Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site mtgzz.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!leeper From: leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper) Newsgroups: net.startrek Subject: Re: Mark Leeper's third "Most Human" article Message-ID: <1710@mtgzz.UUCP> Date: Wed, 5-Mar-86 19:59:18 EST Article-I.D.: mtgzz.1710 Posted: Wed Mar 5 19:59:18 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 7-Mar-86 06:24:26 EST References: <4474MIQ@PSUVMA> Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Middletown NJ Lines: 113 > OK, hang on. It's my turn to jump into the fracas. I don't think there is room in this fracas for all of us. And frankly I would like to be the one who leaves. (I guess that sentiment is pretty close to being unanimous.) >Emotions are, by Vulcan definition, illogical. Spock admitted >to his act being one of "desparation," and therefore >emotional, and therefore, illogical. However, he argues that >such an act was their only hope, and therefore it was the >logical thing to do. In short, it was logical to take an >illogical action. Paradox resolved, and Q.E.D. Ah, but this was not an act of desperation. Webster calls desperation the state of surrendering to dispair and giving into rashness. Since when is taking your best shot at survival rashness? It is just the opposite of giving in to dispair. Spock did not admit that the act was of desperation, the scriptwriter claimed that. Had Spock just sat there and said there was no hope, that would have been giving in to dispair. > >>>> STAR TREK says emotion is better than logic; > >>>On the contrary, Star Trek says they are different,neither is superior. >>>Accept both as useful in their own circumstances. IDIC. > >>Maybe that is what they are saying, since I think everyone involved >>thinks Spock is pretty useful to have aboard. I am not sure in what >>situations the emotional mind is actually better than the logical one. >>An unfeeling piece of logical machinery, assuming it is properly >>programmed for the situations it will face, and assuming that >>programming has the proper sets of priorities, should match or beat the >>emotional approach every time. > > There is a major hitch here-- the fact that a piece of logical machinery, >in doing the most logical thing, is perfectly predictable. This would spell >doom in any battle or conflict, whether in space or on a chessboard. > > "The Captain plays most illogically-- I expected him to move his rook." I'll bet you are a whiz at computer games! After all the processor that runs them is perfectly logical, more so than Spock. Therefore everything that happens in a computer game must be perfectly predictable and you must win every time. The flaw in all this is that it may be perfectly logical in some circumstances to follow the dictates of pseudo-randomizer which is also perfectly logical. As long as the randomizing element is hidden from the opponent long enough the opponent still does not know what is coming next. > >>>>Spock, as he is in the TV series is pretty close to an ideal . . . >>>>It is McCoy and occasionally Kirk who seem to have problems . . . >>>>Spock seems comfortable with his origins when there isn't someone else >>>>trying to rub his nose in them. > >>>I agree 95 per cent. Spock wasn't comfortable until the end of >>>"Star Trek: The Motion Picture". > >>Yes, but that story was contrived to say that Spock saw something >>better in the mixed approach. It was making the false statement that >>creativity and pure logic are mutually exclusive. As a mathematician I >>know that is balderdash. There is nothing illogical about curiosity or >>creativity. In pure mathematics logic, creativity and curiosity come >>together very well. > > Why is any story that has Spock take a good look at the value of his >human half "contrived??" Because the virtues he claims were human, that he was missing as a Vulcan, were probably more the virtues of a perfectly logical mathematician than they are of most humans. Probably the most Vulcan-like character outside of the Star Trek mythos was Sherlock Holmes who had a mind like a thinking machine. He certainly had curiosity and creativity, but for him they were perfectly logical. The difference is that the Holmes stories are trying to impress us with the capabilities of perfectly logical mind. Star Trek is trying to give us a nice cushy feeling that we already are the greatest things we can be... we're human! I just don't buy that attitude. >As far as creativity and logic being mutually exclusive, I saw >no indication of that in ST I. What I did see was Spock >realising that "...with all his amassed knowledge, V'ger is >barren, cold," and that "Logic and knowledge are not enough." But Vulcans, even pure Vulcans, are not barren and cold. If they were there would be no need for some to attain Kohlinar. They would already be at that state. Nor were Einstein, Von Neumann, or the fictional Sherlock Holmes. Barren and cold is a functionary in a dull, non-creative job who trudges to work every day, puts in his time and goes home to watch TV where he is told how great it is that he is human. These are the least logical and Vulcanlike amongst us. The most Vulcanlike and most purely logical are anything but barren and cold. >>I don't follow why you say the analogy isn't applying. Spock's soul >>wasn't human. If anything it was better than human. > > If you mean "human" as humans generally are today, I agree >100%. If you mean it in the sense of the human ideal, I'd say >Spock represented that ideal precisely. We humans have a >pretty high image of ourselves, but it's not necessarily >unattainable. We are back to this, are we? Yes, and when a bigot says "mighty white of you" he means it in the best sense of the bigot's idea of idealized white. Nobody said it wasn't intended as a compliment. I was saying that it was a bigotted thing to say. Mark Leeper ...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper