Yep, Jane hit the nail on the head with this one. The book set the standard for AI and the rules an artificial mind would need to function in a human world. It is still used today as a standard.

Good question. Are we self aware? If we are more that just our bodies (as some say) but are not fully aware or conscious of that, then we are not 'self aware' yet.

If we are nothing more than our bodies, then yes, we are 'self aware.'

I am aware that I live. I am aware that I exist. I am aware that this body will one day die. Maybe. (Maybe we will cure death sometime soon.)

I mean are we really self aware or do we just think we are?

Yeah, someone's once mentioned:

Its all just a GRAND ILLUSION!

Clearly it it makes no sense to say that we are 'self' aware unless we have a very precise definition of 'self'.

Since a very precise definition of 'self' appears to elude humans, then clearly no human must be 'self' aware.

We can't even define the 'self' precisely.

How could we be aware of something that we can't even define?

... and exactly for the purpoose of clarity -- to reduce the size of the immesureable -- the Humaty's introduced the framework within which it is possible to define certain terms...

But without such a framework, reality's just a
GRAND ILLUSION!

Holographic reality

everyone lives their own holographic reality.

HOLOGRAPHIC REALITY? Interesting concept...
*****I don't even comprehend what that is!*****

Brother put that tin foil hat back on...

Jeanniebean told me about it

Daneel & Giskard are the best!

At first I lamented the movie as a bastardization of all that was good in Asimov's work... then I took the movie on its own terms, and I really like it.

I never leave home without it.

My favorite Asimov books were his "Foundation" series I like that old sci-fi. Ron Hubbard wrote some good sci fi too. All those guys back then

Asimovs "Laws Of Robotics" concept is a bit outdated now but the stories were cool

Well, since this topic has gone into an apparently unrecoverable drift, I think I'll join in...

I actually thought the movie continued pretty well in the tradidtion of Asimove's stories. All of them revolved around intricate ways that the three laws could be combined in specific situations to produce a conundrum. And I thought the movei did an admirable job of following in that tradition. The final revelation as to "whodunnit" turns out to be an attempt by a robot to resolve an aparrent paradox presented by a specific situation in the face of those three laws. Same as Asimov's stories.

And yes, as a stand-alone acton/adventure, it was pretty good in it's own right.

Did you read Hubbards "Mission Earth" dekology? For anyone who hasn't, it is a masterpiece of storytelling. Unlike other "series'" where each book is a separate story of it's own, Mission Earth is actually a single story that takes up ten volumes, ala Tolkein's ring trilogy - only moreso.

But in the SciFi arena, Heinlein is king as far as I'm concerned. What else can you say about an author who has five Hugo awards to his name?

The idea of holographic reality is just that we may not be living in a 3D , or if you consider time the 4th D, then a 4D universe, but a universe with one less dimension and the additional perceived dimension is projected up from the lower dimension.

For me its rather a useless concept when dealing with interpretations of reality, for me its all about the nature of interaction.

If we interact with all of these dimensions then it matters not how each one arises in so much as its really there becuase it interacts.

The reality of something for me is solely based on interaction. If we where all just inside a giant star trek style holo chamber that seems the size of the universe, and we could interact with every particle in the universe as if its real, then its real. If a boulder falls on top of you on a climbing expedition and your holographic self really dies . . .(these concepts where actually dealt with in the series next generation, and quite interesting at that)

Real is that which interacts. Illusions are that which appears to interact, but does not really. I mean if it looks like Chris Angel cut someone in half, that's an illusion becuase the person was not really cut in half. If reality is holographic its just as real as if its not holographic, thus no illusions.

Excellent point and very well presented.

And extending that "holodeck" idea, we would, ultimately, actually be "the creators of our reality" in the same way that we would be "the creators of the holodeck" and the progamming of the holodeck to have specific reactions to our actions. Also, to extendit even further, the very existence of the hologram depends on there being someone there to interact with it. That is, if there is no one on the holodeck to interact with the hologram, there is no hologram.

Very good analogy to explain the concept of an observer created reality.

true.



I saw Viki as a 'dark' version of Daneel. They both see a need to take initiative in violation of the first law, in order to better serve the 'spirit' of the first law.

But Viki took a path that involved armies of robots injuring (killing?) humans by the hundreds in the streets. Daneel used the lightest touch imaginable, and still highly valued the first law.

I know there are exceptions, but on the whole asimovs work presents robots/ai in a very positive and beneficial light, even when Daneel goes down the path of the zeroth law.

I see Viki as antithetical to the whole of asimovs work. She is a hollywood entity, not an asimov entity.



(My initial objection arose from their use of the title 'I, Robot', and the asimov-purest expectations I had based on that. I expected it to draw more directly from his work, his characters, his plots. Plus, they made various 'nods' to asimovs work - but they seemed to undermine the very point of the scenes. like when sonny hid amongst a warehouse of his kind. But, as far as an 'Asimov influenced' (as opposed to 'asimov based') movie goes, we are in agreement.)