Robot beacon story?

Tim Bruening wrote:
>
> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>
>> Dave S <davidsteinhoff RemoveThis @comcast.net> writes:
>>
>>> I can't remember or find a story that Asimov wrote where robots on a
>>> remote space station were there to keep a communications beacon
>>> focused on distant Earth. The humans eventually died off and the
>>> robots grew sentient and came to worship the beacon as their pipeline
>>> to the deity.
>> Sounds a bit like "Reason", one of the short stories in "I, Robot".
>
> Or it might be part of the "Robot City" series.
>
>>> It's a cute story about how faith becomes the
>>> explanation for innate character elements.
>> Actually, no. It's a discussion of the merits of reason alone (hence
>> the title) vs. the scientific method. It points out a flaw in the
>> former by showing how blind belief in an untested hypothesis can lead
>> to irrational behavior.
>>
>> There's also a subtext of tolerance. In the end, the robot is left to
>> believe as it will, because its superstition doesn't affect its job
>> performance and doesn't harm any humans.
>
> Powell says that Cutie refused to obey him and Donovan because Cutie
> knew
> that he could keep the energy beam to Earth more stable than any human
> could, so the First Law (no harm to humans) compelled Cutie to take
> control
> of the energy beam. However, Cutie doesn't believe that there are any
> humans at the other end of the energy beam, so why would the First Law
> even
> apply?

Wasn't this one of the Lucky Starr stories set either on Mercury or
Venus? Robot rebellion on a ship returning to earth. Last para sounds
like that. Or am I mixing it up with something else?
 >> Stay informed about: Robot beacon story? 

tkmailers DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Tim Bruening wrote:
>
>>
>> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>>
>>> Dave S <davidsteinhoff DeleteThis @comcast.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> I can't remember or find a story that Asimov wrote where robots on a
>>>> remote space station were there to keep a communications beacon
>>>> focused on distant Earth. The humans eventually died off and the
>>>> robots grew sentient and came to worship the beacon as their pipeline
>>>> to the deity.
>>>
>>> Sounds a bit like "Reason", one of the short stories in "I, Robot".
>>
>>
>> Or it might be part of the "Robot City" series.
>>
>>>> It's a cute story about how faith becomes the
>>>> explanation for innate character elements.
>>>
>>> Actually, no. It's a discussion of the merits of reason alone (hence
>>> the title) vs. the scientific method. It points out a flaw in the
>>> former by showing how blind belief in an untested hypothesis can lead
>>> to irrational behavior.
>>>
>>> There's also a subtext of tolerance. In the end, the robot is left to
>>> believe as it will, because its superstition doesn't affect its job
>>> performance and doesn't harm any humans.
>>
>>
>> Powell says that Cutie refused to obey him and Donovan because Cutie
>> knew
>> that he could keep the energy beam to Earth more stable than any human
>> could, so the First Law (no harm to humans) compelled Cutie to take
>> control
>> of the energy beam. However, Cutie doesn't believe that there are any
>> humans at the other end of the energy beam, so why would the First Law
>> even
>> apply?
>
>
> Wasn't this one of the Lucky Starr stories set either on Mercury or
> Venus? Robot rebellion on a ship returning to earth. Last para sounds
> like that. Or am I mixing it up with something else?

No, it was definitely in I, Robot. I didn't read the other two
possibilities mentioned, but I did read that story. Also, the ISDB says
it was in I, Robot.


--
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us
with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
-- Galileo Galilei
 >> Stay informed about: Robot beacon story? 

Jon Schild wrote:
> tkmailers DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> Tim Bruening wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dave S <davidsteinhoff DeleteThis @comcast.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> I can't remember or find a story that Asimov wrote where robots
>>>>> on a remote space station were there to keep a communications
>>>>> beacon focused on distant Earth. The humans eventually died off
>>>>> and the robots grew sentient and came to worship the beacon as
>>>>> their pipeline to the deity.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds a bit like "Reason", one of the short stories in "I, Robot".
>>>
>>>
>>> Or it might be part of the "Robot City" series.
>>>
>>>>> It's a cute story about how faith becomes the
>>>>> explanation for innate character elements.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, no. It's a discussion of the merits of reason alone
>>>> (hence the title) vs. the scientific method. It points out a flaw
>>>> in the former by showing how blind belief in an untested
>>>> hypothesis can lead to irrational behavior.
>>>>
>>>> There's also a subtext of tolerance. In the end, the robot is left
>>>> to believe as it will, because its superstition doesn't affect its
>>>> job performance and doesn't harm any humans.
>>>
>>>
>>> Powell says that Cutie refused to obey him and Donovan because Cutie
>>> knew
>>> that he could keep the energy beam to Earth more stable than any
>>> human could, so the First Law (no harm to humans) compelled Cutie
>>> to take control
>>> of the energy beam. However, Cutie doesn't believe that there are
>>> any humans at the other end of the energy beam, so why would the
>>> First Law even
>>> apply?
>>
>>
>> Wasn't this one of the Lucky Starr stories set either on Mercury or
>> Venus? Robot rebellion on a ship returning to earth. Last para sounds
>> like that. Or am I mixing it up with something else?
>
> No, it was definitely in I, Robot. I didn't read the other two
> possibilities mentioned, but I did read that story. Also, the ISDB
> says it was in I, Robot.

It's called "Reason" and it is in I, Robot.
 >> Stay informed about: Robot beacon story? 

Mike Schilling wrote:

> Jon Schild wrote:
> > tkmailers DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> >> Tim Bruening wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Sherm Pendley wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Dave S <davidsteinhoff DeleteThis @comcast.net> writes:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I can't remember or find a story that Asimov wrote where robots
> >>>>> on a remote space station were there to keep a communications
> >>>>> beacon focused on distant Earth. The humans eventually died off
> >>>>> and the robots grew sentient and came to worship the beacon as
> >>>>> their pipeline to the deity.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sounds a bit like "Reason", one of the short stories in "I, Robot".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Or it might be part of the "Robot City" series.
> >>>
> >>>>> It's a cute story about how faith becomes the
> >>>>> explanation for innate character elements.
> >>>>
> >>>> Actually, no. It's a discussion of the merits of reason alone
> >>>> (hence the title) vs. the scientific method. It points out a flaw
> >>>> in the former by showing how blind belief in an untested
> >>>> hypothesis can lead to irrational behavior.
> >>>>
> >>>> There's also a subtext of tolerance. In the end, the robot is left
> >>>> to believe as it will, because its superstition doesn't affect its
> >>>> job performance and doesn't harm any humans.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Powell says that Cutie refused to obey him and Donovan because Cutie
> >>> knew
> >>> that he could keep the energy beam to Earth more stable than any
> >>> human could, so the First Law (no harm to humans) compelled Cutie
> >>> to take control
> >>> of the energy beam. However, Cutie doesn't believe that there are
> >>> any humans at the other end of the energy beam, so why would the
> >>> First Law even
> >>> apply?
> >>
> >>
> >> Wasn't this one of the Lucky Starr stories set either on Mercury or
> >> Venus? Robot rebellion on a ship returning to earth. Last para sounds
> >> like that. Or am I mixing it up with something else?
> >
> > No, it was definitely in I, Robot. I didn't read the other two
> > possibilities mentioned, but I did read that story. Also, the ISDB
> > says it was in I, Robot.
>
> It's called "Reason" and it is in I, Robot.

That still leaves the question of why the First Law would force Cutie to
make certain that the beam to Earth was kept steady when he didn't believe
there were even any humans at the other end of the beam.
 >> Stay informed about: Robot beacon story? 

In article <4745B2FD.84BD9C0E RemoveThis @pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>,
Tim Bruening <tsbrueni RemoveThis @pop.dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote:
>
>
>Mike Schilling wrote:
>
>> Jon Schild wrote:
>> > tkmailers RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> >> Tim Bruening wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Sherm Pendley wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Dave S <davidsteinhoff RemoveThis @comcast.net> writes:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> I can't remember or find a story that Asimov wrote where robots
>> >>>>> on a remote space station were there to keep a communications
>> >>>>> beacon focused on distant Earth. The humans eventually died off
>> >>>>> and the robots grew sentient and came to worship the beacon as
>> >>>>> their pipeline to the deity.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Sounds a bit like "Reason", one of the short stories in "I, Robot".
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Or it might be part of the "Robot City" series.
>> >>>
>> >>>>> It's a cute story about how faith becomes the
>> >>>>> explanation for innate character elements.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Actually, no. It's a discussion of the merits of reason alone
>> >>>> (hence the title) vs. the scientific method. It points out a flaw
>> >>>> in the former by showing how blind belief in an untested
>> >>>> hypothesis can lead to irrational behavior.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> There's also a subtext of tolerance. In the end, the robot is left
>> >>>> to believe as it will, because its superstition doesn't affect its
>> >>>> job performance and doesn't harm any humans.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Powell says that Cutie refused to obey him and Donovan because Cutie
>> >>> knew
>> >>> that he could keep the energy beam to Earth more stable than any
>> >>> human could, so the First Law (no harm to humans) compelled Cutie
>> >>> to take control
>> >>> of the energy beam. However, Cutie doesn't believe that there are
>> >>> any humans at the other end of the energy beam, so why would the
>> >>> First Law even
>> >>> apply?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Wasn't this one of the Lucky Starr stories set either on Mercury or
>> >> Venus? Robot rebellion on a ship returning to earth. Last para sounds
>> >> like that. Or am I mixing it up with something else?
>> >
>> > No, it was definitely in I, Robot. I didn't read the other two
>> > possibilities mentioned, but I did read that story. Also, the ISDB
>> > says it was in I, Robot.
>>
>> It's called "Reason" and it is in I, Robot.
>
>That still leaves the question of why the First Law would force Cutie to
>make certain that the beam to Earth was kept steady when he didn't believe
>there were even any humans at the other end of the beam.

Because it was the Will of the Master!

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt RemoveThis @kithrup.com
 >> Stay informed about: Robot beacon story? 

> That still leaves the question of why the First Law would force Cutie to
> make certain that the beam to Earth was kept steady when he didn't believe
> there were even any humans at the other end of the beam.- Hide quoted text -

I am pretty sure it stated somewhere in Robot stories (and more than
once) that First Law operates below conscious level. A robot need not
be aware of humans' existence for First Law to kick in.
 >> Stay informed about: Robot beacon story? 

On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:54:46 -0800 (PST), ilya2.TakeThisOut@rcn.com wrote:

>> That still leaves the question of why the First Law would force Cutie to
>> make certain that the beam to Earth was kept steady when he didn't believe
>> there were even any humans at the other end of the beam.- Hide quoted text -

>I am pretty sure it stated somewhere in Robot stories (and more than
>once) that First Law operates below conscious level. A robot need not
>be aware of humans' existence for First Law to kick in.

No; quite the opposite. Aside from the fact that such a thing would
require Magic, and Asimov didn't generally do Magic, there were cases
like e.g. the Solarian military and police robots, which can go about
killing human beings in many cases on account of having been grossly
misinformed as to exactly what a "human being" is and where one might
be found.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Schilling@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
 >> Stay informed about: Robot beacon story? 

> >I am pretty sure it stated somewhere in Robot stories (and more than
> >once) that First Law operates below conscious level. A robot need not
> >be aware of humans' existence for First Law to kick in.
>
> No; quite the opposite. Aside from the fact that such a thing would
> require Magic, and Asimov didn't generally do Magic,

Such thing does not require Magic. It only requires that a robot is
consciously aware only of some of its sensory inputs, and other
sensory inputs are acted upon reflexively (automatically, pick your
word), bypassing awareness. Humans certainly function that way, and
every real robot currently in existence reacts to data inputs with no
awareness whatsoever.

Granted, such distinction was not in vogue when Asimov wrote "I,
Robot".

> there were cases
> like e.g. the Solarian military and police robots, which can go about
> killing human beings in many cases on account of having been grossly
> misinformed as to exactly what a "human being" is and where one might
> be found.

I will have to dig up a copy of "I, Robot", but I think Asimov did an
"about-face" on this particular topic somewhere between "I, Robot" and
"Caves of Steel".
 >> Stay informed about: Robot beacon story? 

ilya2.TakeThisOut@rcn.com wrote:
>> there were cases
>> like e.g. the Solarian military and police robots, which can go about
>> killing human beings in many cases on account of having been grossly
>> misinformed as to exactly what a "human being" is and where one might
>> be found.
>
> I will have to dig up a copy of "I, Robot", but I think Asimov did an
> "about-face" on this particular topic somewhere between "I, Robot" and
> "Caves of Steel".

Robots' changed definition of "human", where an additional attribute is
required over & above the standard definition of human - the accent of
speech: This appeared in the third book of the series of which Caves of
Steel was first, in the part set on Solaria. I'm forgetting the title
though.
 >> Stay informed about: Robot beacon story? 

tkmailers.RemoveThis@yahoo.co.uk <tkmailers.RemoveThis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>ilya2@rcn.com wrote:
>> I will have to dig up a copy of "I, Robot", but I think Asimov did an
>> "about-face" on this particular topic somewhere between "I, Robot" and
>> "Caves of Steel".
>
>Robots' changed definition of "human", where an additional attribute is
>required over & above the standard definition of human - the accent of
>speech: This appeared in the third book of the series of which Caves of
>Steel was first, in the part set on Solaria. I'm forgetting the title though.

The Robots of Dawn. (Second was The Naked Sun.)

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd.RemoveThis@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
 >> Stay informed about: Robot beacon story? 

tkmailers DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> ilya2 DeleteThis @rcn.com wrote:
> >> there were cases
> >> like e.g. the Solarian military and police robots, which can go about
> >> killing human beings in many cases on account of having been grossly
> >> misinformed as to exactly what a "human being" is and where one might
> >> be found.
> >
> > I will have to dig up a copy of "I, Robot", but I think Asimov did an
> > "about-face" on this particular topic somewhere between "I, Robot" and
> > "Caves of Steel".
>
> Robots' changed definition of "human", where an additional attribute is
> required over & above the standard definition of human - the accent of
> speech: This appeared in the third book of the series of which Caves of
> Steel was first, in the part set on Solaria. I'm forgetting the title
> though.

It happened in "Robots and Empire", the 4th book of the series.
 >> Stay informed about: Robot beacon story? 

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

: That still leaves the question of why the First Law would force Cutie to
: make certain that the beam to Earth was kept steady when he didn't believe
: there were even any humans at the other end of the beam.

It's a function of his programming. His brain was designed for him to keep
a beam steady, and the First Law was thus implicitly included in the
programming. Obviously, when they programmed the former, they dinged around
with his ability to express the latter. Nowadays, they would say, "It's not
a bug, it's a feature."

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

ncwaite DeleteThis @hotmail.com wrote:

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

That evidence was based on people only spending a few minutes in
darkness. Several hours of darkness might have driven the entire
population mad, even without all those stars!

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

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