StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I don't think anything needs to be added to Wong's points at the moment, but as I've said, and as I initially said, I specifically excluded the initial costs of a Von Neumann machine from the statement that they are without cost - of course, I'm talking about cost, in terms of economics, which is the monetary (or equivalent) investment in something. I am not saying, as you seem to be strawmanning, that battle-droids just pop fully formed out of holes in the ground. They consume resources in building them, but they do not incur an actual monetary cost to the CIS (Unlike some of the more advanced droids, such as Vulture Droids and, if I recall my ICS correctly, tri-fighters, beyond the initial investment in the first generation of self-replicating factories.

As for how effective they are, see General Grievous' opinion that in an actual battle, B1 battledroids just get in each other's way, and are not a worthwhile product. A force composed solely of B2s is more effective, in his - far more knowledgable than our - opinion, especially when dealing with the likes of Jedi. In his opinion, they'd be better off making their armies almost entirely out of other designs - this seems to be Lucas' opinion too as the B1s freeze up several times in RotS (Lucas' explanation being that they're easily confused) when they should have, (especially if they were actually the simple point-and-shoot automata you think they are - hell, we can make a point-and-shoot robot that functions better today, in someone's garage no less) opened fire.

Darth Wong wrote:It's entirely possible that the TPM battledroids were non-sapient, but there is ample evidence that there has been significant redesign in their control hardware between TPM and AOTC, particularly in light of the fact that they can now function independently of a control ship.

I'd agree that it's unlikely most of those are sapient, not least because they seem to share a collective command program, while in themselves being dumb terminals - like a glorified version of the little on-screen sprites in an RTS - without an independant droid brain.

Darth Wong wrote:

Anguirus wrote:

So tell me, what would constitute evidence of sentience in your mind?

Evidence of sapience, to me, would be taking initiative, understanding a relatively complex conversation, participating in a friendly relationship with another sapient being, or disobeying an order. That's off the top of my head, anyway. R2 and 3PO, my constant examples of sapient droids, can and have done all these things.

All of those are required? There are plenty of humans who would not take initiative in similar situations. Mentally retarded humans cannot understand complex conversations; does this mean they are non-sapient and therefore should be treated as objects rather than people? And droids are only constrained to follow orders when the restraining bolt is on; that's why R2D2 had to ask for his restraining bolt to be removed in ANH so that he could disobey a direct order. According to your argument, the instant you put a restraining bolt on R2D2 he becomes non-sapient.

Anguirus said or. He did not require all of them - your scenarios above can be refuted because they are still capable of achieving Anguirus' other behavioural criteria.

You can't really make ethical considerations of sentience if you've got no evidence of them, or you might as well start assuming it's murder to kill a tree. Since we don't have the wealth of data available for B1s that we do for trees, we go with what we know.

Which is that there's no evidence that B1 Battle Droids are any more self-aware than Kirbys.

Oh, and to throw my five cents on the question posed by the OP - if the droids are sentient, than having them shut down en masse isn't murder, as much as it's 'massive instantaneous destruction of enemy personnel'.

Oh and - you're wrong Anguirus.

Anguirus wrote:Evidence of sapience, to me, would be taking initiative, understanding a relatively complex conversation, participating in a friendly relationship with another sapient being, or disobeying an order. That's off the top of my head, anyway. R2 and 3PO, my constant examples of sapient droids, can and have done all these things.

When? The only occasions they have conceivably 'disobeyed orders' was when they believed that their owners were in danger. Droid standing orders are to protect their owners, and over-ride 'stay here.' Publius just quoted a canonical text showing that C3P0's brain would melt if he were actually rebellious. Your claims about R2 or 3P0 having the ability to disobey orders are incorrect - while R2 can go off in defiance of Luke, it's because he's acting on orders of his legal owner. While he can go off in defiance of Anakin and Padme, he has to rationalise it as their actually being in need of his help before he does - over-ruling their order with the more important order of protecting them from danger.

It's their peculiar reactions, especially in RotS, that have started this debate.

Incorrect. If you look into this board's archives, you will note that I was saying these droids are sapient before RotS was first screened.

GuppyShark wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:

Anguirus wrote: Evidence of sapience, to me, would be taking initiative, understanding a relatively complex conversation, participating in a friendly relationship with another sapient being, or disobeying an order. That's off the top of my head, anyway. R2 and 3PO, my constant examples of sapient droids, can and have done all these things.

All of those are required? There are plenty of humans who would not take initiative in similar situations. Mentally retarded humans cannot understand complex conversations; does this mean they are non-sapient and therefore should be treated as objects rather than people? And droids are only constrained to follow orders when the restraining bolt is on; that's why R2D2 had to ask for his restraining bolt to be removed in ANH so that he could disobey a direct order. According to your argument, the instant you put a restraining bolt on R2D2 he becomes non-sapient.

Anguirus said or. He did not require all of them - your scenarios above can be refuted because they are still capable of achieving Anguirus' other behavioural criteria.

Don't hang an argument on a single word choice, kid. He has argued prior to this that inability to disobey orders is enough to disprove sapience.

You can't really make ethical considerations of sentience if you've got no evidence of them, or you might as well start assuming it's murder to kill a tree. Since we don't have the wealth of data available for B1s that we do for trees, we go with what we know.

Which is that there's no evidence that B1 Battle Droids are any more self-aware than Kirbys.

You're full of shit; I already pointed out how a battledroid attempted to analyze its own situation when placed in an unfamiliar environment; this indicates intelligence, in the part of my post which you mysteriously snipped out of your reply.

Sigh. I emphatically did not state that every single one of my example conditions was required for sapience. Nor did I state that the movies DISPROVED battle droid sapience. What I stated was that the movies do not, to me, satisfactorily indicate battle droid sapience.

As if I hadn't made it sufficently clear, my verdict is at this time "not enough information." As a result, I'm not assuming they are sapient.

The only occasions they have conceivably 'disobeyed orders' was when they believed that their owners were in danger. Droid standing orders are to protect their owners, and over-ride 'stay here.' Publius just quoted a canonical text showing that C3P0's brain would melt if he were actually rebellious.

I'm afraid the canonical text is wrong.

"I'm sorry Captain Solo, but that just wouldn't be proper."

"Proper?"

"It's against my programming to impersonate a deity."

"Why you-"

Han Solo is in command of the mission. 3PO's willing to let him be roasted alive due to some highly abstract unwillingness to appear godly. Whether that's deep-down programming inhibitions (from his original Cybot Galactica programming, Anakin Skywalker, or Alderaanian techs?) or a questionable moral decision, we can't know. What we do have is 3PO telling his commanding general "no" to his face. I seriously doubt a B1 is capable of that.

Incorrect. If you look into this board's archives, you will note that I was saying these droids are sapient before RotS was first screened.

I will note that I said "especially" in RotS, but I concede the point. I haven't been around that long.

Don't hang an argument on a single word choice, kid. He has argued prior to this that inability to disobey orders is enough to disprove sapience.

Single words are important. For instance, your use of the word "disprove" is a misrepresentation of my position. I'm saying that there is no POSITIVE evidence for battle droid sapience, SUCH AS disobeying an order.

I already pointed out how a battledroid attempted to analyze its own situation when placed in an unfamiliar environment; this indicates intelligence, in the part of my post which you mysteriously snipped out of your reply.

Any computer can run a self-diagnostic, and probably do a better job. (WTF, I'm a protocol droid from the neck down.) This is not, in itself, convincing evidence to me.

Regarding the efficacy of bright battle droids, I think it's pretty well established that quantity is a quality all its own, especially with the heavy fire support that B1s get. It's harder for a clone trooper to blast through 10 B1s than 1 B2, unless you're playing Republic Commando.

Anguirus wrote:Sigh. I emphatically did not state that every single one of my example conditions was required for sapience. Nor did I state that the movies DISPROVED battle droid sapience. What I stated was that the movies do not, to me, satisfactorily indicate battle droid sapience.

So provide your objectively testable criteria. If it isn't enough that a battledroid can converse and show fear, what are your objectively defined, testable criteria? How "complex" does a conversation have to be? Why did you make no effort whatsoever to answer the charge that your criteria would classify retarded humans as non-sapient?

And on what objective basis do you dismiss the intelligence required for the battledroid to attempt to analyze its own situation, as opposed to your subjective dismissal?

So provide your objectively testable criteria.

I'm not sure I follow. How can we test a fictional entity's sapience objectively?

If it isn't enough that a battledroid can converse and show fear, what are your objectively defined, testable criteria?

Didn't I provide some? Forming a meaningful relationship (i.e. friends) with another being would count (the mentally retarded can do this). Disobeying a direct command would be a clear example (ditto). We don't see battle droids doing either of these. (As opposed to, say, Commander Cody's relationship with Obi-Wan, even though he couldn't say no to Order 66.)

We can't exactly perform the Turing test on a battle droid, here. It is worth noting that a parrot can converse to a limited degree and show fear.

And on what objective basis do you dismiss the intelligence required for the battledroid to attempt to analyze its own situation, as opposed to your subjective dismissal?

The fact that self-diagnostic is routinely performed by non-sapient hardware, of course. It shows intelligence, but it doesn't prove any sort of advanced thinking.

Most importantly of all, I can't see how this situation can reasonably compare to that of a retarded individual. Retarded individuals are REAL. Their brains and reactions can be studied in detail and the extent of their handicap can be objectively assessed. Battle droids are FICTIONAL. We have a very limited body of knowledge to work with. Their reactions, in almost all observed cases, could be mimicked by either a human or by a non-sapient computer.

I like the way you invent new criteria as you go; now someone must have onscreen friendships in order to be considered sapient

And by the way, intelligence IS advanced thinking, moron.

Anguirus wrote:Han Solo is in command of the mission. 3PO's willing to let him be roasted alive due to some highly abstract unwillingness to appear godly. Whether that's deep-down programming inhibitions (from his original Cybot Galactica programming, Anakin Skywalker, or Alderaanian techs?) or a questionable moral decision, we can't know. What we do have is 3PO telling his commanding general "no" to his face. I seriously doubt a B1 is capable of that.

This would obviously apply to their owners you little dipshit. Solo never owned him. When Luke, his owner, told him to do it, he did it. (Or I'll use my magic!)

I like the way you invent new criteria as you go; now someone must have onscreen friendships in order to be considered sapient

You continue to misrepresent me, I fear. I said that an onscreen friendship would be AN EXAMPLE of sapience, not a REQUIREMENT.

And by the way, intelligence IS advanced thinking, moron.

Having any amount of intelligence is the same thing as advanced thinking?

My computer can do any number of calculations (or self-diagnostics), but it isn't capable of critical thinking.

When Luke, his owner, told him to do it, he did it. (Or I'll use my magic!)

A fair point. But, 3PO was still unwilling to save an allied human being because he didn't want to appear to be a deity!

R2 has openly defied Luke (ANH).

Another example of 3PO's ability to make judgment calls would be his continued loyalty to Luke, and reference to him as "Master," after Luke had quite obviously and explicitly given him to Jabba the Hutt. He wasn't "in" on the plan like R2 was.

Anguirus wrote: A fair point. But, 3PO was still unwilling to save an allied human being because he didn't want to appear to be a deity!

He protested, then Luke said he needn't bother. We don't know if he would have gone through with it if Han had insisted further (the Ewoks stopped him anyway)

R2 has openly defied Luke (ANH).

Already mentioned, as far as R2 was concerned, he was the property of Captain Antillies/The Organa family (or in fact, it was implied that she'd given him to Obi-Wan by R2's speech). The fact that the receiver of stolen goods (Luke) told him not to obey Leia's command wouldn't enter into his consideration.

Another example of 3PO's ability to make judgment calls would be his continued loyalty to Luke, and reference to him as "Master," after Luke had quite obviously and explicitly given him to Jabba the Hutt. He wasn't "in" on the plan like R2 was.

"Master Jedi Obi Wan Kenobi." - Tun We. It's appropriate for people, should they wish to, to reffer to a Jedi as 'Master' even when he's not a Jedi of the rank of Master. Threepio is a protocol droid, I'm sure he could use this rationalisation to address Luke by a title he's comfortable with.

Anguirus wrote:

I like the way you invent new criteria as you go; now someone must have onscreen friendships in order to be considered sapient

You continue to misrepresent me, I fear. I said that an onscreen friendship would be AN EXAMPLE of sapience, not a REQUIREMENT.

You say that because you deliberately choose examples of sapience that are not shown in the films and ignore the ones that are present. Battle droids can CONVERSE WITH PEOPLE, in such a manner as to use sarcasm and express emotion verbally. Moreover, OTHER models of droids are known to be capable of sapience, yet you still insist that the burden of proof for sapience rests upon he who perceives it DESPITE this fact.

Just how unique do you think C3PO's brain is? Anakin cobbled him together out of fucking pieces and parts he scavenged from a goddamned junkyard, moron.

Battle droids can CONVERSE WITH PEOPLE, in such a manner as to use sarcasm and express emotion verbally.

This is paraphrased and probably incomplete, but allow me to attempt to catalog all battle droid conversations with people (known sapients).

TPM (which may not count, if we assume they are all dumb terminals for this movie):

OOM-9 talks with Gunray and Haako. As I recall, the pair simply explains to OOM-9 that the two Jedi probably stowed away on transports. OOM-9 says "If they're down here, sir, we'll find them." That's just a relatively simple acknowledgement of a direct command.

Later, we have the conversation between Qui-Gon Jinn and a battle droid. "I'm taking these people to Coruscant." "...where are you taking them?" "To Coruscant." "Coruscant...uh...that doesn't compute...er, wait a minute...You're under arrest!" The battle droid appears to have no comprehension of the existence of "Coruscant" and just stands there until it recieves orders (from the command ship, I assume) to SHOOT THE JEDI. These Jedi are known fugitives. There's a shoot-on-sight order for them, and they are with the Queen, who should be in Trade Federation custody.

If there are any more TPM droid communications with sapients other than "Hands up!", I ask you all to bring them to my attention.

AotC:

There aren't any examples here, aside from battle droid confusion over its switched parts with 3PO, and that's self-diagnostic. Oh, right, and "Die Jedi Dogs!" That's a battle cry...which is nothing even resembling conversation.

RotS:

There's another "hands up" here, addressed to Anakin.

The most interesting case yet appears on the bridge of the Invisible Hand. A battle droid pushes past the Jedi with an "Excuse me" and responds to General Grievous' snatching away of the lightsabres with a sarcastic-sounding "You're welcome." (I'm not to proud to admit I laughed at this scene.) However, we're still not on a level of intelligent discourse here. Saying "Excuse me" just makes it easier to get from Point A to Point B on the cramped bridge.

The sarcasm is far more interesting, and is in my opinion the best pro-sapience evidence yet, assuming, of course, that this battle droid is a typical one. It is possible that the droid was simply programmed to respond rudely to rude treatment of itself, as percieved by the abrupt snatching of the lightsabres. It is also possible, of course, that the droid is capable of higher-level interaction. But basing everything on this one incident seems sketchy to me. Your mileage may vary.

Of course, we also have the reactions on the bridge (from pilot droids) to their allies. Shouting encouragement is a strange thing for droids to do, but not out of the question. The Jedi are a very definate threat, and the MagnaGuards are (probably) sapient allies. It doesn't strike me as something an AI of our day and age couldn't reproduce.

I still think that the evidence is inconclusive, but your mileage may vary.

Moreover, OTHER models of droids are known to be capable of sapience, yet you still insist that the burden of proof for sapience rests upon he who perceives it DESPITE this fact.

We do know that not all droids are created equal. Just because some droids are sapient doesn't prove much. R2-D2 and C-3PO are repeatedly singled out for being unusually human-like. Quotes to this effect are in this very thread, I recall.

Just how unique do you think C3PO's brain is?

Not unique at all. It is a Cybot Galactica AA-1 Verbobrain. Standard equipment on Cybot Galactica's high-end protocol droids, such as TC-14 (from TPM) and 3PO himself. Anakin assembled a STANDARD model protocol droid from parts he found that were suitable for this purpose, including the Verbobrain. He didn't teach him six million languages himself. The other programming that Anakin installed in him (including personality) helps make him who he is, plus there are his experiences. He has, after all, had only one memory wipe that we know of.

A Verbobrain, advanced piece of equipment that it is, is not manufactured in the quintillions for cheapo battle droids. Nor would any comparable brain. There's no reason for it at all.

Returning to the point of the thread, putting all these battle droids into hibernation indefinately might border on animal mistreatment or neglect, but I would not consider it a war crime. Not without evidence that convinced me of universal battle droid sapience. I just don't feel like I have enough information at this time.

It is perhaps noteworthy that in The Phantom Menace, Artoo Detoo and other astromechs attempted to repair the shields on the Queen's yacht despite the fact that the TradeFed blockade's gunfire was methodically picking them off at range. Not a single one of the astromechs made an attempt to take cover or save themselves despite this very obvious danger to their continuation-of-being – quite unlike the behavior of the TradeFed battledroids, who respond intelligently (if not particularly effectively) to dangerous situations. Does the fact that Artoo Detoo and his counterparts insisted on performing their assigned tasks despite the very significant risk of their destruction suggest that none of them were sapient?

One might further consider the example of older military tactics, which as late as the War between the States in the early to mid 1860s called for orderly advances in the face of enemy fire. Did the fact that men advanced without returning fire while being actively fired upon – being wounded and killed – signify that they were not in fact sapient beings? One could of course point out that they were trained – 'programmed,' one might say – to maintain ranks and hold fire until ordered otherwise. Sapient beings are capable both of obeying and disobeying orders, are they not?

As I said before, you interpret all evidence of intelligent human-like conversation as pre-programmed responses, thus conveniently dismissing it all. You distinguish between "intelligence" and "advanced thinking" even though the two concepts are the same, and you invent new tests such as 'friendship" even though that could theoretically be "pre-programmed" too. The fact is that you have created a theory which is constructed in such a manner as to be totally unfalsifiable using any kind of forensic evidence; you must perform an experiment on a live subject. But using such an approach on a medium where only forensic examination is possible is an exercise in sophistry.

Not a single one of the astromechs made an attempt to take cover or save themselves despite this very obvious danger to their continuation-of-being – quite unlike the behavior of the TradeFed battledroids, who respond intelligently (if not particularly effectively) to dangerous situations.

I would question this. There are examples of astromechs and battle droids both going without hesitation into a deadly situation (TPM for astromechs, AotC for battle droids) and hanging back or taking cover (RotS for R2-D2, TPM for battle droids).

I would argue that it's a situational difference, not a difference in intelligence level or ability to reason. When the Queen's yacht was damaged, the droids knew that the only chance for everyone on the ship was to fix the problem immediately. In AotC, when the battle droids march blindly on, there wasn't really much opportunity to take cover and the best solution really was to mob the idiotic Jedi/advancing clones. (Now, in the case of the arena, if these were battle droids that the Seperatists actually cared about losing, they'd just station most of them on the perimeters and fire DOWN.)

In any case, I don't think many people will argue that R2-D2 and many other astromechs are incredibly devoted and brave. That's because we have a great deal of evidence relating to R2's being intelligent, adaptable, able to form relationships with others, and able to prioritize. With the battle droids, I'm not convinced yet.

Does the fact that Artoo Detoo and his counterparts insisted on performing their assigned tasks despite the very significant risk of their destruction suggest that none of them were sapient?

Of course not.

One might further consider the example of older military tactics, which as late as the War between the States in the early to mid 1860s called for orderly advances in the face of enemy fire. Did the fact that men advanced without returning fire while being actively fired upon – being wounded and killed – signify that they were not in fact sapient beings? One could of course point out that they were trained – 'programmed,' one might say – to maintain ranks and hold fire until ordered otherwise. Sapient beings are capable both of obeying and disobeying orders, are they not?

Of course. Which is why I have never even suggested that droids obeying orders was proof of them NOT being sapient.

But any of those American Civil War soldiers could have cut and run. Many of them did. Desertion was a huge problem. No evidence suggests the same of battle droids. Or, for that matter, clones. Training and programming aren't the same. But, at least the clones have a physical human brain, with all the potential that implies.

As I said before, you interpret all evidence of intelligent human-like conversation as pre-programmed responses, thus conveniently dismissing it all.

All evidence that currently exists, yes. That's because none of these "conversations" could possibly be described as "intelligent," unless you care to bring up some that I may be forgetting. Nothing even compares to R2's and 3PO's bickering, for instance. No conversation that I'm aware of involving battle droids is longer than FIVE LINES, and the longest one is the winning example in the hangar on Naboo.

You distinguish between "intelligence" and "advanced thinking" even though the two concepts are the same

Didn't I mention this above?

I said that a self-diagnostic program is an example of *some* inelligence, but not of advanced thinking. Norton Anti-Virus for battle droids, if you will. Pigs, dogs, rats, etc. also show *some* intelligence, but not much in the way of advanced thinking.

You invent new tests such as 'friendship" even though that could theoretically be "pre-programmed" too.

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm moving the goalposts, but I was just coming up with another theoretical example for sapience off the top of my head.

I can't imagine R2 and 3PO's dialogues being pre-programmed. Battle droids have NOT shown any similar behavior.

The fact is that you have created a theory which is constructed in such a manner as to be totally unfalsifiable using any kind of forensic evidence; you must perform an experiment on a live subject. But using such an approach on a medium where only forensic examination is possible is an exercise in sophistry.

I haven't created an unfalsifiable theory...I simply refuse to ACCEPT an unfalsifiable theory. The theory is question is "Battle droids are sapient." I'm not drawing any conclusions from the limited film evidence.

All I've done is explain why I don't think Star Wars battle droids are necessarily sapient. That's an exercise in sophistry? Not believing in an ill-defined quality of a totally fictional contraption?

Sheesh. I hope I'm not offending the Battle Droid Anti-Defamation League here, but I just don't buy it.

Anguirus wrote:I haven't created an unfalsifiable theory...I simply refuse to ACCEPT an unfalsifiable theory. The theory is question is "Battle droids are sapient." I'm not drawing any conclusions from the limited film evidence.

You're full of shit, asshole. It's unfalsifiable to say that one must prove that droids are sapient and that acting like sapient beings doesn't count as evidence because that could be pre-programmed. It is not unfalsifiable to say that battledroids are sapient and cite evidence of intelligent and communicative behaviour as support. You could falsify that theory by simply showing that they have never exhibited the ability to converse like humans or analyze their surroundings intelligently. Unfortunately, you can't do that, so instead you seek to dismiss that behaviour by simply saying it might have been pre-programmed. ANYTHING might have been pre-programmed.

All I've done is explain why I don't think Star Wars battle droids are necessarily sapient. That's an exercise in sophistry?

Yes, fucktard. It's an exercise in sophistry because it's no better than agnosticism or solipsism; rational analysis requires you to analyze what is more likely, not what cannot be absolutely proven.

Not believing in an ill-defined quality of a totally fictional contraption?

Sheesh. I hope I'm not offending the Battle Droid Anti-Defamation League here, but I just don't buy it.

The fact that it's fictional has absolutely nothing to do with the vacuous and dishonest nature of your arguments, dipshit.

It's unfalsifiable to say that one must prove that droids are sapient and that acting like sapient beings doesn't count as evidence because that could be pre-programmed.

It's quite easy to falsify. No sane individual would say that R2 and 3PO's long, back and forth conversations are pre-prgrammed responses. If battle droids displayed similar behavior, I would revise my opinion immediately.

It's not hard to imagine that the rather limited response and reaction patterns of battle droids are pre-programmed, with the possible exception of "you're welcome."

It is not unfalsifiable to say that battledroids are sapient and cite evidence of intelligent and communicative behaviour as support. You could falsify that theory by simply showing that they have never exhibited the ability to converse like humans or analyze their surroundings intelligently.

They have never conversed at a human level. Analyzing surroundings is not beyond nonsapient computer programs, although a sapient individual would be better at it.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you posted one of your own "somking gun" examples that say to you that these things are sapient?

Unfortunately, you can't do that, so instead you seek to dismiss that behaviour by simply saying it might have been pre-programmed. ANYTHING might have been pre-programmed.

That's not true at all. Very few conversations in the Star Wars trilogy, or indeed in general, could have been pre-programmed. When "Coruscant...that doesn't compute" and "I must need maintenance" are as sophsicated as you get, it's an open question.

Yes, fucktard. It's an exercise in sophistry because it's no better than agnosticism or solipsism; rational analysis requires you to analyze what is more likely, not what cannot be absolutely proven.

I agree. What I've been consistently saying is that I DON'T THINK IT'S LIKELY. That's where the whole "brains cost money" digression came from.

I'm not convinced by the evidence that convinces you. We have different standards in this case.

The fact that it's fictional has absolutely nothing to do with the vacuous and dishonest nature of your arguments, dipshit.

When was I dishonest? I apologize if I have been.

Anguirus wrote:

It's unfalsifiable to say that one must prove that droids are sapient and that acting like sapient beings doesn't count as evidence because that could be pre-programmed.

It's quite easy to falsify. No sane individual would say that R2 and 3PO's long, back and forth conversations are pre-prgrammed responses.

R2D2 and C3PO's long back-and-forth conversations? When did these take place? You don't even know what R2 is saying, for fuck's sake. And I've never seen R2D2 engage in a conversation which could be described as "long".

In fact, just as an exercise, I will now turn your tactics back upon you, to show you how ridiculous they are. Prove to me that R2D2 is sapient. Just for the sake of argument, I now say it's unlikely, that his responses could have been nothing more than a low-end AI routine, and that people wouldn't waste resources building intelligent brains into astromech droids which are only supposed to serve a specific mechanical function and which are necessarily mass-produced.

R2D2 and C3PO's long back-and-forth conversations? When did these take place?

How about the whole beginning of ANH and RotJ? Plus a fair chunk of the end of ESB.

They spend a fair amount of time bickering in AotC.

The reason why it's a back-and-forth is because R2 s clearly introducing IDEAS, which C-3PO is then RESPONDING to.

I.e. in AotC, R2 continually insists that they leave the ship to help Padme and Anakin. "For a mechanic you seem to do an excessive amount of THINKING."

In ESB, R2 is clearly upset at being shocked by the power terminal, and C-3PO RESPONDS to him: "Don't blame me. I'm an interpreter. How am I supposed to know the difference between a power outlet and a computer terminal?"

Nearly all the dialogue in the first quarter of ANH is between R2 and 3PO. R2 decides to go in a particular direction and DEFENDS HIS DECISION. "What makes you think there are settlements over there?...Don't get technical with me."

The second scene of RotJ is all about them. 3PO is in fact led by R2 in the situation, attempting to leave after a cursory effort to enter the palace but then following R2 inside, trying to convince him that it's not such a good idea.

This is all off the top of my head, you understand.

You don't even know what R2 is saying, for fuck's sake.

Heck, in a few cases inference tells us EXACTLY what R2 is saying. When 3PO says "Of course I've looked better" he's obviously responding to..."You've looked better." A translated readout of R2's statements is made available to Luke in some scenes, and they have a back and forth..."We're not going to regroup with the others. We're going to the Dagobah system...Yes, I'm sure it's perfectly safe for droids." Later Luke admits, "You thought coming here was a bad idea...I'm beginning to agree with you."

Come to think of it, in TPM Anakin has a readout of R2's statements, and the droid makes a recommendation...that he go back.

Several of R2's lines are translated into English for the reader of the RotS novel, including an ENTIRE conversation with 3PO in which R2 expresses concern about Anakin's actions and emotional state.

In fact, just as an exercise, I will now turn your tactics back upon you, to show you how ridiculous they are.

Good luck. There's a hell of a lot more evidence in R2's case. If battle droids showed half of this guy's initiative and intelligence, I wouldn't be questioning your assumption.

Prove to me that R2D2 is sapient. Just for the sake of argument, I now say it's unlikely, that his responses could have been nothing more than a low-end AI routine, and that people wouldn't waste resources building intelligent brains into astromech droids which are only supposed to serve a specific mechanical function and which are necessarily mass-produced.

R2-D2 is obviously not a low-end AI. Several examples are above. Also:

He takes initiative in AotC, arguing with 3PO about leaving the ship, doing so, shoving 3PO out a door in order to fly to a control console and manipulate the factory controls in order to save his master, Padme. This is without being asked, or even sure that Padme WOULD be in danger that he could help her with.

The RotS novel shows that Kenobi, who has no respect for battle droids whatsoever, is incredibly impressed by Anakin's R2 unit and considers it nonstandard. (Raising the question of this debate's relevance...we are trying to compare standard battle droids to a non-standard R2?)

In ANH, he disobeys Luke and strikes out in search of Kenobi alone. He also tells 3PO to "use the comlink," reminding him that he has turned it off.

In ESB, when cut off from Luke he searches for and finds some of Luke's allies. Perhaps he figured that that was his best chance of finding Luke again.

In RotJ, he attacks Ewoks due to percieved mistreatment.

Addressing the last part of your statement, astromech droids aren't built in the quintillions, and they need to be pretty smart in order to be useful fixing and flying a large number of ships. In addition, R2 is a decidedly non-standard example, having been heavily modified by the Royal Enginners on Naboo (and god knows who else).

Anguirus wrote:

R2D2 and C3PO's long back-and-forth conversations? When did these take place?

How about the whole beginning of ANH and RotJ? Plus a fair chunk of the end of ESB.

Wrong. Show me quotes of these long conversations.

They spend a fair amount of time bickering in AotC.

The reason why it's a back-and-forth is because R2 s clearly introducing IDEAS, which C-3PO is then RESPONDING to.

I.e. in AotC, R2 continually insists that they leave the ship to help Padme and Anakin. "For a mechanic you seem to do an excessive amount of THINKING."

So it is implied that R2 suggested leaving the ship, and this counts as a long conversation?

In ESB, R2 is clearly upset at being shocked by the power terminal, and C-3PO RESPONDS to him: "Don't blame me. I'm an interpreter. How am I supposed to know the difference between a power outlet and a computer terminal?"

R2D2 expresses pain, and that constitutes a long conversation?

Nearly all the dialogue in the first quarter of ANH is between R2 and 3PO. R2 decides to go in a particular direction and DEFENDS HIS DECISION. "What makes you think there are settlements over there?...Don't get technical with me."

R2D2 has identified settlements, and this constitutes a long conversation?

The second scene of RotJ is all about them. 3PO is in fact led by R2 in the situation, attempting to leave after a cursory effort to enter the palace but then following R2 inside, trying to convince him that it's not such a good idea.

This is all off the top of my head, you understand.

And all of it is bullshit. None of these scenes constitute a long conversation, and you are a liar.

You don't even know what R2 is saying, for fuck's sake.

Heck, in a few cases inference tells us EXACTLY what R2 is saying. When 3PO says "Of course I've looked better" he's obviously responding to..."You've looked better." A translated readout of R2's statements is made available to Luke in some scenes, and they have a back and forth..."We're not going to regroup with the others. We're going to the Dagobah system...Yes, I'm sure it's perfectly safe for droids." Later Luke admits, "You thought coming here was a bad idea...I'm beginning to agree with you."

None of these conversations indicate that R2D2 is saying anything requiring more intelligence than battledroid conversation.

Come to think of it, in TPM Anakin has a readout of R2's statements, and the droid makes a recommendation...that he go back.

Several of R2's lines are translated into English for the reader of the RotS novel, including an ENTIRE conversation with 3PO in which R2 expresses concern about Anakin's actions and emotional state.

If you bring up the novels, then you introduce lots of evidence for droid sapience, so I don't see why you want to go there.

Good luck. There's a hell of a lot more evidence in R2's case. If battle droids showed half of this guy's initiative and intelligence, I wouldn't be questioning your assumption.

Pity you haven't provided this evidence. When asked to provide examples of long conversations, you provided examples of single lines.

Prove to me that R2D2 is sapient. Just for the sake of argument, I now say it's unlikely, that his responses could have been nothing more than a low-end AI routine, and that people wouldn't waste resources building intelligent brains into astromech droids which are only supposed to serve a specific mechanical function and which are necessarily mass-produced.

R2-D2 is obviously not a low-end AI. Several examples are above.

None of which prove your case.

He takes initiative in AotC, arguing with 3PO about leaving the ship, doing so, shoving 3PO out a door in order to fly to a control console and manipulate the factory controls in order to save his master, Padme. This is without being asked, or even sure that Padme WOULD be in danger that he could help her with.

He is attempting to fulfill his mission parameters, just like a battledroid who recovers after the control ship is shut down and decides to continue trying to kill Jedi.

The RotS novel shows that Kenobi, who has no respect for battle droids whatsoever, is incredibly impressed by Anakin's R2 unit and considers it nonstandard. (Raising the question of this debate's relevance...we are trying to compare standard battle droids to a non-standard R2?)

But at no point does he believe that its brain is of a completely different class than other astromechs.

In ANH, he disobeys Luke and strikes out in search of Kenobi alone. He also tells 3PO to "use the comlink," reminding him that he has turned it off.

And these constitute tasks requiring complex intelligence?

In ESB, when cut off from Luke he searches for and finds some of Luke's allies. Perhaps he figured that that was his best chance of finding Luke again.

The ability to continue attempting to carry out a mission is proof of complex intelligence when R2 does it, but not when battledroids do it?

In RotJ, he attacks Ewoks due to percieved mistreatment.

You are seriously arguing that the kind of thing a bird would do is proof of sapient intelligence? Thanks for proving my point: you adjust your standard of "intelligence" depending on what you want to be true.

Addressing the last part of your statement, astromech droids aren't built in the quintillions, and they need to be pretty smart in order to be useful fixing and flying a large number of ships. In addition, R2 is a decidedly non-standard example, having been heavily modified by the Royal Enginners on Naboo (and god knows who else).

You can't "modify" a non-sapient brain to become sapient. That is more like a complete replacement of all its processing hardware.

Publius makes an interesting comparison between the Civil War era soldiers and the battle droids, and it reminded me of something. For those people who mention that the battle droids on the Invisible Hand's bridge remained at their stations long after they should have cut and run, i recall reading of a company of Union soldiers who, told to stand at the ready, had their commander killed and remained in place and did not fire, while taking fire until relieved. So being stupidly brave is hardly limited to androids.

I personally now question my own 'objective' assessment of droids being non-sapient/sentient. Though i still find it difficult to anthropromorphize something like an Astromech or a Gonk...when presented with evidence that strongly suggestions intelligence i have to question my previous opinion. Darth Wong brought up a good point as well, C3PO's droid brain was most certainly mass produced (probably in factories not greatly different from the ones used by the CIS, i believe there was a previous referrence to 'factory worlds'), the fact that Anakin could just ull one out of a junkyard (meaning its most likely rather old and was discarded) is quite telling of how common self-aware android brains are. They dont appear to truly be 'advanced, expensive equipment' or else why would Watto let him just keep all those expensive droid parts laying around...they were probably old 'junk' parts long discarded by their original owners. Of course not haven read the novel i may be wrong about that, but its food for thought.

I have long considered many droids sapient due to the personalities, emotions, and mannerisms displayed by R2 and 3PO, and logically thinking that it is highly unlikely that they are so special in such a big galaxy (particularly when the main characters don't seem to particularly view them as such). As for the battle droids, while I can't remember anything in TPM that particularly points to sapience, I think after AotC, you must give them the benefit of the doubt: I mean, what emotionless, unthinking program would come up with "Die, Jedi dogs!"? The B2s in RotS seal the deal.

Frankly, I see this as a rather large failing of Star Wars, that never is this issue addressed or condemned at all, and it is one of several (not the most important, but not insignificant either) things that has contributed to my overall cooling on Star Wars in general.

Anyway, I like 18 earlier in the thread question the realistic necessity of this. Let's forget about Star Wars for a minute. Is it really realistically necessary for the software you intend to use to auto-pilot a fighter, install in cannon-fodder group troops, or especially perform maintenance on your spaceship to have a personality, emotions, fears, hopes, a self? It just seems needlessly cruel to me. The only droid job in the movies which makes me think "yeah, sapience might be necessary there" is protocol droid, simply because their entire job is to interact with humans. But making a sapient astromech? Like 18 said, why make a wrench with feelings?

The computer I'm typing on right now can perform operations and calculations far faster and far more accurately than I ever will, but it's less self-aware than my dog. Surely to make a good, say, pilot program it doesn't require it feel and emote. I've long understood that sapience is not something that naturally arises in an artificial construct simply as a function of how fast its processor or large its memory, and that the "advanced computer suddenly developes sapience because it has a memory of so many terabytes, or can do so many petaflops" scenario to be a brainbug. Is that not the case?

The Prime Necromancer wrote:Anyway, I like 18 earlier in the thread question the realistic necessity of this. Let's forget about Star Wars for a minute. Is it really realistically necessary for the software you intend to use to auto-pilot a fighter, install in cannon-fodder group troops, or especially perform maintenance on your spaceship to have a personality, emotions, fears, hopes, a self?

Is it really realistically necessary to make a computer with a 2GHz processor and advanced audio/video capabilities in order to function as a point-of-sale terminal in a video store? And yet I see this all the time; large-scale economies have a tendency toward standardization, because it's simpler to make trillions of copies of one processor that can do it all than to make hundreds or thousands of different processors which are all specialized to a particular task. That's the counterpoint to the "manufacturing resources" argument; anyone who has actual experience in manufacturing will know that while it may make sense on paper to reduce the capabilities of every part to the minimum required, it is often wildly impractical in real-life because the practical and administrative costs of producing, maintaining, and supplying so many different kinds of parts can easily wipe out any cost savings from reduced physical resource consumption. In short, there are powerful pressures in any industry to standardize and reduce the number of different models in use.

You make a good point about the tendency to standardize DW, but there's a rather largish difference between having a computer way more powerful than it needs to be to do its job but is still just an unthinking tool, and the SW droid situation. The former is just a question of efficiency and cost; if I buy a computer that's way more powerful than it needs to be to do the job I want it to do, it's just a question of me possibly wasting my own money, not one of immorality. But creating sapient AIs as slaves with few if any rights owned by me to do menial or dangerous tasks opens up a huge moral can of worms, particularly when said tasks can be performed almost or just as good by a nonsapient program.

I mean, we rail (rightly) against the argument made by fundies that because God made us, he can do what he wants to us. How is this any different?