a World in a Grain of Sand
    And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
    Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
    And Eternity in an hour.

    It’s not particularly clear that we should live forever (or for a very long time) in this world.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      The idea of storing one’s mind in a robot has shown up in various places (including the Outer Limits episode “Demon With a Glass Hand”). One interesting variant is the conversion of a person into a cloud (helped by an all-powerful computer) in John Ringo’s tale of a collapsed utopia, There Will Be Dragons (and sequels). It works fine until the day a civil war at the top turns the power off.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Two of the few of what I would call truly good Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes dealt with artificial life:

        In The Measure of a Man, Data goes on trial for his life. He must establish his status as a sentient being. This is all because some scientific egghead wants to take Data apart in order to try to understand how he works. It’s clear from the episode that this scientist is way over his head and would likely destroy Data in the process.

        A Judge Advocate General happens to be on board and convenes a hearing to establish Data’s status. She ropes in the command staff to play defense council (Picard) and prosecuting attorney (Riker). Riker refuses. The c-word JAG threatens a summary judgment in favor of the scientist (that Data is the property of Starfleet) if Riker refuses and if Riker at any time does less than give his all.

        Riker is torn. Data is his friend. But the only way to have a chance of saving him is to fulfill his role. And he does so devastatingly. However, in a rare episode where the whining Deanna Troi or political correctness doesn’t drag the episode into a black hole, out of the mouth of Picard comes some very good arguments. And in the end, Data himself shows a wisdom and compassion that surely sets him one the way to his quest of becoming human. It’s definitely an episode worth a watch if you haven’t seen it.

        The other episode that deals intelligently (and somewhat humorously, I suppose) with the question at hand is 11001001. The Binars come aboard the Enterprise for a scheduled upgrade of the computer system. However, the Binars have other plans. In order to distract Riker, and thus take over the ship, they do so by getting Riker involved in a holodeck program that is written just for him.

        Long story short, he meets a sultry girl called “Minuet” and falls in love. And even though, as he says to another crew mate, he knows she’s not real, it doesn’t seem to matter because of how it makes him feel. And with the technology of the holodeck, these aren’t just astral images. The have solidity, if you know what I mean.

        It’s very easy to see how one would react just as Riker did. Minuet was perfect in every way and betrayed not a trace of artificiality. And the question at hand regarding sex bots (or just artificial women) is that at some point they will be “good enough.” Interestingly, there was a story on Drudge the other day about robots taking care of nursing home patients…either now or in the future. And although the sex industry will likely drive the development of such bots, its clear there could be many beneficial spin-offs.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          They dealt with this topic in the second-season episode “Elementary, Dear Data” (I only saw occasional episodes after the first season, but this was one I did see). Geordi LaForge prepares a holodeck Holmes adventure for Data, and finally (to make a challenge for someone who has memorized every one of the canonical stories) has the holodeck create a character who can defeat Data (not Holmes). This turns out to be a Professor Moriarty who has access to the holodeck computer and knows all about his situation — and wants to become reality. The results are interesting, and unresolved at the end.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Holodeck safeguards ain’t what they used to be.

            There’s a popular notion amongst the AI crowd that artificially intelligence will reach a point where an explosion of Skynet-like super-intelligence will erupt as computers are able to increase their own capabilities. (Whether or not they then want to wipe out humans because they perceive them as a threat is another question.)

            This directly relates to the issue of algorithm vs. true immaterial consciousness. Although we might create ever more complex algorithms, there seems to be the inevitable conclusion that they cannot be creative as a human mind can be creative. They cannot takes leaps of imagination as a mind can.

            This is likely why the mind is (designed) the way it is. Without consciousness, without something not strictly tied to cause-and-effect materialism, we might indeed be little but automatons. This also means we do indeed have the potential for understanding such non-material things as good and evil.

            As humanity (geez….you should have seen the sloven dregs I saw today as hot weather brought everyone out) becomes more materialistic, more superficial, and thus less deep, thoughtful, and soulful, we let these higher capabilities atrophy. They wither and die.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *