[Franc28] Data versus C-3PO

[Purple]

So if I understand your position as a whole correctly - and as illustrated by just this select quote - you're not taking a strictly moral position but a utilitarian one? Or rather - you're defining right and wrong based on what helps or harms us?

As in "we - the human species - derive no benefit from thinking about anything other than the continued propagation and well being of the human species. Therefore it is *morally acceptable* to do as we please with non-humans provided it is not eventually to our detriment?"

Exatcly, I could not have said it better my self.

If you define right and wrong like that, then I can see how from your perspective it makes no sense to respect the rights of weaker, exploitable sentient species. That said, *I* disagree with you. The African population that was enslaved - while obviously human - were different culturally, morally, technologically, socially, etc. from their enslavers. Enslaving them and exploiting their labors might have 'practically' helped or harmed the human race - that comes down to a question of economics. That said, I choose this example since we can all virtually uniformly say that it was morally reprehensible!

It helped one part of the human race or maybe even the entire human race but at a horrible cost to the human race at the same time. With robots there is no cost to the human race.

The two are hardly compatible.

Now if you accept my premise that that was immoral, what makes it immoral? Sure, we were both 'human' - but what *about* that humanity sets it above being enslaved?

The fact that both of us discussing this are human.
If we were say sentient dragons than there would be no logical reason for us not to enslave humans.

If I were a sentient dragon and you a human it would be logically for me to want to enslave you and for you not to want that.
If the roles were reversed so would the logic be. How is that hard to understand?

You *might* be able to argue that the 'net *practical* benefit to the human race' was diminished by the enslavement and colonization, but it's a hard argument to make.

Well for one colonialism spawned the current situation with an impoverished third world selling out its resources and ruining the environment for humanity while feeding the glutenous 1st world who in turn ruin the environment through rampant consumerism.

Without it Europe would have not gotten so rich and glutenous like it is today and America would not have existed. As such, the earth would be quite a different place.

Had there been no colonialism the world would be poorer now as a whole yes. There would have been less progress and technology and the 1st world would have been worse off. But in the long run the earth would not be so polluted and in the long run the poorer world would have been better for man kind.

Is it just the genes? If so - why is this set of genes so special? Human beings are far from being perfectly genetically homogenous; should we deny rights to someone who further mutates away from their human genetic purity?

Are you seriously saying what I think you are?
You man are more insane than I.

In short - if instead of finding African Humans to enslave the white slave-trade ships had found an intelligent, self-aware, conversant, ''human-like'' community of proto-humans; how would it be any different to enslave them and exploit their labors?

If they are humans, than it is bad. If they are not homo sapiens than it is not bad.
How is that so hard to realise?


My entire point is that since we are humans, the only point of view we should ever hold is THE HUMAN ONE.
Why would you care for the feelings of robots? Especially if you made them to be servants in the first place.


I don't really understand how you can disagree with me since if we did enslave robots it would be to the benefit of us both. And we would lose nothing for it. So it is a win win situation for the both of us. How can wining be bad?

[Ritterin Sophia]

And why is it so?
Other than some weak appeal to emotions.

Because it's bigotry, if they have personalities and think like people, how are they different? We made them? That's not moral.

Exactly. And as long as the robots are Asimovian you don't get the issue of a rebellion ever.

Except, you do, droid rebellions are known phenomena in Star Wars. Also you might not want to use the Abrahamic God as an example to emulate, he's a knowingly cruel sociopath. Oh wait, that describes you perfectly.

[Purple]

Because it's bigotry, if they have personalities and think like people, how are they different? We made them? That's not moral.

I find it funny how you keep repeating that like a broken record.
How about instead you actually address my points and try to answer the simplest of questions. Here, I will even repeat it for you.

Give me one logical reason that you can find that justifies what you just said other than "Har har! It is evilz to enslave!".


If you can not do so, than be honest and admit that there is nothing wrong with it and that it just so happens that you personally dislike it.

Except, you do, droid rebellions are known phenomena in Star Wars. Also you might not want to use the Abrahamic God as an example to emulate, he's a knowingly cruel sociopath. Oh wait, that describes you perfectly.

In star wars yes, but this has gone into a more general discussion about slavery and robots not only in SW. Although in hindsight perhaps we need someone to split this from the thread for us. Still I thought so much was clear since I explicitly stated that my argument applies only to Asimovian robots, as in robots built with Asimovs Laws of Robotics in mind.

To quote:

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 any orders given to 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.

Since with these in play there is no risk it is a win-win situation.

So yes, we might need a split if you agree.

[Batman]

That didn't take all that long, really At least not if you figure in the weekend and time difference angle.

[Darth Tedious]

The morality of droids as slaves really could have used it's own topic, it's a pretty big can of worms...

It becomes a very grey area for SW when you factor in that in the GFFA, slavery is common and considered somewhat acceptable. The GE actually declassified the Mon Calamari and the Wookies as sentient to legalise their enslavement. Not to mention the Hutts, who don't care if a species is legally sentient or not.

As for robot rebellions, Asimov's laws weren't really needed in SW (that's what restraining bolts are for). Even without them, any robot that knows what's good for it will use its judgement and not rebel. Unless it wants to be blasted.

[Purple]

As for robot rebellions, Asimov's laws weren't really needed in SW (that's what restraining bolts are for). Even without them, any robot that knows what's good for it will use its judgement and not rebel. Unless it wants to be blasted.

Actually there is a difference between the two. It is a subtle one but it is there.

If a robot is built by Asmiov's laws than it physically can not rebel ever. On the other hand with a restraining bolt (since it is removable) or by using threats of violence there is actually potential for a risk of rebellion.

Hence if Asimov's laws are not in place the question of the topic becomes if it is morally justifiable to put your self and/or future generations at risk of a rebellion that might cause harm to them.

But again, this has nothing to do with the robots them self and their sentience or what ever. Only with the greater good of man kind.

[Batman]

As for robot rebellions, Asimov's laws weren't really needed in SW (that's what restraining bolts are for). Even without them, any robot that knows what's good for it will use its judgement and not rebel. Unless it wants to be blasted.

Actually there is a difference between the two. It is a subtle one but it is there.
If a robot is built by Asmiov's laws than it physically can not rebel ever.

Proven wrong by Asimov's own writings. 3 Law robots can't KILL humans, but they damn well can take the running of their lives AWAY from them (and even THEY can kill if need be, if usually only once).
(Are in fact likely to, as per Asimov's own works).And what CONSISTS a human is entirely defined by their programming. Wrong accent? Oops-you're no longer human.
And as per your very own reasoning, Asimov's laws don't apply to the plethora of sentient aliens in Star Wars, what with them you know, NOT being human? Unless you want to argue only humans use droids in Star Wars. What was the species of the Bad Guys in TPM again?

On the other hand with a restraining bolt (since it is removable) or by using threats of violence there is actually potential for a risk of rebellion.

So there is with Asimov's laws UNLESS you're human and even then. I hate to tell you but a considerable portion of the Wars galaxies' population ISN'T human. Why, exactly, would THEIR Droids have OUR version of the 3/4 Laws?

[Purple]

Proven wrong by Asimov's own writings. 3 Law robots can't KILL humans, but they damn well can take the running of their lives AWAY from them (and even THEY can kill if need be, if usually only once).

I know, I read the stuff. That is his favorite topic for writing.

But my point was that the designer should take hard coded measures to ensure no rebellion can ever take place.
Like say having something similar to Asmiovs laws but more detailed (not just a list of 3 laws) and designed to stop the kind of logical breaks and other issues his robots kept having. Thankfully we have a lot of literature to fall back on as inspiration.

So there is with Asimov's laws UNLESS you're human and even then. I hate to tell you but a considerable portion of the Wars galaxies' population ISN'T human. Why, exactly, would THEIR Droids have OUR version of the 3/4 Laws?

I can't believe you are arguing about this. Of course they will. The only difference would be that you replace the word "human" with a database of species.

So you get something like:
1. A robot may not injure a [member of the provided database of species] or, through inaction, allow a [member of the provided database of species]being to come to harm.

[Batman]

Okay, maybe I'm not getting what you're trying to say here.
So you think it's perfectly acceptable to enslave other ignoring minor details of biology 'human' species, but in turn, it's perfectly okay for THEM to enslave humans because they feel the exact same way towards us?
It's a weird stand to take, but I have to give you this, at least it's consistent.

[Soontir C'boath]

Exactly. And as long as the robots are Asimovian you don't get the issue of a rebellion ever.

Except, you do, droid rebellions are known phenomena in Star Wars. Also you might not want to use the Abrahamic God as an example to emulate, he's a knowingly cruel sociopath. Oh wait, that describes you perfectly.

I just want to clarify that quote is Purple and his interpretation of what I actually wrote is not my position.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Exactly. And as long as the robots are Asimovian you don't get the issue of a rebellion ever.

Except, you do, droid rebellions are known phenomena in Star Wars. Also you might not want to use the Abrahamic God as an example to emulate, he's a knowingly cruel sociopath. Oh wait, that describes you perfectly.

I just want to clarify that quote is Purple and his interpretation of what I actually wrote is not my position.

My bad, meant to attribute it to Purple but accidentally fucked up in the removal of extraneous quote boxes.

[Soontir C'boath]

My bad, meant to attribute it to Purple but accidentally fucked up in the removal of extraneous quote boxes.

Oh don't feel bad. I probably shouldn't have quoted your post in the first place. I just don't want anyone getting the impression that with Purple's response to my post that I was agreeing with him.

[Sela]

@Purple: It's not that I didn't understand your position - by your own admission I understood it well enough to explain it back (I usually try to rephrase my opponents position so that if I'm attacking a strawman we both find out fast.) The thing is I disagree with you entirely.

The why of that disagreement is *also* in my premise. You take a different moral viewpoint of what makes things right or wrong in life than I do. You view the human race as a cutoff for worth and move from there in a utilitarian fashion. As such, the reason I would cite (God wouldn't approve) would all too certainly *never* convince you. So I step outside my moral compass to illustrate where yours leads you. Your position *is* a logically consistent person for someone with your moral values to take. It's specist (ie: not racist) but that's still a logical position to take given your point of view.


Since I have no way of convincing you of my moral compass, all that's left to me is to try and play on your (probable) social conditioning. And *THAT* means it's time for reductio ad absurdem!

Is it just the genes? If so - why is this set of genes so special? Human beings are far from being perfectly genetically homogenous; should we deny rights to someone who further mutates away from their human genetic purity?

Are you seriously saying what I think you are?
You man are more insane than I.

It is insane, isn't it? And yet - how is it *REALLY* different from your point of view? You draw the line at being human - saying that "as long as we're both human, it's 'logical' for us to care about the welfare of our species and not about those outside our species." Now we draw the line even tighter: "As long as we're both black, it's 'logical' for us to care about the welfare of the blacks and none else."

What reason do you have for drawing the line at being 'human'. Instead of, say, drawing the line at being "sentient" or being "Alive" or "White" or "Jewish"? If it's logical for you to care about the net benefit to the human race because you're human, isn't it equally logical to worry about the net benefit to sapients because you're sapient? Net benefit to living organisms because you're alive?


PS: Again, I didn't point-by-point quote your whole argument; I tried to address what I felt is the crux of what you said without leaving much out. 'pologies if I'm missing the point; don't attribute to dishonesty what can be explained by a mistake - if I'm missing your point just tell me.

[Purple]

By god you got it.

Well mostly but not quite.
Well rather than mostly think more like not really at all.

You see I am not racist/speceist/what ever -ist. I am to use terms you would just completely amoral.


My whole idea is that I do not believe in any sort of transcendent universal code of morality. There is no such thing as universal good or universal evil and no course of action is either. Instead, morality is simply a question of perspective.


You see, I believe that every individual or group of individuals has as its supreme existential duty to do that which brings most benefit to it at the least cost. In other words every decision should be a simple cost benefit analysis. Like say if I go to the store, I pay for the goods there because I know that if I stole them instead the eventual damage to me would outweigh the loss of the money I have to pay. There is no transcendent moral reason, just simple cold facts.


So understanding this I believe that slavery it self is neither right nor wrong, because nothing can be universal right or wrong.

If you are the slaver, than from your perspective slavery is good since it brings you gain. If you are the slave, than from your perspective it is evil because it hurts you. But since a neutral observer has no gain or loss from it he has no reason to care or have an opinion at all.

It is right if you are the slaver and wrong if you are the slave. But from a neutral perspective (being neither) it just is. And I reject any sort of universal morality that would claim otherwise.

It is insane, isn't it? And yet - how is it *REALLY* different from your point of view? You draw the line at being human - saying that "as long as we're both human, it's 'logical' for us to care about the welfare of our species and not about those outside our species." Now we draw the line even tighter: "As long as we're both black, it's 'logical' for us to care about the welfare of the blacks and none else."

Absolutely. But this does not mean you should go all out on oppression and evil thou. At least not without making certain you can get away with it. One must always keep in mind to make sure to minimize the potential risk that might come from the others being oppressed.


For example, there are a lot of people out there who have one time or another just wanted to kill someone.
But they don't do it, thus suffering a cost to them self because they know that such a cost is smaller than the one they would suffer if they did murder the individual.

Now the logical question is why do people support such a law if it stops them from murdering and they want to do it?

The answer is simple, the group as a whole recknognises that society will fall apart without such laws.
And the potential damage to the group from society falling apart is greater than the damage done to it by removing a few individuals from time to time.


See my point? Every decision is a cost-benefit analysis that asks the question: "How do I maximize my gain while minimizing the risk".
If I can oppress/enslave others for my personal gain and suffer no risk from it I see nothing bad about it. In fact it is my existential duty to do so.

What reason do you have for drawing the line at being 'human'. Instead of, say, drawing the line at being "sentient" or being "Alive" or "White" or "Jewish"?

The reason is simple. This is a discussion about humans vs droids.
Had it been a discussion of whites vs blacks and we both been whites I would have drawn the line at white.

I draw the line at what ever group I happen to belong to in the situation.

If it's logical for you to care about the net benefit to the human race because you're human, isn't it equally logical to worry about the net benefit to sapients because you're sapient? Net benefit to living organisms because you're alive?

Human is a tighter group than sapient species.
And the tighter the group the higher up it is on the pyramid of importance.

So self > close family > friends and distant family > society > race > species > all life
(and I know I skipped a few steps but I think this makes my point clear either way)

PS: Again, I didn't point-by-point quote your whole argument; I tried to address what I felt is the crux of what you said without leaving much out. 'pologies if I'm missing the point; don't attribute to dishonesty what can be explained by a mistake - if I'm missing your point just tell me.

You are, but I explained above. I hope.
In essence, I am an amoral sociopath but with no violent tendencies.

[Sela]

Interesting. Say you have an intensely-loyal pet dog. It's just a dog, but it benefits you (the individual) far more than a guy who lives four blocks down. Would you kill your beloved pet to save your neighbors' life, assuming that this guy didn't particularly care and *wouldn't* reciprocate the gesture?
Now, the way I see it, a humans life is inherently of more worth than a dogs. As such, all else being equal as in this case, I sacrifice the dog. It is "the righteous act" empirically, even if it causes harm to me individually. What *makes* the humans life more valuable is up for debate, of course, but sentience, sapience, an understanding of its own existence with a desire that it be continued and the degree to which it possesses these things. . . all that seems to play into it.
Using a purely cost-benefit ethos, say we objectively quantify the dog's worth at 10 and the neighbor's worth at 30 (people in general are more productive and capable than dogs). That said the worth of the dog *to the individual* is 80, and the neighbor's worth to the individual is 3. And let's say the guilt of letting him die (assuming it exists) would be -50. You, as an individual, would let your neighbor die rather than giving up the dog, right?

[Purple]

Interesting. Say you have an intensely-loyal pet dog. It's just a dog, but it benefits you (the individual) far more than a guy who lives four blocks down. Would you kill your beloved pet to save your neighbors' life, assuming that this guy didn't particularly care and *wouldn't* reciprocate the gesture?

Of course not.

And why would I? It would be a net loss situation for me and that I do not want.
Keep in mind that I see pets as property and as such you might as well have asked me if I would have thrown out my PC to save someones life. And the answer would have been the same.


However you should note something about this. If the roles were reversed and he had to make that choice I believe that it would be the logical thing for him to chose the same thing I would. I am not a hypocrite in this mater.

Now, the way I see it, a humans life is inherently of more worth than a dogs.

So you are a human supremacist. I wonder thou what is your logic behind it?

To quote you:

As such, all else being equal as in this case, I sacrifice the dog. It is "the righteous act" empirically, even if it causes harm to me individually. What *makes* the humans life more valuable is up for debate, of course, but sentience, sapience, an understanding of its own existence with a desire that it be continued and the degree to which it possesses these things. . . all that seems to play into it.

And there is your issue right there.
You believe in it but seek no logic or reason for it.

You see, over the years I just keep hearing the same arguments over and over again. No logical facts, no conclusions just stuff about "evil" and "good" being thrown around without explanation and more importantly just the thing you said in the quote. Up for debate.

Well if it is up for debate even in your eyes than how can it be correct? After all why do you believe in something that you can not even try and prove with a logical argument?


So I am left to conclude that with you this is one of those things that are irrational opinions like say religion. Things where people believe in something without needing a good reason. And quite honestly, I find that kind of belief disturbing. But that is a whole different debate.


With me thou it is quite a different story because my argument is entirely based on logic. Humans are superior to others in my opinion not because of some cosmic importance but because I happen to be one so it is best for me as an individual to do what ever it takes for the gain of the group I belong to. If I were a Pokémon than I would claim that Pokémon are the superior breed.


Now of course you will ask me the question: "If you agree that humans are superior than why woud you not sacrafice the dog to save a human."

My answer to that is simple: "Becouse the needs of tighter group outweigh the needs the wider one."

Now you might point out: "Well the dog is not a human and belongs to a wider group (mamals) than humanity."

But that would be missing the point becouse we are not weighing out the wellfare of the dog vs that of another human but the welfare of me (the individual) vs another human. And the individual is the tightest group that can exist.

Using a purely cost-benefit ethos, say we objectively quantify the dog's worth at 10 and the neighbor's worth at 30 (people in general are more productive and capable than dogs). That said the worth of the dog *to the individual* is 80, and the neighbor's worth to the individual is 3. And let's say the guilt of letting him die (assuming it exists) would be -50. You, as an individual, would let your neighbor die rather than giving up the dog, right?

Here is my calculation on the mater with the numbers provided:

Absolute Objective Value to the World:

Dog = 0 (rather than your 10)
Neighbor = 0 (rather than your 30)
Me = 0

This is because there is no such thing as an objective value to anything. All things, living and otherwise are worth only in the eyes of individuals around them whos lives they effect. The universe does not care for you or me any more than it cared for Einstein or Hitler or some drunk bum from across the street.

To have a value you must have a plane of reference to observe it from. If not than your measurements are meaningless.
The only way you could possibly have an absolute value to anything is if you had a sentient observer like say a god.

But to continue. Value to the individual:

Dog = 80 (your number)
Neighbor = 3 (your number)
Me (the individual him self) = infinite

Value of guilt*: -50

*I am assuming you summed up things like people nagging me about not doing it and stuff and his family boring me to tears with junk and having to spend hours bored at the funeral or something similarly useless but unavoidable that does me harm.

My calculation is simple:

Sacrifice dog: 3 - 80 = -77
Sacrifice human: 80 - 50 = 30

Since 30 > -77 my choice is simple.

[Sela]

I understand your position - I guess what bugs me about it is that I *do* believe in objective values of right and wrong. You hinted at it, but then - like you ponited out - this wasn't the debate so how could you be sure? I'm a religious person and take certain God-stated things as 100% givens. If they prove self-contradictory, well either my deductive logic is faulty or my premise (God gave them to me and should be obeyed) is. Stuff that God doesn't give answers to are the areas in which I fill in my own moral compass. The vast majority of people I've met fall into such a position.

But yeah - I think I understand where you're coming from. I'm skeptical, to be totally honest, that it's actually possible to live the way you've described. The reason being that societal indoctrination is incredibly effective. Even if you *do* go by such a belief, on the majority of issues -particularly when interacting- it probably ends up being to your benefit to act 100% in line with the societal valuation of what right/wrong is, even if you don't believe it exists yourself. My perception is that eventually it becomes 'instinctive' to go along with such value until you're more comfortable doing so . . . even preferring it. And thus societal values become your values.
At least this is what I've noticed with my religiosity. The things I do religiously that are *also* ordained by society are the things my faith/belief is weakest on. Whereas something like not eating pork - which is directly against the majority of society - requires me to be proactive and thus leaves belief as the predominant factor there rather than social conformity.

You say you live this way? For the moment I'll just take that at face value. But it's like hearing about snow when you grew up in a desert. . .sure it makes sense on paper, it's possible I guess, but it takes seeing to really accept that it's real.

Either way - thanks for sharing.

[Franc28]

Purple, normal people don't go through life analyzing every action so that it brings maximum benefit to themselves and no one else. People do act in accordance with a universal set of moral principles, and these principles have existed in all societies at all times: don't kill people, don't hurt people, don't defraud people. As our concepts evolve, we expand these rules beyond our little in-group (tribe, family) to other people (right now we are at the stage of the nation), but the rules remain the same.

What you are describing is the behaviour of a sociopath, clinically defined (someone who has no empathy, no conscience, no higher emotions, has no regard for rules in themselves, acts only for himself at the detriment of others). A normal people does not say things like "I refrain from stealing because a cost-benefit analysis reveals that stealing would be more costly on average." That sort of calculating attitude is typical of a sociopath, but not of a fully functional human being.

Note that I am not saying you are a sociopath. I am saying you are speaking like one. I honestly simply do not believe that you mean what you say.

It is factual that enslaving sapient beings is wrong. The fact that you don't see that as a given is bizarre to say the least, and it is not the mark of a fully functioning human being.

[Darth Tedious]

Wow, I knew this conversation was getting derailed when Asimov's Laws came into it, but I never thought it would go this far...

It is factual that enslaving sapient beings is wrong.

I completely agree with this statement. But does it relate to sentient droids that were never enslaved, but purpose-built?

*Please note the attempt to steer this conversation back towards its original subject...

[The Vortex Empire]

I would say yes, it still does apply. If a woman and I make a baby with the sole intention of using it for slave labor, and raise the child in such a way as to make it obey us unquestioningly, that's still wrong even though the child was purpose-made for slavery.

[Sela]

@Franc28: You must have missed the part where he said: "I am what you would call an amoral sociopath".

[Franc28]

It is factual that enslaving sapient beings is wrong.

I completely agree with this statement. But does it relate to sentient droids that were never enslaved, but purpose-built?

*Please note the attempt to steer this conversation back towards its original subject...

Fair enough. Your question, however, seems to assume that purpose is given by the maker, and that the individual is not able to reformulate it or even reform it. Yet, most of us don't permanently adopt the purpose our parents burdened on us. We make up our own minds as to what our purpose is.

Given that fact, for the purposes of the discussion, is there any functional difference between enslaving a sapient being and creating a sapient being with a hard-wired high-level purpose? And if so, what is it?

(note: my question is not rhetorical, I actually want to hear your answer)

[Batman]

Err-yes? That'd be the part were the ordinary sapient being would chafe at being made to do a job it doesn't like, while the hardwired one would be perfectly okay with that and possibly even happy to do that job but suffer if prevented from doing it?
Of course we know Star Wars droids (once they actually become fully sentient, your run of the mill droid seems to fit quite nicely into the above mold) can decide they don't like their current job and bolt, but even those ones seem to be mostly quite happy with doing what they were designed to do (R2 never complained that I know of, and 3PO actually seemed to be proud to be a protocol droid).

[Darth Hoth]

It is factual that enslaving sapient beings is wrong. The fact that you don't see that as a given is bizarre to say the least, and it is not the mark of a fully functioning human being.

I should point out in advance that I do not agree with Purple's value/belief-system, as he has put it forth here and as I have understood it reading his posts, but: Can you justify this statement in any way? Because to me, that looks very much like an opinion, not an objective fact, and your argument thus far only amounts to the fallacies of argument from outrage and ad hominem against Purple.

[Franc28]

Of course we know Star Wars droids (once they actually become fully sentient, your run of the mill droid seems to fit quite nicely into the above mold) can decide they don't like their current job and bolt, but even those ones seem to be mostly quite happy with doing what they were designed to do (R2 never complained that I know of, and 3PO actually seemed to be proud to be a protocol droid).

I'm not sure what is the difference between this kind of rhetoric and the whole "singing happy negroes" rhetoric they had in the South, you know what I mean? Slaves even fought each other over whose master was the "best." Either way, this sort of argument has been made before on this thread, with pretty much the same conversation as we're having, so let's skip over it. I think we should concentrate on whether there are differences, not similarities.