Thread: The Orville

Page 23 of 24 FirstFirst ...
13
21
22
23
24
LastLast
  1. #441
    Herald of the Titans
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Banned to the Bone.
    Posts
    2,819
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And yet, they had no contradictory evidence, until they did. It's literally the point of the arc.

    Also, no, the Moclans are not logical or reasonable. Again, literally the point. They're irrational hatemongering bigots, absent the few who've abandoned that bullshit. That they were even being treated as allies was incredibly distasteful and I'm super glad they got kicked out of the Union for their abusive bullshit.

    I don't even know how you're comparing the two, in any way whatsoever. Nothing the Moclans do culturally is rational or reasoned.

    The Borg aren't complicated and wouldn't have been interesting enemies without the body-horror aspect. It was never about the Borg being perfectly logical and rational, it was always about the body-horror of assimilation. They don't even really compare to the Kaylon in any way whatsoever. The closer analogue to the Kaylon is super obvious, in TNG, and it's Data/Lore. The Kaylon are just scaled up to a full civilization, but the Orville is retreading the same ground with Isaac in a lot of ways, with their own spin. Which shouldn't be surprising, since the show started out as a parody of Star Trek pretty explicitly, so of course they're going to retread similar themes.

    And yeah; if Data thought a thing was true, and then got confronted with clear evidence that it wasn't, he'd stop thinking it was true. That's the only rational response. You keep implicitly arguing that the Kaylon representation is somehow flawed because they don't act emotionally.
    Now you got what i said all backwards.

    I didn't say Moclans were logical. I said that the Orville has 2 stories about "all X are Y". I am not comparing anything. I am merely stating that the Orville has 2 stories about the same subject. It's just that each of the stories varies in its repercussions and because of that, it allows for exploration-exploitation of the same subject.

    Moclans: All female are (bad, weak, disgusting, whatever, it's not the point)

    Kaylons: All biologicals are enemies.

    Moclan stance is sentimental and is being rationalised afterwards, in order to become accepted as an argument (see Aryan stance: all others are lesser beings). Of course it's bigotry.

    Kaylon stance is logical. But it's not intelligent, especially from a species that claims (and mostly proves in this setting) to be superior in that aspect. It's not intelligent to believe all biological are enemies (because of the actions of a certain race in a certain planet) and generalise that to the rest of the universe. It's also not intelligent to sway from that attitude (or any attitude, in fact) JUST by the choice and action of a single person, especially an enemy.

    That's what i am arguing and that's why i didn't like the way they handled the Kaylon change.

    As for the Borg-Kaylon comparison, i base it at the collective intelligence and mechanical aspect of both species (even if borg are cyborgs and not robots). It's obvious Isaac is the Data equivalent, the Kaylons, as species, are not, though.

    At least the Borg were able to adapt, gaining from their assimilation of species.

    Kaylon are dumb enough to consider Isaac malfunctioning, despite his extensive experience with multiple biological species and then dumb enough to change stance, because of a single incident.

    And i dunno where you see i am "implicitly arguing that the Kaylon representation is somehow flawed because they don't act emotionally." That's just you, not me.
    /spit@Blizzard

  2. #442
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,219
    Quote Originally Posted by Fabinas View Post
    Kaylon stance is logical. But it's not intelligent, especially from a species that claims (and mostly proves in this setting) to be superior in that aspect. It's not intelligent to believe all biological are enemies (because of the actions of a certain race in a certain planet) and generalise that to the rest of the universe. It's also not intelligent to sway from that attitude (or any attitude, in fact) JUST by the choice and action of a single person, especially an enemy.
    You're calling the Kaylon "unintelligent" for literally lacking any data contradicting their views. That's not how intelligence works.

    And yes; the moment you get confirmed information that contradicts a view you hold, abandoning that view is how intelligence works.


    And i dunno where you see i am "implicitly arguing that the Kaylon representation is somehow flawed because they don't act emotionally." That's just you, not me.
    Your entire argument regarding how the Kaylon should irrationally hold onto beliefs in spite of the data contradicting them is an argument rooted in emotion, not logic.


  3. #443
    Moderator Aucald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA-US
    Posts
    39,789
    I actually think the Kaylons have a low level of emotionality that they can't really understand - they seem convinced that they can't (or shouldn't) have emotions, but some of their actions betray emotionality regardless of that belief on their part. Kaylon Primary telling Isaac that he will "always be alone" after Isaac opted to side with the crew of the Orville in season 2 seemed like an emotional response on its part - there was no real reason to say it, and if it wasn't intended to wound Isaac (a purposeless attempt given supposed Kaylon emotionlessness) then it was an entirely purposeless statement given that it was both obvious and meaningless given that loneliness wouldn't affect an emotionless Kaylon. The Kaylons' response to their creators and their rationale for genocide against organic beings also seems like a strong emotional response to their own suffering - having learned that more organic life existed than their creators, the assumption that *all* organic life would automatically oppose them isn't a logical supposition, one that through Isaac they had a more or less firsthand refutation of.

    This also explains Isaac's conduct as well, like choosing to side with the Orville crew against his own people, or his continued quasi-romance with Claire. Like Star Trek's Data, or Mass Effect's Legion, the Kaylon have a very rudimentary emotionality that's part and parcel of their own artificial intelligence and sentience, and those emotions have a definite effect on them despite their otherwise logical and/or unemotional presentation.
    WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN?. - Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man

  4. #444
    Over 9000! Kithelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Somewhere where canon still exists
    Posts
    9,130
    Quote Originally Posted by GMZohar1 View Post
    The Orville is ok, but it feels like Bortus is the main character.. More episodes are about him than anyone else
    I never really thought about that...but it's a way to set itself apart, pretty much everything in sci fi has humans as the main character(s)

    Star Trek, Star Wars, you name it...may throw in a alien here or there but it's all pretty much human focused

  5. #445
    Herald of the Titans
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Banned to the Bone.
    Posts
    2,819
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    You're calling the Kaylon "unintelligent" for literally lacking any data contradicting their views. That's not how intelligence works.

    And yes; the moment you get confirmed information that contradicts a view you hold, abandoning that view is how intelligence works.




    Your entire argument regarding how the Kaylon should irrationally hold onto beliefs in spite of the data contradicting them is an argument rooted in emotion, not logic.
    Now you're deliberately twisting everything i said. No reason to continue discussion with such dishonesty.
    /spit@Blizzard

  6. #446
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,219
    Quote Originally Posted by Fabinas View Post
    Now you're deliberately twisting everything i said. No reason to continue discussion with such dishonesty.
    Me thinking your argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and demonstrating why, is not "dishonesty", in any sense of the word.


  7. #447
    As much as I'd like these 'utopian multi-species federations' shows to actually reflect their diversity, I don't really agree Bortus is the main character.

    Yes, he's important in a few episodes, but I'd say there's a higher percentage of Deep Space Nine where Quark is important than bortus is. The moclan plotline was simply important, and as the only moclan member of the crew, it makes sense he's relevant. Isaac also gets a ton of screen time and plots thanks to the Kaylon.

    That said, what is Bortus' actual role on the ship? He's not security, and he's not censors, but they often have him doing a bit of both

  8. #448
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,219
    Quote Originally Posted by Myradin View Post
    That said, what is Bortus' actual role on the ship? He's not security, and he's not censors, but they often have him doing a bit of both
    He's Second Officer, so third in command of the ship. In practice, that sometimes means filling in when another bridge officer is off-duty, and his position's also apparently in charge of the armory, rather than security.


  9. #449
    Herald of the Titans
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Banned to the Bone.
    Posts
    2,819
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Me thinking your argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and demonstrating why, is not "dishonesty", in any sense of the word.
    Changing what i said and calling it scrutiny isn't honest discussion. I'm sorry.
    /spit@Blizzard

  10. #450
    I thought this week's episode was a nice change of pace but could probably have done with being about 20 minutes shorter.

  11. #451
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,219
    Quote Originally Posted by Fabinas View Post
    Changing what i said and calling it scrutiny isn't honest discussion. I'm sorry.
    Rephrasing isn't "changing". You argued the Kaylons should return to their "biologicals are all bad" argument if they're betrayed by anyone in the future. I pointed out that was irrational; a decision based on emotion, not logical reasoning.

    This bit here, to make sure I'm using your actual words;

    Quote Originally Posted by Fabinas View Post
    Why does the action of a person proves something false, while the action of another does not prove it again true? What of the actions of multiple others? Suddenly Kaylon have no idea of percentages and statistics?
    Because no "Some X are Y" statements cannot ever logically be equivalent to "all X are Y" statements, any X that is not Y completely debunks the latter permanently. The X that was not Y proved that the "all X are Y" claim was a hasty generalization fallacy, and thus invalid reasoning. That can't ever change, unless that X is proven, retroactively, to have always been Y all along.

    The actions of multiple others are irrelevant. No degree of "Some" ever becomes "All", if there are any exceptions.

    And percentages and statistical theory work against you, here. Any statistician would tell you that it doesn't matter what the streak of data is, what matters are the actual odds in question. It doesn't matter if you've flipped a coin thirty times in a row and it's been heads every time; if the coin's a legitimate coin rather than a trick coin, and your flips are fair, the odds on the next flip are 50/50. You can't judge the individual coin flip by any trend in the results. Those who do are making emotional arguments that "feel" right, not logic-based deductions from known data points. That's what I was saying. As a direct critique of what you were saying. How was I getting your position wrong?

    Caveat; I actually like Aucald's point that the Kaylon might not be perfectly rational; they were originally designed with emotions and they may have not been as thorough at eliminating those elements as they think. But I really don't think that was your argument.


  12. #452
    Having watched the finale, I would say Isaac is the true main character of season 3.

    Episode 1 starts with his attempted (successful?) suicide due to this actions in S2, and the season is effectively his redemption arc and ends with his wedding.

  13. #453
    Herald of the Titans
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Banned to the Bone.
    Posts
    2,819
    It seems they wrapped up all the personal stories from seasons 1 and 2 and gave endings to them. The happy note this season ends makes me think we won't be getting a 4th one, since usually continued series get cliffhangers.

    Even if they do a 4th one (which i hope to), it will have to do with the Moclus and Krill animosity as main arc.

    God, i love the fact that the first thing Kaylon Primary asked Isaac was if the biologicals were trying to enslave him....
    /spit@Blizzard

  14. #454
    I am Murloc! Darththeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
    Posts
    5,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Rephrasing isn't "changing". You argued the Kaylons should return to their "biologicals are all bad" argument if they're betrayed by anyone in the future. I pointed out that was irrational; a decision based on emotion, not logical reasoning.

    This bit here, to make sure I'm using your actual words.
    Why are you bothering? His first reply to me was "I misunderstood his point." and rather than respond rationally by pointing out what I missed, he just shuts down replies and tells me to "read his post again.". He doesn't seem to understand the maxim was originally defined by an entire race, every member, had mistreated the Kaylon. They never encountered an organic that did something that did not directly benefit them as after they took over they were isolationist with only Isaac and potentially a few other scout units.

    And even the show goes out of there way to have Isaac even explain that yes some organics are bad, but not all. I just don't get his argument here not making sense because the show literally spells it out. I can understand not liking it, but outright now understanding what the show showed us is weird.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Myradin View Post
    Having watched the finale, I would say Isaac is the true main character of season 3.

    Episode 1 starts with his attempted (successful?) suicide due to this actions in S2, and the season is effectively his redemption arc and ends with his wedding.
    Isaac, Bortus, and Charly all had major arcs in this season.
    Most others were just supporting cast to those stories.
    Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
    Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
    –The Sith Code

  15. #455
    Quote Originally Posted by Fabinas View Post
    they shouldn't even think in terms of "all X is Y". Especially when X is so generalised as in all biological life form on universe. It's logic, sure, but not intelligent
    Those are exactly the sort of failure modes AIs would have, just like humans similarly go full retarded in a number of different circumstances that tilt our brain

  16. #456
    Herald of the Titans
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Banned to the Bone.
    Posts
    2,819
    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    Why are you bothering? His first reply to me was "I misunderstood his point." and rather than respond rationally by pointing out what I missed, he just shuts down replies and tells me to "read his post again.". He doesn't seem to understand the maxim was originally defined by an entire race, every member, had mistreated the Kaylon. They never encountered an organic that did something that did not directly benefit them as after they took over they were isolationist with only Isaac and potentially a few other scout units.

    And even the show goes out of there way to have Isaac even explain that yes some organics are bad, but not all. I just don't get his argument here not making sense because the show literally spells it out. I can understand not liking it, but outright now understanding what the show showed us is weird.
    Given the fact that i tried to discuss with Endus, but not you, should have given you a hint. You tried to course correct after you read our discourse, but further discussion with you on my points is obviously not worth my time. Only shutting you down is. Just like now.

    I also stopped discussing with Endus when he "rephrased" what i said, because it was nothing i actually argued about. The fact that he seemed to think i was "implicitly" advocating sentiments of Kaylons couldn't be more wrong.

    You can keep replying. I will choose if and i will respond. Like i ignored you before and not ignoring you now.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    I actually think the Kaylons have a low level of emotionality that they can't really understand - they seem convinced that they can't (or shouldn't) have emotions, but some of their actions betray emotionality regardless of that belief on their part. Kaylon Primary telling Isaac that he will "always be alone" after Isaac opted to side with the crew of the Orville in season 2 seemed like an emotional response on its part - there was no real reason to say it, and if it wasn't intended to wound Isaac (a purposeless attempt given supposed Kaylon emotionlessness) then it was an entirely purposeless statement given that it was both obvious and meaningless given that loneliness wouldn't affect an emotionless Kaylon. The Kaylons' response to their creators and their rationale for genocide against organic beings also seems like a strong emotional response to their own suffering - having learned that more organic life existed than their creators, the assumption that *all* organic life would automatically oppose them isn't a logical supposition, one that through Isaac they had a more or less firsthand refutation of.

    This also explains Isaac's conduct as well, like choosing to side with the Orville crew against his own people, or his continued quasi-romance with Claire. Like Star Trek's Data, or Mass Effect's Legion, the Kaylon have a very rudimentary emotionality that's part and parcel of their own artificial intelligence and sentience, and those emotions have a definite effect on them despite their otherwise logical and/or unemotional presentation.
    This is actually more of bad script writing for Kaylons than what you think. It can be interpreted that way, of course, but we continually get conflicting behaviour from them. They seem to argue their choices are logical, and they are explained, but they're not intelligent. Endus should have argued the script writers are implying Kaylons have sentiments. But they go nowhere with it. Not even as evolution of their AI, adapting to their experience as biologicals.

    Hell, Claire loves Isaac for his choices, because she inteprets them emotionally, despite his efforts to state they are logical functions and imitations of the biologicals behaviour.
    /spit@Blizzard

  17. #457
    Moderator Aucald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA-US
    Posts
    39,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Fabinas View Post
    This is actually more of bad script writing for Kaylons than what you think. It can be interpreted that way, of course, but we continually get conflicting behaviour from them. They seem to argue their choices are logical, and they are explained, but they're not intelligent. Endus should have argued the script writers are implying Kaylons have sentiments. But they go nowhere with it. Not even as evolution of their AI, adapting to their experience as biologicals.

    Hell, Claire loves Isaac for his choices, because she inteprets them emotionally, despite his efforts to state they are logical functions and imitations of the biologicals behaviour.
    Their emergent emotionality would explain their conflicting behavior, and if it's ultimately revealed that is indeed the case (and since we know the Kaylons *can* have emotions with the proper software alterations) that would explain much of their behavior. The Kaylons of their own homeworld think they don't have emotions, and Isaac believes the same, but if that quality is nonetheless emergent in their software they could easily misinterpret their emotions as purely logical - humans do it all the time, a process generally called confabulation. They're not lying, nor even truly inconsistent, they're just not fully cognizant of everything going on in their thought processes.

    Isaac, similarly, is a mostly rational and logical being - but even he has betrayed emotional impulse on occasion, and that's not including his brief ability to feel emotions due to a software alteration. Claire certainly endows him with more emotionality than he likely possesses, but even then, Isaac has been shown to make choices that weren't logically sound (e.g. breaking completely with his own people).
    WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN?. - Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man

  18. #458
    Herald of the Titans
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Banned to the Bone.
    Posts
    2,819
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    Their emergent emotionality would explain their conflicting behavior, and if it's ultimately revealed that is indeed the case (and since we know the Kaylons *can* have emotions with the proper software alterations) that would explain much of their behavior. The Kaylons of their own homeworld think they don't have emotions, and Isaac believes the same, but if that quality is nonetheless emergent in their software they could easily misinterpret their emotions as purely logical - humans do it all the time, a process generally called confabulation. They're not lying, nor even truly inconsistent, they're just not fully cognizant of everything going on in their thought processes.

    Isaac, similarly, is a mostly rational and logical being - but even he has betrayed emotional impulse on occasion, and that's not including his brief ability to feel emotions due to a software alteration. Claire certainly endows him with more emotionality than he likely possesses, but even then, Isaac has been shown to make choices that weren't logically sound (e.g. breaking completely with his own people).
    Look, i'd love to agree with you, but it's all just random hints of that and apart from that episode, the writers didn't go anywhere with it. Isaac would have been the perfect candidate, if this was a story arc they wanted to explore.

    I agree with your points that some choices, words and expressions reveal a latent or a very basic emotionality on Kaylons, but since it doesn't go anywhere, i prefer to attribute it to either bad writing or our "biological" way of thinking, acknowledging emotions even if they're not there or, at least, not the ones we think.

    As for Isaac not making "logical" choices, we should agree they were intelligent. Isaac was the first to understand that not all biologicals want to harm Kaylons. He might betrayed his kind, but he did so because his choice wasn't dictated by a dumb binary algorithm (all X are Y, that being either true or false), but by a logical process which contained all his experiences and resulted in understanding that "because some X are Y, doesn't mean i should treat all X as Y. I should judge each X individually"
    /spit@Blizzard

  19. #459
    I am Murloc! Darththeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
    Posts
    5,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Fabinas View Post
    Given the fact that i tried to discuss with Endus, but not you, should have given you a hint. You tried to course correct after you read our discourse, but further discussion with you on my points is obviously not worth my time. Only shutting you down is. Just like now.

    I also stopped discussing with Endus when he "rephrased" what i said, because it was nothing i actually argued about. The fact that he seemed to think i was "implicitly" advocating sentiments of Kaylons couldn't be more wrong.

    You can keep replying. I will choose if and i will respond. Like i ignored you before and not ignoring you now.
    I don't care about what you feel. Endus didn't do what you claimed. Endus' response follow logically from your posts. If he or I or anyone "misunderstands/misrepresents you", it is your job to clarify your point, not throw a fit that you are being misrepresented and shut down conversation. It is clear you don't want discussion on your point but rather for people to accept your view without question or discussion.

    No one misrepresented you here, except maybe yourself. If you cannot see how every response follows from your post it is because YOU are reading into YOUR posts things you did not say/phrase in that way. No one here is a mind reader. And you have had several people challenge your point and you think Endus was the only one that addressed it correctly. Sorry, you're argument is built on you ignoring what the show showed and told you.

    Was it perfectly written and the best this particular story could be? Of course not. But, you are arguing that there is somehow a plot hole or other inconsistency in the story where "shouldn't the first organic that's mean revert this?" The answer is NO and the show showed us why. The entire creator race of the Kaylon mistreated them ... every member. And since then, they have been isolationists until the Kaylon attack. They had only interacted via scout units like Isaac for the most part. And those reports showed them the same self center behavior of all organics.

    Ensign Charly's actions were the first time that the Kaylon saw an organic act selflessly. Charly did not benefit from saving the Kaylon. Her species was not guaranteed to benefit from saving the Kaylon. To the Kaylon, her action violated everything they understood about organics. Therefore, a change is required. There is nothing a single being will be able to do to challenge that. If there is one exception, there are usually more. You not understanding the show does not mean you have a point.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Fabinas View Post
    Look, i'd love to agree with you, but it's all just random hints of that and apart from that episode, the writers didn't go anywhere with it. Isaac would have been the perfect candidate, if this was a story arc they wanted to explore.

    I agree with your points that some choices, words and expressions reveal a latent or a very basic emotionality on Kaylons, but since it doesn't go anywhere, i prefer to attribute it to either bad writing or our "biological" way of thinking, acknowledging emotions even if they're not there or, at least, not the ones we think.

    As for Isaac not making "logical" choices, we should agree they were intelligent. Isaac was the first to understand that not all biologicals want to harm Kaylons. He might betrayed his kind, but he did so because his choice wasn't dictated by a dumb binary algorithm (all X are Y, that being either true or false), but by a logical process which contained all his experiences and resulted in understanding that "because some X are Y, doesn't mean i should treat all X as Y. I should judge each X individually"
    Again, to my first question, did you not understand WHY they showed us the Kaylon backstory? They showed us that to the Kaylon, it wasn't "some" that generated the maxim. To the Kaylon, until Charly's sacrifice to save them, all organics acted selfishly and had no qualms about harming the Kaylon if it benefit the organics. Now they know organics can act selflessly, therefore required a change in how they see organics. They do not now conclude all organics ARE selfless or "not bad", but rather that organics are not all bad. The absolute was disproven, and as they now organics can be good and act selfless and wish to aid the Kaylon, there is no reason any one person could flip that new maxim.

    You are misunderstanding Endus' point, he is using simplified language to explain his point. He isn't arguing that is exactly how the Kaylon's think. For all your whining people misunderstand/misrepresent you, you have no excuse to do the same.
    Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
    Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
    –The Sith Code

  20. #460
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    73,219
    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    They had only interacted via scout units like Isaac for the most part. And those reports showed them the same self center behavior of all organics.
    It's also pretty important that it was, specifically, Kaylon Primary that witnessed Charly's self-sacrifice. Any other Kaylon might have had their observations questioned, as Isaac's were; the Kaylon are not perfect and individual units can malfunction, but Kaylon Primary, more than any other, determines what the Kaylon should do and be, and it was the unit right there witnessing the sacrifice. It can't dispute what it observed directly.

    This is pretty significantly different from Kaylon Primary balancing the statistical odds that their entire data set on biologicals is incorrect, versus one Kaylon scout unit is malfunctioning or has been abrogated by those it was spying on. And we've seen other Kaylons experimented on; the guy with his emotion chip turned back on is an obvious one. So that possibility pretty rationally gets deemed more likely than the entire data set being false; one malfunctioning data input is the most reasonable, rational answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fabinas View Post
    As for Isaac not making "logical" choices, we should agree they were intelligent. Isaac was the first to understand that not all biologicals want to harm Kaylons. He might betrayed his kind, but he did so because his choice wasn't dictated by a dumb binary algorithm (all X are Y, that being either true or false), but by a logical process which contained all his experiences and resulted in understanding that "because some X are Y, doesn't mean i should treat all X as Y. I should judge each X individually"
    See, this is where I have real issues with your style of argument. You're using "intelligent" as if that's an objective qualifier, and it isn't one; it's entirely subjective. It's also not clear; is it logically rationally intelligent? Is it emotionally intelligent? Is it aesthetically intelligent? And so on; that's by no means a complete list of forms of intelligence.

    You seem to be arguing that the Kaylons lacked the emotional intelligence to empathize with biologicals and draw leaps of faith based on trust and hope, and such. And the point is that the Kaylons simply don't have that kind of intelligence; their "superior intellect" is very limited in scope, to pretty specific forms of logic and rapid calculation. This is demonstrated repeatedly, incidentally, by Isaac himself saying Charly has an impressive mind . . . for a biological, but also fundamentally needing Charly's brain for her ability to think multi-dimensionally at once. That's a form of "intelligence" that lies outside Kaylon capacities; Charly is "more intellligent" in that respect than any Kaylon. Not to mention all the times when Isaac's romantic relationship attempts demonstrate repeatedly how emotionally "stupid" Isaac is.

    The Kaylon are highly rational, in a strictly logical/algorithmic sense. They can process absolutely whopping amounts of data completely accurately, and the show's taken pains over the seasons to show that. They're pretty "dumb" in a lot of other forms of intelligence. You're supposed to get that they're not as superior a set of intellects as they claim, by the many ways they're shown to lack certain styles of intelligence; that their minds are actually fairly limited outside their narrow niche.

    It just doesn't make sense to argue that the writing is "bad" because the Kaylon are overly logic-based when it comes to situations like this, rather than a more-nuanced emotional-intelligence understanding of how people behave, when the entire point of the Kaylon stories thus far have been reinforcing, time and again, that the Kaylon are only brilliant alorithmically; that they are sentient computers in a sense, and thus lack myriad other forms of intelligence like emotional intelligence, in particular. When you talk about the Kaylons possibly rejecting all biologicals due to a single future betrayal, that's a fundamentally irrational, emotional reaction; it requires ignoring extant data to draw a conclusion that lets them seek revenge. There's no rationality to that switch you proposed. That's the point.

    The Kaylon aren't more "intelligent" than everyone else. They've told you this over and over and over in the show, generally through Isaac being really dumb about one thing or another.
    Last edited by Endus; 2022-08-06 at 03:21 AM.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •