AOQ Angel Review 1-11: "Somnambulist"
Arbitrar Of Quality
episodes in these review threads
ANGEL
Season One, Episode 11: "Somnambulist"
(or "I don't sleep, I dream")
Writer: Tim Minear
Director: Winrich Kolbe
Ahhh. That's more like it. Unfortunately, I'm flying solo from
here, since the Significant Other has had enough of this series.
Figures the first one she missed would be easily the best of the series
so far (other than the one with Buffy, of course. And maybe the
pilot). I think I've talked her into giving this one a shot, and if
I make it to Season Two, ATS might get a third chance from her too.
First, how about an aside? "You got me. I'm a pope." - Angel,
"Rm W/ A Vu"
Coincidence, or not?
The opening starts off as a rather generic killing-a-victim story.
Then we (a bit more laboriously than necessary) bust out one of the
most enduring of the classic horror stories, a protagonist who dreams
of real-life murders and/or suspects himself of unknowingly committing
them. It sets the stage for the episode which follows, light on the
humor, heavy on the suspense and earnest melodrama.
The early banter, with Wesley still hovering around the offices, tries
for some comedy, but isn't especially funny. (I think the only time
I laughed at his antics all show was his eagerness to invite Angel into
a building he could already access.) But there's some success here:
unless he learns a little humility or something, Wesley is going to be
a real douchebag, but he doesn't annoy me too much as a viewer.
Anyone who needs Cordelia to be the Sancho to his Quijote has his
issues. Early stuff I did like include the idea of a "pope killer"
(especially when one realizes that it started in 18th-century Ireland,
where it'd seem scarier), and Angel's reaction to his failed
attempt to leave via the front door.
I think it's worth noting that the past romance between the sidekicks
doesn't come into play here. A lot has happened in the last six
months.
Kate's voice sounds really off, not natural at all (even for someone
giving a lecture) during the briefing. I think that whole sequence
goes on longer than it needs to and is a little obvious, but I
wouldn't want to lose Angel wandering amidst a voiceover that hits
just enough right notes to be relevant.
Kolbe really likes having a shadow fall over half of our hero's face,
doesn't he? Even more so than all the other ATS directors do, I
mean.
Plotwise, "Somnambulist" started out looking clunkily simple.
Yeah, let's just have Angel dream up an answer rather than figuring
it out himself. Yeah, let's just patrol the whole city looking for a
guy in the vicinity of another guy near a bar. But the show keeps
building, and keeps coming up with layers. As one example, take Angel
and Kate's plans for each other. First you have her acting almost
flirtatious, or whatever the nearest Kate equivalent is - "Not that
the 'brooding man of mystery' thing isn't working for you. It
is. A lot." Then we have him appealing to her trust while coming up
with a way to use her to catch Penn (keeping her in the dark strictly
"for her own good," of course). Kate hits the books and learns The
Rest of The Story. Very interestingly, she doesn't need to be
convinced that Angelus isn't a present-day threat. But she does
blame him for his past actions, and wants nothing to do with him.
Personally, anyway; it turns out she still wants to use him to get to
Penn. This one gets to be fun to watch unfold, both for plot and for
character.
The father-son story works out pretty well too. I'm actually
surprised (in retrospect; I hadn't even thought of doing a story like
this) that we haven't seen Angel face off with any of his Sire-ees
other than Drusilla before now. [This was also interesting as a mildly
spoiled first-timer since V oryvrir gung bhe ureb fbzrubj cvpxf hc n
fba ng fbzr cbvag, fb V jnf jbaqrevat vs guvf jnf uvz.] Penn as
someone reliving his glory days and dealing with his father issues is a
reasonable premise for a one-off villain. There are some nice moments
of misdirection, like when he strolls right into police headquarters to
get his next victim. And the way he tries, taking Angel's critique
to heart, to branch out a little with some deception about his actual
plans, but his Sire knows him too well. Again, well plotted and
engaging.
Of minor note: The cops who try to grab Penn get clear evidence that
he has abilities that're otherworldly. I wonder how they
rationalized it.
Of less minor note: Cordelia's professed total confidence in Angel,
like he's become the center of her world. She lashes out very
emotionally at Wesley at even the idea of doubting him. Of course,
part of this is to set up the gag asecond later, but I still find it of
note, hence the mention.
Also also of note: A few moments of casual badassery and questionable
behavior from Angel. He didn't, strictly speaking, have to grab Wes
by the neck that way. And his speech to his former protégé in which
he calls him a hack artist is pleasantly nasty, a fun and mean moment.
If I hadn't been watching previous years of BTVS, I'd have the same
question as Anya did in "Pangs": What's he like when he IS evil?
Of course part of this is to set up the rest of the episode, but I
still find it worth a mention.
Sure, Kate means it when she says she'll fire, but she will check to
see whether someone's really dead before emptying the rest of the gun
into him. Not a real L.A. Cop.
I'm not so wild about Fluctuating Intelligence Girl taking so long to
realize that Penn is trying to get information out of her. But I did
like Carpenter's delivery on "you're him... he... the guy... _Apt
Pupil_ boy." The moment where she goes for the sunlight is pretty
good, as is the standoff afterward. Hared the steak joke, liked
"speaking of going on and on..."
"First I thought I'd stop everything and tell you my plan." Heh.
And then at the end, just when I thought the final act was going to be
by-the-numbers, the show throws in, in addition to a cool fight
sequence, one last really cool visual with Kate's chosen method of
killing Penn. I don't know if anyone saw it coming, but I didn't,
and commented out loud that it was cool. "You missed." "No I
didn't." Obviously there's stuff that this episode doesn't
tell us about where things stand between detective and cop now;
strangely enough, the audience member is left with a desire to watch
the next episode as soon as possible. Funny how that works.
As for the very last scene... I dunno. It's too wordy, doesn't
feel quite right. The concerns make sense, it's obviously going to
end with a flippant moment, which is fine ("Oh, I'll kill you
dead." "Thanks." "What are friends for?")... I think my
problem is that Cordelia doesn't seem like herself, which hurts the
scene for me. The stumbling over her words at pivotal moments is in
character, as is the occasional moment of sweetness, but I don't know
if that kind of speechmaking really is.
And how about we end on a flip moment too? I just want to say that
Buffyverse characters get impressive penetration out of their wooden
stabby objects. To slightly misquote Master Tang, "I mean, crap,
man! That, like, went right through him! You don't see that every
day... That doesn't really even seem possible if you think about it,
with all those body organs and cartilage and bones... I mean, I'm no
doctor, but that was, like, one clean stab!"
So...
One-sentence summary: Sometimes the old stories are the best.
AOQ rating: Good
[Season One so far:
1) "City Of" - Good
2) "Lonely Hearts" - Weak
3) "Into The Dark" - Good
4) "I Fall To Pieces" - Good
5) "Rm W/ A Vu" - Decent
6) "Sense And Sensitivity" - Weak
7) "The Bachelor Party" - Decent
8) "I Will Remember You" - Excellent
9) "Hero" - Good
10) "Parting Gifts" - Decent
11) "Somnambulist" -- Good]
Apteryx
news:1146716985....@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later _Buffy_ and _Angel_
>episodes in these review threads
>Ahhh. That's more like it. Unfortunately, I'm flying solo from
>here, since the Significant Other has had enough of this series.
>Figures the first one she missed would be easily the best of the series
>so far (other than the one with Buffy, of course. And maybe the
>pilot). I think I've talked her into giving this one a shot, and if
>I make it to Season Two, ATS might get a third chance from her too.
Even if she likes it as much as you do, I wouldn't try to use that to
persuade her to watch the rest of the season. Keep on scouting ahead, and
letting her know which episodes are worthy of her attention. There are still
good episodes remaining in season 1, but there are , um, other ones as well.
If she is tired of it now, and gets talked in to watching all of the
remaining episodes, there are some episodes capable of making her flagging
it altogether and missing season 2. And that would be a pity.
>First, how about an aside? "You got me. I'm a pope." - Angel,
>"Rm W/ A Vu"
>Coincidence, or not?
In a Whedon show, nothing is a coincidence. Except when it is.
>Very interestingly, she doesn't need to be
>convinced that Angelus isn't a present-day threat. But she does
>blame him for his past actions, and wants nothing to do with him.
Most people who know him give him credit for a hundred years of guilt. But I
guess she's a cop, and blaming people for their past actions is part of the
job. Good job she doesn't know about Jenny (I assume the statute of
limitations hasn't run out on that, even if in his timeline he has spent
hundreds of years in hell since then).
other than Drusilla before now. [This was also interesting as a mildly
spoiled first-timer since V oryvrir gung bhe ureb fbzrubj cvpxf hc n
fba ng fbzr cbvag, fb V jnf jbaqrevat vs guvf jnf uvz.]
Rot-13 in the original AoQ review is a bit mind-boggling, but OK, I guess
there are people following this who haven't seen the whole series and who
managed to avoid being spoiled about that so far.
>Of minor note: The cops who try to grab Penn get clear evidence that
>he has abilities that're otherworldly. I wonder how they
>rationalized it.
AtS does seem a bit inconsistent at time about what the authorities know,
and when they knew it. But we have already seen a demon brownshirt militia,
so they'd have to be blind to not know something about the "otherworldly"
stuff.
>"First I thought I'd stop everything and tell you my plan." Heh.
>And then at the end, just when I thought the final act was going to be
>by-the-numbers, the show throws in, in addition to a cool fight
>sequence, one last really cool visual with Kate's chosen method of
>killing Penn. I don't know if anyone saw it coming, but I didn't,
>and commented out loud that it was cool. "You missed." "No I
>didn't."
>And how about we end on a flip moment too? I just want to say that
>Buffyverse characters get impressive penetration out of their wooden
>stabby objects. To slightly misquote Master Tang, "I mean, crap,
>man! That, like, went right through him! You don't see that every
>day... That doesn't really even seem possible if you think about it,
>with all those body organs and cartilage and bones... I mean, I'm no
>doctor, but that was, like, one clean stab!"
IIRC in the original Dracula movies, they needed a mallet to drive the stake
through his heart. Maybe better technique, maybe sharper stakes? Softer
vampires?
>One-sentence summary: Sometimes the old stories are the best.
>AOQ rating: Good
Its not far from that for, but doesn't quite get over the border from Decent
for me. A nice suspense story, but not that much substance (apart from the
disturbing info that Angel enjoyed his dreams of killing people). For me,
the 43rd best AtS episode, 8th best in Season 1
--
Apteryx
jil...@hotmail.com
will feel?
MBangel10 (Melissa)
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later _Buffy_ and _Angel_
> episodes in these review threads
>
>
> ANGEL
> Season One, Episode 11: "Somnambulist"
> (or "I don't sleep, I dream")
> Writer: Tim Minear
> Director: Winrich Kolbe
>
> Ahhh. That's more like it. Unfortunately, I'm flying solo from
> here, since the Significant Other has had enough of this series.
> Figures the first one she missed would be easily the best of the series
> so far (other than the one with Buffy, of course. And maybe the
> pilot). I think I've talked her into giving this one a shot, and if
> I make it to Season Two, ATS might get a third chance from her too.
>
I made it to mid S3 and then didn't start watching again until mid S4.
Ats has some great episodes but the series as a whole isn't on the same
level as Buffy (IMHO).
vague disclaimer
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> with Wesley still hovering around the offices, tries
> for some comedy, but isn't especially funny. (I think the only time
> I laughed at his antics all show was his eagerness to invite Angel into
> a building he could already access.) But there's some success here:
> unless he learns a little humility or something, Wesley is going to be
> a real douchebag, but he doesn't annoy me too much as a viewer.
I think it is worth noting that Wesley is still pretty much the Wesley
of late Buffy S3 - perhaps a little sadder and a whole lot lonelier, but
I don't think at the moment any wiser. He is doing what he is doing
because it is all he knows, not because he has any particular goal.
> And how about we end on a flip moment too? I just want to say that
> Buffyverse characters get impressive penetration out of their wooden
> stabby objects. To slightly misquote Master Tang, "I mean, crap,
> man! That, like, went right through him! You don't see that every
> day... That doesn't really even seem possible if you think about it,
> with all those body organs and cartilage and bones... I mean, I'm no
> doctor, but that was, like, one clean stab!"
Given that the vast majority of Buffyverse stakings miss the heart by a
good 4 inches, it is safe to say that none of the writers have ever
cracked a medical textbook.
--
A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend
Steve Schaffner
I don't think you can blame the writers for vampires' curiously mobile
hearts; I doubt the scripts provide precise anatomical
drawings. Doesn't Joss say something in the commentary on "The
Harvest" about how far off Xander is when he's pointing his stake at
Jesse?
--
Steve Schaffner s...@broad.mit.edu
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce
eli...@gmail.com
>I make it to Season Two, ATS might get a third chance from her too.
caught the end of a S2 episode on TV this morning, I can say that there
is *so much* good stuff waiting, just round the corner!
gree...@gmail.com
with Doyle still present and no Wesley to be found. Minear was pretty
happy to have to rewrite it without Doyle pretty much for that reason.
The title was even changed, the original being something like "The Evil
I Created." Personally, I think "Somnambulist" works even better.
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> Hared the steak joke,
Most people do. But Minear... Well, like you, he doesn't seem to have
much use for Cordy.
> As for the very last scene... I dunno. It's too wordy, doesn't
> feel quite right.
I've always liked it, one of the better scenes between the two. But it
was originally a Doyle scene, so yeah, some Doyle-ish qualities remain.
> AOQ rating: Good
I'd go as high as Excellent(-) if that rating were available.
-- Terry
Lord Usher
>>Ahhh. That's more like it. Unfortunately, I'm flying solo from
>>here, since the Significant Other has had enough of this series.
>>Figures the first one she missed would be easily the best of the
>>series so far (other than the one with Buffy, of course. And maybe
>>the pilot). I think I've talked her into giving this one a shot, and
>>if I make it to Season Two, ATS might get a third chance from her too.
>
> Even if she likes it as much as you do, I wouldn't try to use that to
> persuade her to watch the rest of the season. Keep on scouting ahead,
> and letting her know which episodes are worthy of her attention. There
> are still good episodes remaining in season 1, but there are , um,
> other ones as well. If she is tired of it now, and gets talked in to
> watching all of the remaining episodes, there are some episodes
> capable of making her flagging it altogether and missing season 2. And
> that would be a pity.
Yeah, um... Wait a couple more episodes, at least. Before long the show
will start to hit this level of quality more frequently and more
consistently, but first it'll, uh... do a different thing. :)
--
Lord Usher
"I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."
George W Harris
<tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
:Of minor note: The cops who try to grab Penn get clear evidence that
:he has abilities that're otherworldly. I wonder how they
:rationalized it.
Why, he was on PCP of course.
--
They say there's air in your lungs that's been there for years.
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
Sam
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> Also also of note: A few moments of casual badassery and questionable
> behavior from Angel. He didn't, strictly speaking, have to grab Wes
> by the neck that way. And his speech to his former protégé in which
> he calls him a hack artist is pleasantly nasty, a fun and mean moment.
> If I hadn't been watching previous years of BTVS, I'd have the same
> question as Anya did in "Pangs": What's he like when he IS evil?
> Of course part of this is to set up the rest of the episode, but I
> still find it worth a mention.
One thing I find interesting about this episode is the fact that it
makes explicit something which, until now, has been largely implied:
Angel still has *all* of his demonic impulses. It's not just that he
thirsts for blood. He's still just as naturally inclined toward genuine
sadism and evil as he ever was without a soul. The dreams hit him so
hard because they brought home the fact that he still *enjoys torturing
and murdering people*, even if he feels bad about enjoying it.
Not a lot of shows would be willing to push the idea that their
protagonist is, deep down, a monster quite so far.
--Sam
Arbitrar Of Quality
> Even if she likes it as much as you do, I wouldn't try to use that to
> persuade her to watch the rest of the season. Keep on scouting ahead, and
> letting her know which episodes are worthy of her attention. There are still
> good episodes remaining in season 1, but there are , um, other ones as well.
A step ahead of you there. Yeah, I'm going to watch them first, and
recommend (or not) based on the would-I-want-to-watch-it-again-so-soon
criterion.
> Its not far from that for, but doesn't quite get over the border from Decent
> for me. A nice suspense story, but not that much substance (apart from the
> disturbing info that Angel enjoyed his dreams of killing people). For me,
> the 43rd best AtS episode, 8th best in Season 1
[Shrug.] Well, I enjoyed the Angel/Kate and Angel/Penn dynamics a lot,
the look into Angel's more brutal side, and the overall tone of the
episode. Mrs. Q. did end up watching it and commented "this is creepy.
I like it." (She still doesn't think it's a _Buffy_-caliber show,
though.) Much more interesting than "Parting Gifts" (or almost any
other ATS episode thus far, for that matter) in my world.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> I think it is worth noting that Wesley is still pretty much the Wesley
> of late Buffy S3 - perhaps a little sadder and a whole lot lonelier, but
> I don't think at the moment any wiser. He is doing what he is doing
> because it is all he knows, not because he has any particular goal.
I'd agree, based on what I've seen.
-AOQ
William George Ferguson
wrote:
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later _Buffy_ and _Angel_
>episodes in these review threads
>
>
>ANGEL
>Season One, Episode 11: "Somnambulist"
>(or "I don't sleep, I dream")
>Writer: Tim Minear
>Director: Winrich Kolbe
[snip]
>And how about we end on a flip moment too? I just want to say that
>Buffyverse characters get impressive penetration out of their wooden
>stabby objects. To slightly misquote Master Tang, "I mean, crap,
>man! That, like, went right through him! You don't see that every
>day... That doesn't really even seem possible if you think about it,
>with all those body organs and cartilage and bones... I mean, I'm no
>doctor, but that was, like, one clean stab!"
A widely held view among Buffyverse fandom is that in the Buffyverse,
vampire torsos have a mystical weakness to wood. I can't help you with the
apparent drunkard's walk movement of the heart within the torso.
--
HERBERT
1996 - 1997
Beloved Mascot
Delightful Meal
He fed the Pack
A little
Rowan Hawthorn
>
> episode. Mrs. Q. did end up watching it and commented "this is creepy.
> I like it." (She still doesn't think it's a _Buffy_-caliber show,
> though.)
Neither do I, in general. I actually gave up on it about
halfway into the first season, and never watched again
regularly until the *last* season. I'm told I missed the best
of the series, but I just couldn't get wrapped up in the
characters.
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg,
"Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
Rowan Hawthorn
<fanwank> We've seen that some victims take longer to rise
than others. As the muscles relax after death and
decomposition begins - even so slightly - there's a shift in
the internal organs as the connective tissues sag.
Reanimating the body wouldn't necessarily re-align those
organs, and how *much* they sag would depend on the victim's
body size, shape, condition, etc. Maybe the way to the
average vamp's heart is through the solar plexus... </fanwank>
eli...@gmail.com
introduction it is to Wesley, if you'd never seen him before. His
background history, strengths and weaknesses are all shown, but it
never feels forced.
Just to point out something positive! :)
One Bit Shy
> Ahhh. That's more like it. Unfortunately, I'm flying solo from
> here, since the Significant Other has had enough of this series.
That's a shame, but I understand. IMO the series thus far has not
approached BtVS level of quality, nor offered much in the way of a
unique defining characteristic. None the less, I remain interested in
the series as an extension of of the universe and have enjoyed enough
of the episodes to make it worth while. I do hope it gets better
though.
> The opening starts off as a rather generic killing-a-victim story.
> Then we (a bit more laboriously than necessary) bust out one of the
> most enduring of the classic horror stories, a protagonist who dreams
> of real-life murders and/or suspects himself of unknowingly committing
> them. It sets the stage for the episode which follows, light on the
> humor, heavy on the suspense and earnest melodrama.
This episode caught me a couple times with something bland suddenly
turned interesting. I was initially put off by the "generic
killing-a-victim" until the teeth were shown. That made me perk up -
hey, it's a vampire. We haven't seen one of those since In The Dark 8
episodes ago - excepting Angel of course. Then I see it's Angel after
all - but, hey, it must be Angelus.
And then I realized that it was long overdue. The series is about
Angel, which means Angelus is always there beneath the surface. It's
about bloody time to start dealing with that.
> The early banter, with Wesley still hovering around the offices, tries
> for some comedy, but isn't especially funny. (I think the only time
> I laughed at his antics all show was his eagerness to invite Angel into
> a building he could already access.)
I didn't get much humor out of Wesley this time either. I kind of
liked his bit about Gallagher and smashing the watermelon, but that's
it - and that's kind of limp as it is.
Oddly, though, he didn't really annoy me either. He didn't help a
whole lot, but he didn't get in the way much either. And sometimes he
got to be an ok straight man.
> But there's some success here:
> unless he learns a little humility or something, Wesley is going to be
> a real douchebag, but he doesn't annoy me too much as a viewer.
> Anyone who needs Cordelia to be the Sancho to his Quijote has his
> issues. Early stuff I did like include the idea of a "pope killer"
> (especially when one realizes that it started in 18th-century Ireland,
> where it'd seem scarier), and Angel's reaction to his failed
> attempt to leave via the front door.
I laughed at Cordy practicing her sales pitch on the empty chair. "But
even sunny blond LA has its trashy dark roots."
> I think it's worth noting that the past romance between the sidekicks
> doesn't come into play here. A lot has happened in the last six
> months.
True, but that semi-romance had been firmly set aside following their
horrible first kiss. I think that romantically they turned each other
off right then and there.
> Kate's voice sounds really off, not natural at all (even for someone
> giving a lecture) during the briefing. I think that whole sequence
> goes on longer than it needs to and is a little obvious, but I
> wouldn't want to lose Angel wandering amidst a voiceover that hits
> just enough right notes to be relevant.
I didn't notice anything about her voice, but I was extremely concious
of how unlikely a profile it seemed. Even so, and even as obvious as
it is, it was kind of fun and creepy both to hear the description that
sounds like Angel while we watch Angel latch eyes onto a blonde girl.
Definitely emphasizes the potential danger within Angel.
> Plotwise, "Somnambulist" started out looking clunkily simple.
> Yeah, let's just have Angel dream up an answer rather than figuring
> it out himself. Yeah, let's just patrol the whole city looking for a
> guy in the vicinity of another guy near a bar.
I didn't think of it as clunky so much as routine. Much of the episode
seemed to rely on standard police/mystery conventions as shorthand -
maybe to avoid spending time on unimportant things. At times it seemed
to drag a little, but then kept providing something to latch onto. In
the end it was the good parts that mattered and are remembered.
I remember rolling my eyes when the misdirect of the shool bus was
presented. God, they're not going to go down that path are they? But
no, the show's not that cheap, and Angel's smart enough to recognize
the true ways of his creation.
> But the show keeps
> building, and keeps coming up with layers. As one example, take Angel
> and Kate's plans for each other. First you have her acting almost
> flirtatious, or whatever the nearest Kate equivalent is - "Not that
> the 'brooding man of mystery' thing isn't working for you. It
> is. A lot."
Nearest Kate equivalent to flirtatious. Heh. I see a little in this
episode the complaint about Elizabeth Rohm's emotionless acting in Law
& Order. But, oddly, I really like this line and her delivery of it.
It feels weirdly intimate.
> Then we have him appealing to her trust while coming up
> with a way to use her to catch Penn (keeping her in the dark strictly
> "for her own good," of course). Kate hits the books and learns The
> Rest of The Story. Very interestingly, she doesn't need to be
> convinced that Angelus isn't a present-day threat. But she does
> blame him for his past actions, and wants nothing to do with him.
> Personally, anyway; it turns out she still wants to use him to get to
> Penn. This one gets to be fun to watch unfold, both for plot and for
> character.
The Kate/Angel aspect of the story is what I liked best. It also suits
her low emotion style because she remains reasonably unflappable
throughout the mind boggling news and experiences - yet not so much not
to express her anger and revulsion at what is revealed. She remains
kind of interesting - though I suppose the romantic possibilities just
sunk down a ways.
The confrontation at her apartment was riveting to me, but the moment I
liked best was Angel holding her cross and sizzling while telling Kate,
"There are some things in this world you're just not ready to face."
(It's not the words so much as tone, 'cause he's laying into her - kind
of telling her to grow up and face reality.)
Anyway - their relationship has a new level of tension - which I think
is good. She can't trust Angel now, but is nagged by the thought that
maybe she should - or maybe should stake him right now.
> The father-son story works out pretty well too. I'm actually
> surprised (in retrospect; I hadn't even thought of doing a story like
> this) that we haven't seen Angel face off with any of his Sire-ees
> other than Drusilla before now. [This was also interesting as a mildly
> spoiled first-timer since V oryvrir gung bhe ureb fbzrubj cvpxf hc n
> fba ng fbzr cbvag, fb V jnf jbaqrevat vs guvf jnf uvz.] Penn as
> someone reliving his glory days and dealing with his father issues is a
> reasonable premise for a one-off villain. There are some nice moments
> of misdirection, like when he strolls right into police headquarters to
> get his next victim. And the way he tries, taking Angel's critique
> to heart, to branch out a little with some deception about his actual
> plans, but his Sire knows him too well. Again, well plotted and
> engaging.
Penn is ok. I don't feel that we've lost something really special with
his death. But he served the story well. A better villian than we've
seen in a while.
But my strong sense is that his purpose here is for Angel to look into
his dark side and be reminded how attractive it is to him.
> Also also of note: A few moments of casual badassery and questionable
> behavior from Angel. He didn't, strictly speaking, have to grab Wes
> by the neck that way. And his speech to his former protégé in which
> he calls him a hack artist is pleasantly nasty, a fun and mean moment.
> If I hadn't been watching previous years of BTVS, I'd have the same
> question as Anya did in "Pangs": What's he like when he IS evil?
> Of course part of this is to set up the rest of the episode, but I
> still find it worth a mention.
Angel showed his bad ass a little more freely than usual here. And if
I'm not imagingin it - I think he enjoyed it too.
He also repeatedly refers to enjoying his dreams. Now I don't have a
full sense of how this series does things. (I dont' think the series
does either.) But past experience with Wheedon universes is that when
a thing is repeated, it means something special.
> I'm not so wild about Fluctuating Intelligence Girl taking so long to
> realize that Penn is trying to get information out of her. But I did
> like Carpenter's delivery on "you're him... he... the guy... _Apt
> Pupil_ boy." The moment where she goes for the sunlight is pretty
> good, as is the standoff afterward.
I don't know why she should figure it out faster. She wants business.
She's been practicing her sales pitch... I love the whole scene.
There's something about the idea of a band of light separating vampires
that's really cool.
> Hared the steak joke,
Didn't mind that. I hated the your grounded joke.
> ...one last really cool visual with Kate's chosen method of
> killing Penn. I don't know if anyone saw it coming, but I didn't,
> and commented out loud that it was cool. "You missed." "No I
> didn't."
I didn't either. I could see the problem of having to kill Angel to
get to Penn - and Kate puzzling something out with an odd expression.
Such an elegant solution never occurred to me. (How odd my viewing
habits have become to describe the shoving of a board into the guts and
chest of two characters as an elegant solution.)
> As for the very last scene... I dunno. It's too wordy, doesn't
> feel quite right. The concerns make sense, it's obviously going to
> end with a flippant moment, which is fine ("Oh, I'll kill you
> dead." "Thanks." "What are friends for?")... I think my
> problem is that Cordelia doesn't seem like herself, which hurts the
> scene for me. The stumbling over her words at pivotal moments is in
> character, as is the occasional moment of sweetness, but I don't know
> if that kind of speechmaking really is.
Worked fine for me, though again, I strongly suspect the underlying
idea is that Angel's fears are right and Cordelias reassurances are
wrong. We'll see.
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Sometimes the old stories are the best.
>
> AOQ rating: Good
Good for me too. I'm sitting here positively eager to give just one
episode an Excellent, but it keeps falling short. I had a really good
time watching this - something missing the last couple episodes - and
saw some promising things. But nothing that stands out at a truly high
level.
Still, Angel crashing through a skylight (or whatever) to save Kate and
go after his wayward creation makes for a good enough time.
OBS
Opus the Penguin
> The father-son story works out pretty well too. I'm actually
> surprised (in retrospect; I hadn't even thought of doing a story
> like this) that we haven't seen Angel face off with any of his
> Sire-ees other than Drusilla before now. [This was also
> interesting as a mildly spoiled first-timer since V oryvrir gung
> bhe ureb fbzrubj cvpxf hc n fba ng fbzr cbvag, fb V jnf jbaqrevat
> vs guvf jnf uvz.]
We appreciate your dedication to not being spoiled by ROT-13ing even
your own spoilers.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
Opus the Penguin
> Sure, Kate means it when she says she'll fire, but she will check to
> see whether someone's really dead before emptying the rest of the gun
> into him. Not a real L.A. Cop.
That's why she eventually moves to New York, changes her name, and
begins working for the District Attorney.
Michael Ikeda
news:1146773827.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
>
>> Kate's voice sounds really off, not natural at all (even for
>> someone giving a lecture) during the briefing. I think that
>> whole sequence goes on longer than it needs to and is a little
>> obvious, but I wouldn't want to lose Angel wandering amidst a
>> voiceover that hits just enough right notes to be relevant.
>
> I didn't notice anything about her voice, but I was extremely
> concious of how unlikely a profile it seemed. Even so, and even
> as obvious as it is, it was kind of fun and creepy both to hear
> the description that sounds like Angel while we watch Angel
> latch eyes onto a blonde girl. Definitely emphasizes the
> potential danger within Angel.
>
I think not so much potential danger (or at least not in the way I
think you mean) as illustrating that he's STILL somewhat obsessed
with Buffy.
(If I recall correctly that bit is right after Kate talks about the
suspect possibly just having ended a relationship that he saw as some
sort of salvation.)
--
Michael Ikeda mmi...@erols.com
"Telling a statistician not to use sampling is like telling an
astronomer they can't say there is a moon and stars"
Lynne Billard, past president American Statistical Association
KenM47
I hadn't thought of it this way, probably because I first saw the ep
before getting into dissecting them and the Buffyverse/Angelverse, but
the episode also makes a strong case that Billy Fordham was right and
that they lied to us in Lie to Me and elsewhere.
Yes a very nice Angel/Kate thing seems to be happening. Wonder how
that works out.
And a very big continuity error IIRC (nobhg Ora jnvgvat sbe Natry va
Vgnyl gb gur avargrragu praghel, ohg Natry jnf qrynlrq va Ebznavn,
jura jr xabj gung ur tbg uvf fbhy onpx ng gur raq bs gur avargrragu
abg rvtugrragu praghel)
Ken (Brooklyn)
William George Ferguson
<opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Arbitrar Of Quality (tsm...@wildmail.com) wrote:
>
>> Sure, Kate means it when she says she'll fire, but she will check to
>> see whether someone's really dead before emptying the rest of the gun
>> into him. Not a real L.A. Cop.
>
>That's why she eventually moves to New York, changes her name, and
>begins working for the District Attorney.
But her attraction to Angel so damaged her that she became a lesbian in NY.
Don Sample
KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> And a very big continuity error IIRC (nobhg Ora jnvgvat sbe Natry va
> Vgnyl gb gur avargrragu praghel, ohg Natry jnf qrynlrq va Ebznavn,
> jura jr xabj gung ur tbg uvf fbhy onpx ng gur raq bs gur avargrragu
> abg rvtugrragu praghel)
How was that supposed to be any sort of spoiler?
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
kenm47
You're probably right. V jnf guvaxvat gur qngr trgf pynevsvrq va Sbby
Sbe Ybir/Qneyn; V qvqa'g erpnyy vs Orpbzvat jnf nyy gung pyrne nf gb
gur jura.
Ken (Brooklyn)
<Hoping the prior inadvertent version of this post was "removed" as
Google said it was>
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Arbitrar Of Quality (tsm...@wildmail.com) wrote:
>
> > Sure, Kate means it when she says she'll fire, but she will check to
> > see whether someone's really dead before emptying the rest of the gun
> > into him. Not a real L.A. Cop.
>
> That's why she eventually moves to New York, changes her name, and
> begins working for the District Attorney.
are you saying new york is the haven
for anybody not weird enough for california?
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
al qaeda terrorism nuclear bomb iran taliban big brother
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
William George Ferguson <wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On 4 May 2006 20:26:12 GMT, Opus the Penguin
> <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Arbitrar Of Quality (tsm...@wildmail.com) wrote:
> >
> >> Sure, Kate means it when she says she'll fire, but she will check to
> >> see whether someone's really dead before emptying the rest of the gun
> >> into him. Not a real L.A. Cop.
> >
> >That's why she eventually moves to New York, changes her name, and
> >begins working for the District Attorney.
>
> But her attraction to Angel so damaged her that she became a lesbian in NY.
or maybe she dated randal graves
Don Sample
"kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Don Sample wrote:
> > In article <4hvk52t2as42adccr...@4ax.com>,
> > KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > > And a very big continuity error IIRC (nobhg Ora jnvgvat sbe Natry va
> > > Vgnyl gb gur avargrragu praghel, ohg Natry jnf qrynlrq va Ebznavn,
> > > jura jr xabj gung ur tbg uvf fbhy onpx ng gur raq bs gur avargrragu
> > > abg rvtugrragu praghel)
> >
> > How was that supposed to be any sort of spoiler?
> >
> You're probably right. V jnf guvaxvat gur qngr trgf pynevsvrq va Sbby
> Sbe Ybir/Qneyn; V qvqa'g erpnyy vs Orpbzvat jnf nyy gung pyrne nf gb
> gur jura.
The date of his cursing was clearly given as 1898 in Becoming.
Opus the Penguin
> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>Arbitrar Of Quality (tsm...@wildmail.com) wrote:
>>
>>> Sure, Kate means it when she says she'll fire, but she will
>>> check to see whether someone's really dead before emptying the
>>> rest of the gun into him. Not a real L.A. Cop.
>>
>>That's why she eventually moves to New York, changes her name, and
>>begins working for the District Attorney.
>
> But her attraction to Angel so damaged her that she became a
> lesbian in NY.
>
Gung jbhyq or evqvphybhf. Jbzra jvgu n uvfgbel bs fgebat urgrebfrkhny
nggenpgvbaf qba'g fhqqrayl ghea yrfob gb fngvfsl gur ovmneer qrpvfvbaf
bs GI jevgref naq purncra gurve cerivbhf eryngvbafuvcf. Evtug? Jryy, nf
sne nf NBD xabjf naljnl.
Opus the Penguin
(mair_...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> In article <Xns97B99C74147FDop...@127.0.0.1>,
> Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Arbitrar Of Quality (tsm...@wildmail.com) wrote:
>>
>> > Sure, Kate means it when she says she'll fire, but she will
>> > check to see whether someone's really dead before emptying the
>> > rest of the gun into him. Not a real L.A. Cop.
>>
>> That's why she eventually moves to New York, changes her name,
>> and begins working for the District Attorney.
>
> are you saying new york is the haven
> for anybody not weird enough for california?
>
I feel the facts speak for themselves.
Arbitrar Of Quality
> That made me perk up -
> hey, it's a vampire. We haven't seen one of those since In The Dark 8
> episodes ago - excepting Angel of course.
My nitpicky side steps in... although they weren't a major part of the
epsiode, there were vampires in "The Bachelor Party."
> And then I realized that it was long overdue. The series is about
> Angel, which means Angelus is always there beneath the surface. It's
> about bloody time to start dealing with that.
Agreed.
> > I think it's worth noting that the past romance between the sidekicks
> > doesn't come into play here. A lot has happened in the last six
> > months.
>
> True, but that semi-romance had been firmly set aside following their
> horrible first kiss. I think that romantically they turned each other
> off right then and there.
Yeah, you're probably right.
> Nearest Kate equivalent to flirtatious. Heh. I see a little in this
> episode the complaint about Elizabeth Rohm's emotionless acting in Law
> & Order. But, oddly, I really like this line and her delivery of it.
> It feels weirdly intimate.
Other than a few weak moments in S&S, I love what Rohm has been doing
with this character.
> > Hared the steak joke,
>
> Didn't mind that. I hated the your grounded joke.
TThat made me groan and smile at the same time.
> I could see the problem of having to kill Angel to
> get to Penn - and Kate puzzling something out with an odd expression.
> Such an elegant solution never occurred to me. (How odd my viewing
> habits have become to describe the shoving of a board into the guts and
> chest of two characters as an elegant solution.)
Heh.
> > As for the very last scene... I think my
> > problem is that Cordelia doesn't seem like herself, which hurts the
> > scene for me. The stumbling over her words at pivotal moments is in
> > character, as is the occasional moment of sweetness, but I don't know
> > if that kind of speechmaking really is.
>
> Worked fine for me, though again, I strongly suspect the underlying
> idea is that Angel's fears are right and Cordelias reassurances are
> wrong. We'll see.
According to Terry (I think), it was originally a Doyle scene, which
would explain some of my problems with it. And yes, we will indeed
see...
-AOQ
kenm47
Don Sample wrote:
> In article <1146783664.8...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "kenm47" <ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Don Sample wrote:
> > > In article <4hvk52t2as42adccr...@4ax.com>,
> > > KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > And a very big continuity error IIRC (nobhg Ora jnvgvat sbe Natry va
> > > > Vgnyl gb gur avargrragu praghel, ohg Natry jnf qrynlrq va Ebznavn,
> > > > jura jr xabj gung ur tbg uvf fbhy onpx ng gur raq bs gur avargrragu
> > > > abg rvtugrragu praghel)
> > >
> > > How was that supposed to be any sort of spoiler?
> > >
> > You're probably right. V jnf guvaxvat gur qngr trgf pynevsvrq va Sbby
> > Sbe Ybir/Qneyn; V qvqa'g erpnyy vs Orpbzvat jnf nyy gung pyrne nf gb
> > gur jura.
>
> The date of his cursing was clearly given as 1898 in Becoming.
>
> --
Thanks.
Then this was just an outright error.
Ken (Brooklyn)
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> (mair_...@yahoo.com) wrote:
>
> > In article <Xns97B99C74147FDop...@127.0.0.1>,
> > Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Arbitrar Of Quality (tsm...@wildmail.com) wrote:
> >>
> >> > Sure, Kate means it when she says she'll fire, but she will
> >> > check to see whether someone's really dead before emptying the
> >> > rest of the gun into him. Not a real L.A. Cop.
> >>
> >> That's why she eventually moves to New York, changes her name,
> >> and begins working for the District Attorney.
> >
> > are you saying new york is the haven
> > for anybody not weird enough for california?
> >
>
> I feel the facts speak for themselves.
i shouldnt be so mean to new york
One Bit Shy
news:1146790769....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> One Bit Shy wrote:
>
>> That made me perk up -
>> hey, it's a vampire. We haven't seen one of those since In The Dark 8
>> episodes ago - excepting Angel of course.
>
> My nitpicky side steps in... although they weren't a major part of the
> epsiode, there were vampires in "The Bachelor Party."
Other than Angel? Hmmm. I'm drawing a blank. When?
OBS
One Bit Shy
news:0eCdnb2YB4kS5sfZ...@rcn.net...
> "One Bit Shy" <ult...@mail.com> wrote in
> news:1146773827.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>> Kate's voice sounds really off, not natural at all (even for
>>> someone giving a lecture) during the briefing. I think that
>>> whole sequence goes on longer than it needs to and is a little
>>> obvious, but I wouldn't want to lose Angel wandering amidst a
>>> voiceover that hits just enough right notes to be relevant.
>>
>> I didn't notice anything about her voice, but I was extremely
>> concious of how unlikely a profile it seemed. Even so, and even
>> as obvious as it is, it was kind of fun and creepy both to hear
>> the description that sounds like Angel while we watch Angel
>> latch eyes onto a blonde girl. Definitely emphasizes the
>> potential danger within Angel.
>>
>
> I think not so much potential danger (or at least not in the way I
> think you mean) as illustrating that he's STILL somewhat obsessed
> with Buffy.
>
> (If I recall correctly that bit is right after Kate talks about the
> suspect possibly just having ended a relationship that he saw as some
> sort of salvation.)
I don't mean just the blonde Buffy suggestion. It's the whole sequence
where Kate describes a loner killer that sounds a whole lot like Angel.
OBS
Arbitrar Of Quality
> > My nitpicky side steps in... although they weren't a major part of the
> > epsiode, there were vampires in "The Bachelor Party."
>
> Other than Angel? Hmmm. I'm drawing a blank. When?
See if this jogs your memory:
DOYLE: I'm the one you followed. It's me that you want, huh? [stabs
an imaginary opponent with the ruler] Fangs for the memories, vamp
man!... [notices Cordelia] Hey I was just.. that wasn't..
CORDELIA: An incredible spaz attack? Good.
-AOQ
Aatu Koskensilta
> <fanwank> We've seen that some victims take longer to rise than others.
> As the muscles relax after death and decomposition begins - even so
> slightly - there's a shift in the internal organs as the connective
> tissues sag. Reanimating the body wouldn't necessarily re-align those
> organs, and how *much* they sag would depend on the victim's body size,
> shape, condition, etc. Maybe the way to the average vamp's heart is
> through the solar plexus... </fanwank>
It's a rather extraordinary piece of good luck that Buffy and others
always manage to hit the more-or-less randomly misplaced hear, then!
--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.kos...@xortec.fi)
"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Lord Usher
news:4hvk52t2as42adccr...@4ax.com:
> I hadn't thought of it this way, probably because I first saw the ep
> before getting into dissecting them and the Buffyverse/Angelverse, but
> the episode also makes a strong case that Billy Fordham was right and
> that they lied to us in Lie to Me and elsewhere.
How does it do that, exactly? Ford assumed that his human consciousness
would remain even after he was vamped and his soul was *removed*. This
episode suggests that Angel retains his demonic consciousness after his
human soul is returned and *no alteration at all* is made to the demon
within him.
One can easily be true and the other false -- especially if, as every other
episode of the series suggests, the human soul and demonic essence are the
respective seats of human and demonic consciousness.
--
Lord Usher
"I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.kos...@xortec.fi> wrote:
> Rowan Hawthorn wrote:
> > <fanwank> We've seen that some victims take longer to rise than others.
> > As the muscles relax after death and decomposition begins - even so
> > slightly - there's a shift in the internal organs as the connective
> > tissues sag. Reanimating the body wouldn't necessarily re-align those
> > organs, and how *much* they sag would depend on the victim's body size,
> > shape, condition, etc. Maybe the way to the average vamp's heart is
> > through the solar plexus... </fanwank>
>
> It's a rather extraordinary piece of good luck that Buffy and others
> always manage to hit the more-or-less randomly misplaced hear, then!
as iron is dragged to a magnet
so is wood to a heart
this is why the center of the tree is the heartwood
Don Sample
Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
There is a continuity of consciousness from the man to the vampire and
back to the souled/desouled/resouled vampire. The soul is not the seat
of consciousness.
KenM47
All discussions of Penn (or is it Ben?) re his hatred for his
"father," his Puritan upbringing, etc., treat him as the same
identity, only now a vampire.
Ken (Brooklyn)
Rowan Hawthorn
> Rowan Hawthorn wrote:
>> <fanwank> We've seen that some victims take longer to rise than
>> others. As the muscles relax after death and decomposition begins -
>> even so slightly - there's a shift in the internal organs as the
>> connective tissues sag. Reanimating the body wouldn't necessarily
>> re-align those organs, and how *much* they sag would depend on the
>> victim's body size, shape, condition, etc. Maybe the way to the
>> average vamp's heart is through the solar plexus... </fanwank>
>
> It's a rather extraordinary piece of good luck that Buffy and others
> always manage to hit the more-or-less randomly misplaced hear, then!
>
<shrug> Not necessarily randomly, just lower in some than in
others. Besides, nothing I've ever heard states that the
stake must penetrate the *exact center* of the heart; perhaps
*nicking* the heart with wood is enough to do the job. When
it comes to that, even with a *normally* placed heart, they
seem to have remarkable success nailing it.
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg,
"Buffy the Vampire Slayer"
Lord Usher
news:dsample-19248C...@news.giganews.com:
>> One can easily be true and the other false -- especially if, as every
>> other episode of the series suggests, the human soul and demonic
>> essence are the respective seats of human and demonic consciousness.
>
> There is a continuity of consciousness from the man to the vampire and
> back to the souled/desouled/resouled vampire. The soul is not the
> seat of consciousness.
No, there's a continuity of memory and personality. Not the same thing.
Lord Usher
news:7iam52hus6o380k1v...@4ax.com:
>>One can easily be true and the other false -- especially if, as every
>>other episode of the series suggests, the human soul and demonic
>>essence are the respective seats of human and demonic consciousness.
>
>
> All discussions of Penn (or is it Ben?) re his hatred for his
> "father," his Puritan upbringing, etc., treat him as the same
> identity, only now a vampire.
It *is* the same identity, to a large degree. If you woke up in someone
else's body with all their memories and emotions, of course you'd be likely
to behave as if his father was your father, and his religion was your
religion. But just because you inherited someone's identity doesn't mean
you inherited their consciousness, their force of will.
Consciousness is simply the the notion that you are the person behind your
eyes looking out. If someone else is behind your eyes, feeling your
feelings, remembering your memories, it doesn't matter how similar they are
to you -- they still possess a fundamentally different consciousness.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Aatu Koskensilta wrote:
> > Rowan Hawthorn wrote:
> >> <fanwank> We've seen that some victims take longer to rise than
> >> others. As the muscles relax after death and decomposition begins -
> >> even so slightly - there's a shift in the internal organs as the
> >> connective tissues sag. Reanimating the body wouldn't necessarily
> >> re-align those organs, and how *much* they sag would depend on the
> >> victim's body size, shape, condition, etc. Maybe the way to the
> >> average vamp's heart is through the solar plexus... </fanwank>
> >
> > It's a rather extraordinary piece of good luck that Buffy and others
> > always manage to hit the more-or-less randomly misplaced hear, then!
> >
>
> <shrug> Not necessarily randomly, just lower in some than in
jessies heart was apparently located behind the collar bone
> others. Besides, nothing I've ever heard states that the
> stake must penetrate the *exact center* of the heart; perhaps
> *nicking* the heart with wood is enough to do the job. When
> it comes to that, even with a *normally* placed heart, they
> seem to have remarkable success nailing it.
mobile hearts and rib cages with the strength of wadded newspaper
are given for the series
KenM47
Look, either the human is dead and the demon has killed him and
occupies the husk, or the human has just been transmogrified into the
vampire but otherwise is not dead dead and continues to exist.
If the former, then Ford is wrong. If the latter, and this episode
strongly suggested such, then Ford was right.
Ken (Brooklyn)
George W Harris
wrote:
:Consciousness is simply the the notion that you are the person behind your
:eyes looking out. If someone else is behind your eyes, feeling your
:feelings, remembering your memories, it doesn't matter how similar they are
:to you -- they still possess a fundamentally different consciousness.
Which of course presupposes that consciousness
is an actual phenomenon. What if the eyes only think
there's someone behind them?
--
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV!
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Lord Usher
news:7uom52p4bttfj2cgf...@4ax.com:
>>It *is* the same identity, to a large degree. If you woke up in
>>someone else's body with all their memories and emotions, of course
>>you'd be likely to behave as if his father was your father, and his
>>religion was your religion. But just because you inherited someone's
>>identity doesn't mean you inherited their consciousness, their force
>>of will.
>>
>>Consciousness is simply the the notion that you are the person behind
>>your eyes looking out. If someone else is behind your eyes, feeling
>>your feelings, remembering your memories, it doesn't matter how
>>similar they are to you -- they still possess a fundamentally
>>different consciousness.
>
>
> Look, either the human is dead and the demon has killed him and
> occupies the husk, or the human has just been transmogrified into the
> vampire but otherwise is not dead dead and continues to exist.
Of course. That's my point -- if a human being's consciousness has been
extinguished and replaced by a demonic consciousness, the human is dead and
a demon occupies the husk. That doesn't become any less true if the demonic
consciousness inherits the human's memories and behavior. It's still a
*metaphysically different being* doing the remembering and behaving.
Lord Usher
news:89pm525eh52mi7jg7...@4ax.com:
> On 5 May 2006 09:36:01 -0500, Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>:Consciousness is simply the the notion that you are the person behind
>:your eyes looking out. If someone else is behind your eyes, feeling
>:your feelings, remembering your memories, it doesn't matter how
>:similar they are to you -- they still possess a fundamentally
>:different consciousness.
>
> Which of course presupposes that consciousness
> is an actual phenomenon. What if the eyes only think
> there's someone behind them?
How can the eyes "think" anything if they do not possess consciousness?
You've just postulated a different seat of consciousness, not the actual
lack thereof.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
its a joking reference to the notion that we are not really conscious
but its just our brains are wired to produce a response as if we are
makes more sense in terms of objects like kryten or data or kamelon or hal
or marvin
are perhaps not really self aware
but programmed to appear self aware
to easier simulate humanity when interacting wiuth us
KenM47
OK. We seem to agree on that. So, what is this episode saying about
that? And is it a different message than the BtVS message including
Lie to Me? I think it is.
I think they've clearly shifted at this point suggesting the survival,
albeit in a different form/species(?), of the former being.
Not that this matters.
Ken (Brooklyn)
George W Harris
wrote:
:George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote in
No, actually I'm deliberately pointing up the
difficulty of discussing the possibility of a lack of
consciousness. Who's discussing it, again?
--
e^(i*pi)+1=0
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
Lord Usher
news:stqm525dj9jnt6d0g...@4ax.com:
>>Of course. That's my point -- if a human being's consciousness has
>>been extinguished and replaced by a demonic consciousness, the human
>>is dead and a demon occupies the husk. That doesn't become any less
>>true if the demonic consciousness inherits the human's memories and
>>behavior. It's still a *metaphysically different being* doing the
>>remembering and behaving.
>
> OK. We seem to agree on that. So, what is this episode saying about
> that? And is it a different message than the BtVS message including
> Lie to Me? I think it is.
"That doesn't become any less true if the demonic consciousness inherits
the human's memories and behavior." I don't know how much clearer I can
be.
Even if the demon behaved exactly the same as the human in every
possible respect, that still wouldn't necessarily imply a continuity of
consciousness, because consciousness isn't about what you think or feel;
it's simply about who's doing the thinking and feeling.
Suppose you stepped into a device that copied every molecule in your
body and created a duplicate on the other side of the room. That
duplicate might be identical to you in every possible way, but he
wouldn't *be you* -- simply by virtue of the fact that you're looking
out of your eyes at him, and not looking out of his eyes at you.
The only difference in the Buffyverse is that your "duplicate" gets your
body and you fly off into the ether, but that doesn't change the
equation in any meaningful way.
One Bit Shy
I completely forgot that was a vampire. (And the nest cleaned out
beforehand.) In the dim recesses of my mind I imagined random demon.
Well, there you have it. I don't remember everything. I guess I'll
just have to get used to that.
OBS
Don Sample
Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
If that isn't a continuity of consciousness, what is?
Vampires continue to refer to their pre-vamping selves as "I". Angel
refers to the things that he did before he got his soul, and while his
soul was missing, as things that he did. Desouled Angel refers to
souled Angel the same way.
Explicitly soulless creatures are shown to be conscious. Buffy while
getting her soul sucked out of her was still Buffy.
Shuggie
Shuggie
> else's body with all their memories and emotions, of course you'd be likely
> to behave as if his father was your father, and his religion was your
> religion. But just because you inherited someone's identity doesn't mean
> you inherited their consciousness, their force of will.
>
'Force of will'? So where's the seat of that then? How do you know that
the 'force of will' isn't part of the personality?
> Consciousness is simply the the notion that you are the person behind your
> eyes looking out. If someone else is behind your eyes, feeling your
> feelings, remembering your memories, it doesn't matter how similar they are
> to you -- they still possess a fundamentally different consciousness.
>
A distinction without a meaningful difference ISTM.
You're quite dogmatic about something that's very ill-defined at best.
Shuggie
> news:stqm525dj9jnt6d0g...@4ax.com:
>
>>>Of course. That's my point -- if a human being's consciousness has
>>>been extinguished and replaced by a demonic consciousness, the human
>>>is dead and a demon occupies the husk. That doesn't become any less
>>>true if the demonic consciousness inherits the human's memories and
>>>behavior. It's still a *metaphysically different being* doing the
>>>remembering and behaving.
>>
>> OK. We seem to agree on that. So, what is this episode saying about
>> that? And is it a different message than the BtVS message including
>> Lie to Me? I think it is.
>
> "That doesn't become any less true if the demonic consciousness inherits
> the human's memories and behavior." I don't know how much clearer I can
> be.
>
> Even if the demon behaved exactly the same as the human in every
> possible respect, that still wouldn't necessarily imply a continuity of
> consciousness, because consciousness isn't about what you think or feel;
> it's simply about who's doing the thinking and feeling.
In which case 'who' is becoming a difficult concept to define.
>
> Suppose you stepped into a device that copied every molecule in your
> body and created a duplicate on the other side of the room. That
> duplicate might be identical to you in every possible way, but he
> wouldn't *be you* -- simply by virtue of the fact that you're looking
> out of your eyes at him, and not looking out of his eyes at you.
>
> The only difference in the Buffyverse is that your "duplicate" gets your
> body and you fly off into the ether, but that doesn't change the
> equation in any meaningful way.
>
But that assumes that 'I' am what's looking out from behind my eyes -
minus memories and personality. Actually I'm not sure much of me is left
and I'm really not sure you can disect me so easily. I think 'I' and the
gestalt entity that comprises my personality, my memories and my body.
Shuggie
OK, imagine a machine that can think.
Now imagine two - identical in physical design, but with different
experiences, memories, personalities etc. Now take all the data that
comprises the memory and personality and back it up. Now restore it to
the other machine. A gets B's data and B gets A's.
According to you both have a continuity of consciousness right? Or if
not why?
OK, now do the same again, but this time disassemble both machines, mix
up the components, rebuild and restore the data. Where are the
consciousnesses now? Is the A+B machine with A's data A or B?
Do it again and completely replace all components. Where now?
See you've rejected the idea that the data (memories+personality) is the
consciousness, and a discontinuity of consciousness can occur in the
same body - so it's not the machine.
What you call consciousness seems to me just a marker for the location
of a functioning mind.
Now there is something in the Buffyverse called a 'soul' but I'd argue
that's something else (hint: bears a remarkable resemblance to what some
of us call a conscience).
Arbitrar Of Quality
> But that assumes that 'I' am what's looking out from behind my eyes -
> minus memories and personality. Actually I'm not sure much of me is left
> and I'm really not sure you can disect me so easily. I think 'I' and the
> gestalt entity that comprises my personality, my memories and my body.
I agree with this argument. I've lost track of how it came up or what
it means for the Buffyverse, but it's true that there's no real way to
define "consciousness" as a discrete entitiy, and I don't think the
show has given us any tools to do so.
Okay, wait, so I guess that means I also agree with the idea the
'verse's take has gradually moved from BTVS S1/early S2 (vampire only
looks like the original) to more of a "same being, sans soul" thing. I
like the latter construct better.
-AOQ
George W Harris
<tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
:Shuggie wrote:
:
:> But that assumes that 'I' am what's looking out from behind my eyes -
:> minus memories and personality. Actually I'm not sure much of me is left
:> and I'm really not sure you can disect me so easily. I think 'I' and the
:> gestalt entity that comprises my personality, my memories and my body.
:
:I agree with this argument. I've lost track of how it came up or what
:it means for the Buffyverse, but it's true that there's no real way to
:define "consciousness" as a discrete entitiy, and I don't think the
:show has given us any tools to do so.
For some interesting material on this subject,
google the term "unicameral mind".
:
:-AOQ
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
One Bit Shy
news:1146877189.3...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I like to think of some of the early takes as flawed Watcher dogma
(propaganda) and gradual changes representative of the greater breadth of
experience that everybody gets in time. But, still, in the end, so much is
mystery. It's philosophy more than proven physical fact. Here in our world
we don't have anything close to agreement on the nature of a soul - why must
it be clearer in the Buffyverse?
Anyway, I currently lean the same direction you do - fairly strongly.
What's harder for me though is defining the essence of "demon". (Or maybe
just vampire demon, since we know there are other kinds of demons.) Is it
something loosely analogous to a soul? That would be an independent
possessing entity and suggests that Angel literally carries two entities
within him - even though with a single consciousness. If so, what does that
say about the vampire creation process? Does every vampire carry a copy or
extension of their sire's demon soul? Or is the creation process a kind of
birthing creating an infant demon "soul"?
Or perhaps the demon essence isn't individual in that way at all. Perhaps
it's just an aspect placed upon the revived consciousness of the body - an
extension of the blood "infection" that also regenerates the body. Devoid
of identity in itself. In that case the Angel/Angelus split might be a
psychological split personality where the all-consuming guilt from the
restored soul was coped with (and semi-rationalized) by walling off the
Angelus persona (which can still escape in dreams) and mentally thinking of
it as a demon entity within.
I don't advocate any particular solution to these kinds of questions. (And
there's a lot of Angel I haven't seen yet that'll likely complicate it
anyway.) Just illustrating a couple of the endless stream of possibilities.
OBS
(Harmony) Watcher
news:dsample-1AC7DD...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <Xns97BA607D324...@216.40.28.76>,
> Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in
> > news:dsample-19248C...@news.giganews.com:
> >
> > >> One can easily be true and the other false -- especially if, as every
> > >> other episode of the series suggests, the human soul and demonic
> > >> essence are the respective seats of human and demonic consciousness.
> > >
> > > There is a continuity of consciousness from the man to the vampire and
> > > back to the souled/desouled/resouled vampire. The soul is not the
> > > seat of consciousness.
> >
> > No, there's a continuity of memory and personality. Not the same thing.
>
> If that isn't a continuity of consciousness, what is?
>
illusion as suggested by one modern view to solving the "Identity Problem"
in classical philosophy. It's related to the age old non-trivial problem of
Heraclitus
(http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/theseus.html).
> Vampires continue to refer to their pre-vamping selves as "I". Angel
> refers to the things that he did before he got his soul, and while his
> soul was missing, as things that he did. Desouled Angel refers to
> souled Angel the same way.
>
> Explicitly soulless creatures are shown to be conscious. Buffy while
> getting her soul sucked out of her was still Buffy.
>
Is the person who came out of a CAT-scan the same person he was before he
went in? :-)
==Harmony Watcher==
"Last night, I came home and realized that everything in my apartment had
been stolen and replaced with an exact duplicate. I told this to my
friend -- he said, 'Do I know you?'" -- Steven Wright
(Harmony) Watcher
"Lord Usher" <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97BA73F36D7...@216.40.28.76...
> KenM47 <Ken...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> news:stqm525dj9jnt6d0g...@4ax.com:
>
> >>Of course. That's my point -- if a human being's consciousness has
> >>been extinguished and replaced by a demonic consciousness, the human
> >>is dead and a demon occupies the husk. That doesn't become any less
> >>true if the demonic consciousness inherits the human's memories and
> >>behavior. It's still a *metaphysically different being* doing the
> >>remembering and behaving.
> >
> > OK. We seem to agree on that. So, what is this episode saying about
> > that? And is it a different message than the BtVS message including
> > Lie to Me? I think it is.
>
> "That doesn't become any less true if the demonic consciousness inherits
> the human's memories and behavior." I don't know how much clearer I can
> be.
>
> Even if the demon behaved exactly the same as the human in every
> possible respect, that still wouldn't necessarily imply a continuity of
> consciousness, because consciousness isn't about what you think or feel;
> it's simply about who's doing the thinking and feeling.
>
> Suppose you stepped into a device that copied every molecule in your
> body and created a duplicate on the other side of the room. That
> duplicate might be identical to you in every possible way, but he
> wouldn't *be you* -- simply by virtue of the fact that you're looking
> out of your eyes at him, and not looking out of his eyes at you.
>
every macroscopic details) is exactly duplicated, who's to say that it is
not the same being? This discussion is bordering on the metaphysical issues
of the classical problem known as the "Problem of Identity". The *criteria*
for determining when two things are treated as "equal" or "identical" **is**
the problem. The question is:
When are two things "equal"?
Think of it this way: Is the person who came out of a CAT-scan the same
person he was before he went in? :-) Why do we think that we are the same
person as we were ten years ago? What underlying criteria are we using to
retain our so-called "identity"?
These are important metaphysical question which underlie all inquiries into
various philosophical questions on a slightly "higher" level: What is
self-awareness? What is sentience? What is a huamn "soul" (if it even exists
in the first place)? Why did Alan Turing devise his Turing Test?
> The only difference in the Buffyverse is that your "duplicate" gets your
> body and you fly off into the ether, but that doesn't change the
> equation in any meaningful way.
>
If your duplicate behaves 100% like what you would have behaved in every
situation and every time, it has your "consciousness", by any sane
definition of consciousness. Your duplicate carry out what you would have
done in every aspect and every time. In the final analysis, it has your
"you-essence". It is you.
==(Harmony) Watcher==
(Harmony) Watcher
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mair_fheal-ECB56...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
carbon-based "machines" hardwired with biochemical programming. Or, in a
flight of fancy, we may be just simulation on someone else's "holodeck"
programs. [Incidentally, the ST:TNG episode "The Measures of a Man" explores
some of the complex metaphysical issues related to such highly loaded terms
as "consciousness", "self-awareness", "sentience", and "soul".
==(Harmony) Watcher==
Lord Usher
news:BWX6g.130843$P01.93555@pd7tw3no:
>> Suppose you stepped into a device that copied every molecule in your
>> body and created a duplicate on the other side of the room. That
>> duplicate might be identical to you in every possible way, but he
>> wouldn't *be you* -- simply by virtue of the fact that you're looking
>> out of your eyes at him, and not looking out of his eyes at you.
>>
> Highly debatable point. If *every* aspect (not just microscopic
> details, but every macroscopic details) is exactly duplicated, who's
> to say that it is not the same being?
Well... *you* are. If you step into the machine, and watch your
duplicate materialize on the other side of the room, you are obviously a
different person from your duplicate, because *you're looking across the
room at him*.
How can you argue that you possess the same consciousness as another
being whom you can only perceive in the third person?
This seems to me such an obvious and unavoidable fact that it mystifies
me that so many people manage to ignore it.
> Think of it this way: Is the person who came out of a CAT-scan the
> same person he was before he went in? :-) Why do we think that we are
> the same person as we were ten years ago?
We have no way of knowing that we are. For all I know, my consciousness
materialized in this body five seconds ago, and I only think I've always
been me because I have access to this body's memories and emotions.
Which is *exactly my point* where Buffyverse vampires are concerned --
just because they believe they're the same person they were ten years
ago, it doesn't necessarily follow that they actually are.
(Of course, in the real world, I have no particular reason to believe
that my consciousness pops in and out of bodies, so it's not a
possibility I entertain all that seriously. Whereas in the Buffyverse,
we are told that the soul is the seat of consciousness and can do
precisely that.)
>> The only difference in the Buffyverse is that your "duplicate" gets
>> your body and you fly off into the ether, but that doesn't change the
>> equation in any meaningful way.
>>
> If your duplicate behaves 100% like what you would have behaved in
> every situation and every time, it has your "consciousness", by any
> sane definition of consciousness. Your duplicate carry out what you
> would have done in every aspect and every time. In the final analysis,
> it has your "you-essence". It is you.
Except that I am not behind its eyes looking out. If you whacked its
leg, I wouldn't feel pain. If it read a new book today, I wouldn't have
access to whatever it learned. And if I died tomorrow, I would cease to
perceive anything, even if the duplicate-me continued to live.
That's all I mean by "consciousness" -- the unique awareness of self
that cannot be shared by two separate entities, even identical ones,
simply because they are separate entities.
Lord Usher
news:mkrsi3...@ID-256697.user.uni-berlin.de:
>> How can the eyes "think" anything if they do not possess
>> consciousness? You've just postulated a different seat of
>> consciousness, not the actual lack thereof.
>
> OK, imagine a machine that can think.
Right off we hit the crux of the matter: in order to postulate a machine
that can actually "think," in the human sense of the word, we must assume
it has the ability to transcend rote programming -- to make choices, to
exert its will. Without that ability it's no different from any unthinking
inanimate object, responding logically and inevitably to the input it
receives.
And whatever gives the computer that ability, *that's* the device's
consciousness. No complicated mix-and-match scenarios are required.
(Harmony) Watcher
> "\(Harmony\) Watcher" <nob...@nonesuch.com> wrote in
> news:BWX6g.130843$P01.93555@pd7tw3no:
>
> >> Suppose you stepped into a device that copied every molecule in your
> >> body and created a duplicate on the other side of the room. That
> >> duplicate might be identical to you in every possible way, but he
> >> wouldn't *be you* -- simply by virtue of the fact that you're looking
> >> out of your eyes at him, and not looking out of his eyes at you.
> >>
> > Highly debatable point. If *every* aspect (not just microscopic
> > details, but every macroscopic details) is exactly duplicated, who's
> > to say that it is not the same being?
>
> Well... *you* are. If you step into the machine, and watch your
> duplicate materialize on the other side of the room, you are obviously a
> different person from your duplicate, because *you're looking across the
> room at him*.
>
> How can you argue that you possess the same consciousness as another
> being whom you can only perceive in the third person?
>
> This seems to me such an obvious and unavoidable fact that it mystifies
> me that so many people manage to ignore it.
>
criteria for any third party observer to determine which copy, between the
two of you, is the "real" you. To the outside observer, both of them are
"you". More importantly, both copies (the original and the duplicate) will
think identically that it is the real "you" right at the instant when the
duplicate appears.
One may counter that one can use a "physical location" approach to sort out
the issue (like when one xeroxes a document, the original stays on top of
the glass, but the duplicate comes out in a different paper bin). But there
is no such luck with supposedly sentient beings (whatever "sentience"
means). Both copies will claim that they are the original because they both
truly are. All this is based on the outstanding assumption that it is
possible to make a 100% accurate duplicate of an original sentient being
(which, of course, is sheer fiction but not part of the argument).
So, I would think that under the assumption of a less-than-perfect copying
machine, a "physical location" approach (where the original is placed in a
different location from where the duplicate would appear) would serve as a
convenient way of sorting the original from the copy. But under such an
assumption, I would think that there will be objective tests which can
reveal definitive markers to see which copy is the original.
You are forgetting that all the while, your duplicate is making exactly the
same claims, and for 100% valid reasons (under the explicit assumption of a
100% accurate copying machine which can duplicate *every* microscopic and
macroscopic detail including whatever this thing is that is called
"consciousness").
> That's all I mean by "consciousness" -- the unique awareness of self
> that cannot be shared by two separate entities, even identical ones,
> simply because they are separate entities.
>
The modern theory of computation is shedding new lights on to age-old
classical philosophy problems. It is leaning toward the direction that
"self-awareness" (whatever it is) may be just a natural consequence of
computational complexity. Still highly debatable and controversial, but give
it time.
==(Harmony) Watcher==
(Harmony) Watcher
computation. We may like to think that we are not "machines". We are
certainly not inanimate, but are we "machines"? We are clearly biological
machines hardwired with biochemical programming written in the language of
biochemistry. Where does our so-called "consciousness" lie? The age-old
religious answer to the question is the invention of the "soul" which is
useful for asserting that our self-awareness transcends our mere biochemical
programming. But a dissenting view is that a machine's "self-awareness" is a
mere function of its computational complexity.
==(Harmony) Watcher==
Shuggie
> news:BWX6g.130843$P01.93555@pd7tw3no:
>
>>> Suppose you stepped into a device that copied every molecule in your
>>> body and created a duplicate on the other side of the room. That
>>> duplicate might be identical to you in every possible way, but he
>>> wouldn't *be you* -- simply by virtue of the fact that you're looking
>>> out of your eyes at him, and not looking out of his eyes at you.
>>>
>> Highly debatable point. If *every* aspect (not just microscopic
>> details, but every macroscopic details) is exactly duplicated, who's
>> to say that it is not the same being?
>
> Well... *you* are. If you step into the machine, and watch your
> duplicate materialize on the other side of the room, you are obviously a
> different person from your duplicate, because *you're looking across the
> room at him*.
>
> How can you argue that you possess the same consciousness as another
> being whom you can only perceive in the third person?
>
I agree about being a different person. I'm not sure we need to invent
the concept of consciousness to be able to say that.
> This seems to me such an obvious and unavoidable fact that it mystifies
> me that so many people manage to ignore it.
>
>> Think of it this way: Is the person who came out of a CAT-scan the
>> same person he was before he went in? :-) Why do we think that we are
>> the same person as we were ten years ago?
>
> We have no way of knowing that we are. For all I know, my consciousness
> materialized in this body five seconds ago, and I only think I've always
> been me because I have access to this body's memories and emotions.
Or 'you' are the current state of that body's memories and emotions. You
still have no idea whether those were created five seconds ago.
>
> Which is *exactly my point* where Buffyverse vampires are concerned --
> just because they believe they're the same person they were ten years
> ago, it doesn't necessarily follow that they actually are.
>
> (Of course, in the real world, I have no particular reason to believe
> that my consciousness pops in and out of bodies, so it's not a
> possibility I entertain all that seriously. Whereas in the Buffyverse,
> we are told that the soul is the seat of consciousness and can do
> precisely that.)
I don't believe we're ever told that. We are told repeatedly that a soul
is what makes a person capable of remorse, of being good, that souled
people shouldn't be killed in cold blood whilst the unsouled may be.
Actually given that memories and personality are explicitly said to
continue into the vamp persona, I decided that the only thing left that
could fit the description was the conscience. A conscience that
manifests itself physically as a glowy thing that can be trapped in an
orb of thesula but still.
See I don't think that that thing inside the orb in Becoming was Liam or
Liam's consciousness. I think Liam was a human being with a human body,
with memories and a personality and he was killed by Darla in an alley.
Then a demon entered (and re-animated) his body, inherited his memories
and personality and this new combination we call the person 'Angelus'.
Very quickly Angelus' activities create new memories and the evil
influence of the demon perverts the original personality somewhat (see
VampWillow). Much later there's the whole gypsey incident and Angelus
gets a soul put back - crucially however he doesn't lose the demon
(personally I believe if he did he'd drop dead since it's the demon that
animates the corpse - but that's less clear from the canon) or his
intervening memories. The soul is powerful enough for this new person
'Angel' to be able to suppress the influence of the demon - but it's
still there as 'Lie to Me' shows.
So in other words
Liam = human
Angelus = dead human + demon
Angel = dead human + demon + soul
It's the combination that makes the person not some mystical element
called 'consciousness' IMO. It's the only way of looking at things that
makes sense to me.
>
>>> The only difference in the Buffyverse is that your "duplicate" gets
>>> your body and you fly off into the ether, but that doesn't change the
>>> equation in any meaningful way.
>>>
>> If your duplicate behaves 100% like what you would have behaved in
>> every situation and every time, it has your "consciousness", by any
>> sane definition of consciousness. Your duplicate carry out what you
>> would have done in every aspect and every time. In the final analysis,
>> it has your "you-essence". It is you.
>
> Except that I am not behind its eyes looking out. If you whacked its
> leg, I wouldn't feel pain. If it read a new book today, I wouldn't have
> access to whatever it learned. And if I died tomorrow, I would cease to
> perceive anything, even if the duplicate-me continued to live.
>
Don't disagree with that.
> That's all I mean by "consciousness" -- the unique awareness of self
> that cannot be shared by two separate entities, even identical ones,
> simply because they are separate entities.
>
yeah but surely consciousness is a state not an entity. Angel has
consciousness but he doesn't have _a_ consciousness.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
donc je pense que je sois
Shuggie
> news:mkrsi3...@ID-256697.user.uni-berlin.de:
>
>>> How can the eyes "think" anything if they do not possess
>>> consciousness? You've just postulated a different seat of
>>> consciousness, not the actual lack thereof.
>>
>> OK, imagine a machine that can think.
>
> Right off we hit the crux of the matter: in order to postulate a machine
> that can actually "think," in the human sense of the word, we must assume
> it has the ability to transcend rote programming -- to make choices, to
> exert its will.
I don't accept this necessarily. It's unproven whether AI can be created
with what you call 'rote programming'. I find it amazing that so many
people think that it's _obviously_ untrue. Please explain why the
ability to think can't be programmed. I'm open to the idea that it can't
but so far I haven't seen anything that convinces me - which is why I
say it's unproven.
btw I think 'The Chinese Room' is flawed in this respect - it's a
convoluted way of saying "it's obvious".
> Without that ability it's no different from any unthinking
> inanimate object, responding logically and inevitably to the input it
> receives.
You know about chaos right? That simple logical rules can lead to
unpredictable behaviour?
>
> And whatever gives the computer that ability, *that's* the device's
> consciousness. No complicated mix-and-match scenarios are required.
>
So it's the program that runs on the computer? No, I don't expect that
you think that. But again, as in my previous post, it's the combination
that creates the person, not a single element, in this case the
'computer'. The computer in a thinking machine is no more the AI than
your brain is your mind.
Don Sample
What happens if the duplicating machine moves the original, during the
duplication process? You can't use the "well, *I*'m still standing
where I was when we started this" test to determine which is the
original.
Lord Usher
>> > Highly debatable point. If *every* aspect (not just microscopic
>> > details, but every macroscopic details) is exactly duplicated,
>> > who's to say that it is not the same being?
>>
>> Well... *you* are. If you step into the machine, and watch your
>> duplicate materialize on the other side of the room, you are
>> obviously a different person from your duplicate, because *you're
>> looking across the room at him*.
>>
>> How can you argue that you possess the same consciousness as another
>> being whom you can only perceive in the third person?
>>
>> This seems to me such an obvious and unavoidable fact that it
>> mystifies me that so many people manage to ignore it.
>
> You are missing the ultimate point of the issue: There is no
> *objective* criteria for any third party observer to determine which
> copy, between the two of you, is the "real" you. To the outside
> observer, both of them are "you". More importantly, both copies (the
> original and the duplicate) will think identically that it is the real
> "you" right at the instant when the duplicate appears.
Oh, I'm not missing that point at all. Indeed, that's *my* point -- that
continuity of consciousness cannot be assumed simply because an entity
retains memory or emotion or physical form.
Like you say, a third-party observer would have no way of determining if
the entity in question is the real you or the duplicate that received a
copy of your physical and mental form. In the *exact same way*, a
Buffyverse observer has no way of knowing if your vampire self is the
real you or a demon who inherited your body and your memories.
> So, I would think that under the assumption of a less-than-perfect
> copying machine, a "physical location" approach (where the original is
> placed in a different location from where the duplicate would appear)
> would serve as a convenient way of sorting the original from the copy.
> But under such an assumption, I would think that there will be
> objective tests which can reveal definitive markers to see which copy
> is the original.
One could assume that's exactly what the mystical experts of the
Buffyverse have done -- they've studied the metaphysical nature of human
beings and are thus capable of determining whether the vampire is still
the original being, or a copy. They judge it to be a copy, hence their
assertion that the human soul is the seat of consciousness.
Lord Usher
news:ou6ui3...@ID-256697.user.uni-berlin.de:
>> Which is *exactly my point* where Buffyverse vampires are concerned
>> -- just because they believe they're the same person they were ten
>> years ago, it doesn't necessarily follow that they actually are.
>>
>> (Of course, in the real world, I have no particular reason to believe
>> that my consciousness pops in and out of bodies, so it's not a
>> possibility I entertain all that seriously. Whereas in the
>> Buffyverse, we are told that the soul is the seat of consciousness
>> and can do precisely that.)
>
> I don't believe we're ever told that. We are told repeatedly that a
> soul is what makes a person capable of remorse, of being good, that
> souled people shouldn't be killed in cold blood whilst the unsouled
> may be.
No, we're also told, explicitly, that the soul is the seat of
consciousness, exactly as I've just described the term ("the unique
awareness of self that cannot be shared by two separate entities, even
identical ones, simply because they are separate entities"):
"You listen to me! Jesse is dead. You have to remember that when you see
him, you're not looking at your friend. You're looking at the thing that
killed him."
"A vampire isn't a person at all. I may have the movements, the
memories, even the personality of the person that it took over, but it's
still a demon at the core. There is no halfway."
"Well, I've got newsflash for you, braintrust -- that's not how it
works. You die, and a demon sets up shop in your old house. And it
walks, and it talks, and it remembers your life, but it is *not* you."
"Gung vf abg lbhe sevraq. Gung guvat znl unir lbhe sevraq'f zrzbevrf naq
ure nccrnenapr, ohg vg'f whfg n svygul qrzba, na haubyl zbafgre."
"Ab. Jung pnzr gb lbhe qbbe jnfa'g lbhe fba. Vg ybbxrq yvxr lbhe fba,
ohg vg jnfa'g uvz."
>> That's all I mean by "consciousness" -- the unique awareness of self
>> that cannot be shared by two separate entities, even identical ones,
>> simply because they are separate entities.
>
> yeah but surely consciousness is a state not an entity. Angel has
> consciousness but he doesn't have _a_ consciousness.
We're talking about a fantasy series, though, which has already taken
other real-world *properties* of human nature (i.e., the capacity for
conscience and remorse), and reimagined them as *organs* that humans
possess (i.e., a soul). Why can't they do the same thing with the
property of "consciousness," if that serves the story being told?
Arbitrar Of Quality
Lord Usher wrote:
> No, we're also told, explicitly, that the soul is the seat of
> consciousness, exactly as I've just described the term ("the unique
> awareness of self that cannot be shared by two separate entities, even
> identical ones, simply because they are separate entities"):
>
> "A vampire isn't a person at all. I may have the movements, the
> memories, even the personality of the person that it took over, but it's
> still a demon at the core. There is no halfway."
>
> "Well, I've got newsflash for you, braintrust -- that's not how it
> works. You die, and a demon sets up shop in your old house. And it
> walks, and it talks, and it remembers your life, but it is *not* you."
Who wants to post the counter-quote from 'Doppelgängland" first? It
seems like the creators changed their minds on that count, some of
which can be explained as Giles et al being wrong or parroting old
Watcher dogma.
-AOQ
(Harmony) Watcher
> "\(Harmony\) Watcher" <nob...@nonesuch.com> wrote in
> news:xzZ6g.131202$P01.25413@pd7tw3no:
>
> >> > Highly debatable point. If *every* aspect (not just microscopic
> >> > details, but every macroscopic details) is exactly duplicated,
> >> > who's to say that it is not the same being?
> >>
> >> Well... *you* are. If you step into the machine, and watch your
> >> duplicate materialize on the other side of the room, you are
> >> obviously a different person from your duplicate, because *you're
> >> looking across the room at him*.
> >>
> >> How can you argue that you possess the same consciousness as another
> >> being whom you can only perceive in the third person?
> >>
> >> This seems to me such an obvious and unavoidable fact that it
> >> mystifies me that so many people manage to ignore it.
> >
> > You are missing the ultimate point of the issue: There is no
> > *objective* criteria for any third party observer to determine which
> > copy, between the two of you, is the "real" you. To the outside
> > observer, both of them are "you". More importantly, both copies (the
> > original and the duplicate) will think identically that it is the real
> > "you" right at the instant when the duplicate appears.
>
> Oh, I'm not missing that point at all. Indeed, that's *my*
> point --
>
> that continuity of consciousness cannot be
> assumed simply because an entity retains memory
> or emotion or physical form.
>
>
I think the problem has more to do with "identity" than "(clinical)
consciousness". If you are using the term "consciousness" in the
non-clinical sense as a synonym for "identity", then I think you've hit the
nail right on its head. You've re-iterated the age-old non-trivial problem
of Herclitus(http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/theseus.html), which
addresses the complex issue of the meaning of "(continuity of) identity". In
fact, the following modern-day question magnifies and crystallizes the
issue:
Is the person who came out of a CAT-scan
the same person he was before he went in?
The question is this:
When are two things ever "EQUAL"?
A clear definition of what it means when we say "A is *equal* to B (that is,
a definition of "identity") belies any meaningful discussion of what
"continuity of consciousness" might mean.
In fact, one modern view is that "continuity" of anything is simply an
"illusion", a convenient higher-level language construct for summarizing
some lower-level complex details. Even for a single person, it has already
been a contentious point for ages that "a person can retain his identity as
time progresses." In numerous ways, I'm clearly not the same person I was
when I was born or when I was ten years ago. So what could the term "I"
mean?
Now add to the lot terms like "(seats) of consciousness", "self-awareness"
and "soul", which are ill-defined concepts at best, will make the problem
totally intractable.
A person who believes that "souls" exist may be able to derive "continuity
of identity" as a consequence of having a "soul" that is spacetime-free, but
for non-believers of souls, "continuity of identity" remains a useful and
convenient *assumption*; for how else can we punish someone for doing evil?
>
> Like you say, a third-party observer would have no way of determining if
> the entity in question is the real you or the duplicate that received a
> copy of your physical and mental form. In the *exact same way*, a
> Buffyverse observer has no way of knowing if your vampire self is the
> real you or a demon who inherited your body and your memories.
>
> > So, I would think that under the assumption of a less-than-perfect
> > copying machine, a "physical location" approach (where the original is
> > placed in a different location from where the duplicate would appear)
> > would serve as a convenient way of sorting the original from the copy.
> > But under such an assumption, I would think that there will be
> > objective tests which can reveal definitive markers to see which copy
> > is the original.
>
> One could assume that's exactly what the mystical experts of the
> Buffyverse have done -- they've studied the metaphysical nature of human
> beings and are thus capable of determining whether the vampire is still
> the original being, or a copy. They judge it to be a copy, hence their
> assertion that the human soul is the seat of consciousness.
>
In Buffyverse, your guess on this will be as good as mine. But I doubt that
the writers have spent much thoughts on the metaphysical fallouts related to
their stories while they were writing the stories. For me, I tend to assume
the following as working premises in Buffyverse:
the_Liam_vessel = the biologically human body of Liam
TOHSO_Liam = the original human soul of Liam
human_Liam = TOHSO_Liam + the Liam vessel
Angelus = a demonic soul + the Liam vessel
Angel = TOHSO_Liam + demonic soul + Liam vessel
Based on these premises, human_Liam, Angelus, and Angel are non-identical
beings. [Under this terminology, Buffy did not love "Angel"; she loved
"Angel" minus the demonic soul that had invaded the_Liam_vessel.]
==Harmony Watcher==
Lord Usher
Except that the "Doppelgangland" quote does nothing to refute the above. It
simply indicates that the vampire inherits more from the human host than
Buffy is willing to admit. It doesn't necessarily follow that the vampire
is metaphysically the same person as its human host.
(Harmony) Watcher
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146964669....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
A good point, :) "http://bdb.vrya.net/bdb/clip.php?clip=1484", but
depending on your tastes of the underlying metaphysics soup, it may not
entirely be a counter argument to his thesis that "the unique awareness of
self that cannot be shared by two separate entities, even identical ones,
simply because they are separate entities".
==Harmony Watcher==
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> simply indicates that the vampire inherits more from the human host than
> Buffy is willing to admit. It doesn't necessarily follow that the vampire
> is metaphysically the same person as its human host.
gur ybbx rkpunatrq orgjrra ohssl naq natry vf dhvgr pyrne
vs nf fbzr crbcyr nethr gung frkhny bevragngvba vf abg n pubvpr
ohg ubj gur oenva vf jverq
gura vaurevgvat gung nybat jvgu gur jverq va zrzbevrf
vf abg n ovt pbaprcghny yrnc
memory is recorded at least in part how the brain is wired
perhaps short term memory are tranisent electrochemical signals
that might cause rewiring
Sam
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> Lord Usher wrote:
>
> Who wants to post the counter-quote from 'Doppelgängland" first? It
> seems like the creators changed their minds on that count, some of
> which can be explained as Giles et al being wrong or parroting old
> Watcher dogma.
>
> -AOQ
The quote from "Doppelgangland":
---
Willow: (appalled) It's horrible! That's me as a vampire? (Angel
closes
the door) I'm so evil and... skanky. (aside to Buffy, worried) And I
think I'm kinda gay.
Buffy: (reassuringly) Willow, just remember, a vampire's personality
has nothing to do with the person it was.
Angel: (without thinking) Well, actually... (gets a look from Buffy)
That's a good point.
---
Which doesn't contradict anything we're told earlier. Giles himself
tells us fairly openly that a vampire has pretty much exactly the same
personality as the human did, just twisted around and made evil. That
vampire version of Willow has largely the same personality as Willow
would, if Willow were evil, because it is a demon with the mind and
memories and personality of Willow.
But the key bit is that it is, in fact, a demon with those memories and
personalities. In that timeline, somewhere in some afterlife or other,
the soul of Willow Rosenberg still exists.
Angel being the best case of this. Angelus had the exact same memories,
personality, and mind as a human fellow named Liam. But Liam *still
existed* -- and some gypsies were able to summon him up and cram him
back into his deceased, demon-possessed body. At which point his human
soul and said demon were forced to share that mind, memories, and
personality. But before that, they were clearly two distinct entities
-- as shown by the ability to store one of them in a little glowy orb
while the other is out murdering people.
--Sam
Sam
(Harmony) Watcher wrote:
> Not in accordance with the accepted parts of the modern theory of
> computation. We may like to think that we are not "machines". We are
> certainly not inanimate, but are we "machines"? We are clearly biological
> machines hardwired with biochemical programming written in the language of
> biochemistry. Where does our so-called "consciousness" lie? The age-old
> religious answer to the question is the invention of the "soul" which is
> useful for asserting that our self-awareness transcends our mere biochemical
> programming. But a dissenting view is that a machine's "self-awareness" is a
> mere function of its computational complexity.
>
> ==(Harmony) Watcher==
In the real world, I pretty much agree with this.
But on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, consciousness is pretty obviously
seated in the soul, as shown by the fact that if you know the right
spell you can actually conjure up a dead person's soul and have a
conversation with him.
Or, more tellingly for the conversation at hand, summon up the soul
that used to inhabit a particular vampire, and then force that soul
back into the vampire's body.
--Sam
George W Harris
wrote:
:Angel being the best case of this. Angelus had the exact same memories,
:personality, and mind as a human fellow named Liam. But Liam *still
:existed* -- and some gypsies were able to summon him up and cram him
:back into his deceased, demon-possessed body.
In what way is the soul, devoid of memories,
personality, and mind, Liam?
--
Real men don't need macho posturing to bolster their egos.
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
Sam
One Bit Shy wrote:
>
> I like to think of some of the early takes as flawed Watcher dogma
> (propaganda) and gradual changes representative of the greater breadth of
> experience that everybody gets in time. But, still, in the end, so much is
> mystery. It's philosophy more than proven physical fact. Here in our world
> we don't have anything close to agreement on the nature of a soul - why must
> it be clearer in the Buffyverse?
>
In the Buffyverse, there are necromancers and gypsy sorcerors who can
actually summon up deceased human souls, though. That's a pretty
drastic difference from the real world, and goes rather a long way
toward showing that a soul carries your identity.
Not to mention ghosts. Does anyone feel like telling Phantom Dennis
that the soul doesn't hold his identity? Now, what if instead of being
trapped in a wall, Dennis had been turned into a vampire? The existence
of his ghost in his old apartment would be a pretty strong argument
that Vampire Dennis, out eating people in the physical world, is not
the original person -- even if he's still a bit of a momma's boy.
> Anyway, I currently lean the same direction you do - fairly strongly.
> What's harder for me though is defining the essence of "demon". (Or maybe
> just vampire demon, since we know there are other kinds of demons.) Is it
> something loosely analogous to a soul?
"Essentially, souls are by their nature amorphous but to me it's really
about what star you are guided by. Most people, we hope, are guided by,
'you should be good, you're good, you feel good.' And most demons are
guided simply by the opposite star. They believe in evil, they believe
in causing it, they like it. They believe it in the way that people
believe in good. [Cut spoilish stuff.] ... I believe it's kind of like
a spectrum, but they are setting their course by opposite directions.
But they're all sort of somewhere in the middle."
--Joss Whedon
That would be an independent
> possessing entity and suggests that Angel literally carries two entities
> within him - even though with a single consciousness.
This is really how I think the writers viewed it. Angel has both a
human soul, and a demonic entity, but the two of them are sharing a
single mind -- a single set of emotions and experiences and memories
and personality. Which means that in practical terms, Angel is a single
person who experiences both a human sense of morality and remorse, and
a simultaneous demonic desire for mayhem and sadism and evil.
> Or perhaps the demon essence isn't individual in that way at all. Perhaps
> it's just an aspect placed upon the revived consciousness of the body - an
> extension of the blood "infection" that also regenerates the body. Devoid
> of identity in itself.
Spoilery -- gurer vf rivqrapr va gur fubj gung guvf vf *rknpgyl* gur
pnfr. Fbzr bs hf whfg unira'g frra vg lrg.
In that case the Angel/Angelus split might be a
> psychological split personality where the all-consuming guilt from the
> restored soul was coped with (and semi-rationalized) by walling off the
> Angelus persona (which can still escape in dreams) and mentally thinking of
> it as a demon entity within.
>
Pretty much my take, too.
It's also worth mentioning that the Angel/Angelus distinction is far
more fan-created than something explicit in the show. Watch season 2,
and you find that Angel minus-soul still calls himself Angel. He's just
Angel minus soul.
Interestingly, however, once he's got his soul back, he starts
referring to all of that as something "Angelus" did.
--Sam
Sam
George W Harris wrote:
> In what way is the soul, devoid of memories,
> personality, and mind, Liam?
What makes you think the soul is devoid of mind or memories?
Just because there's a copy of the memories and mind in question left
behind in his brain after he died -- neatly appropriated by the demon
that's just taken over that brain -- doesn't mean the soul doesn't
carry a set along too. Phantom Dennis remembers his life, after all.
There's also a certain bit much later in the series...
Gung orvat gur ovg va frnfba 4 jurer Natry'f uhzna fbhy naq vgf qrzbavp
pbhagrecneg npghnyyl trg vagb n yvgreny svtug va gur nfgeny qernzfcnpr
bs gur rcvfbqr "Becurhf".
Qhevat gur gvzr gung gurl'er frcnengr, obgu gur fbhy naq gur qrzba unir
frcnengr, qvfgvapg vqragvgvrf -- rabhtu gb trg vagb na nfgeny
svfgsvtug. Rnpu unf vgf bja pbzcyrgr frg bs zrzbevrf... gurl whfg
unccra gb or vqragvpny barf.
Gura gur phefr vf pnfr, naq gur gjb vafgnagyl zretr gbtrgure, prnfvat
gb or frcnengr ragvgvrf.
Don Sample
"Sam" <hyperevol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (Harmony) Watcher wrote:
> > Not in accordance with the accepted parts of the modern theory of
> > computation. We may like to think that we are not "machines". We are
> > certainly not inanimate, but are we "machines"? We are clearly biological
> > machines hardwired with biochemical programming written in the language of
> > biochemistry. Where does our so-called "consciousness" lie? The age-old
> > religious answer to the question is the invention of the "soul" which is
> > useful for asserting that our self-awareness transcends our mere biochemical
> > programming. But a dissenting view is that a machine's "self-awareness" is a
> > mere function of its computational complexity.
> >
> > ==(Harmony) Watcher==
>
> In the real world, I pretty much agree with this.
>
> But on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, consciousness is pretty obviously
> seated in the soul, as shown by the fact that if you know the right
> spell you can actually conjure up a dead person's soul and have a
> conversation with him.
Since Buffyverse people are conscious with or without souls, I'd say
that consciousness obviously isn't seated in the soul.
George W Harris
wrote:
:Not to mention ghosts. Does anyone feel like telling Phantom Dennis
:that the soul doesn't hold his identity? Now, what if instead of being
:trapped in a wall, Dennis had been turned into a vampire? The existence
:of his ghost in his old apartment would be a pretty strong argument
:that Vampire Dennis, out eating people in the physical world, is not
:the original person -- even if he's still a bit of a momma's boy.
If we had an example of a person who was both a
ghost and a vampire that'd be a compelling argument, but
we don't.
George W Harris
wrote:
:
:George W Harris wrote:
:> In what way is the soul, devoid of memories,
:> personality, and mind, Liam?
:
:What makes you think the soul is devoid of mind or memories?
The mind and memories are left in the vampire.
:Just because there's a copy of the memories and mind in question left
:behind in his brain after he died -- neatly appropriated by the demon
:that's just taken over that brain -- doesn't mean the soul doesn't
:carry a set along too.
Nothing to indicate that it's a copy. Nothing to
indicate the soul carries a set along.
:Phantom Dennis remembers his life, after all.
He's a ghost, not a soul.
:
:There's also a certain bit much later in the series...
:
:Gung orvat gur ovg va frnfba 4 jurer Natry'f uhzna fbhy naq vgf qrzbavp
:pbhagrecneg npghnyyl trg vagb n yvgreny svtug va gur nfgeny qernzfcnpr
:bs gur rcvfbqr "Becurhf".
Lrnu, nfgeny qernzfcnpr. V qba'g guvax gung unf zhpu gb fnl
nobhg ubj guvatf ner abeznyyl.
:
Sam
George W Harris wrote:
>
> Lrnu, nfgeny qernzfcnpr. V qba'g guvax gung unf zhpu gb fnl
> nobhg ubj guvatf ner abeznyyl.
Normal or not, it shows that the soul holds a person's identity too --
orpnhfr jurerire vg jnf gnxvat cynpr, gurer jrer gjb qvssrerag orvatf
va gur svtug. Natry'f uhzna fbhy, naq uvf qrzba. Gurl zvtug abg or noyr
gb unir n svfgsvtug va gur abezny pbhefr bs riragf, ohg vg'f uneq gb
nethr gurl'er abg gjb qvfgvapg ragvgvrf urer.
Rfcrpvnyyl jura gur rcvfbqr znxrf n cbvag bs fubjvat gur qrzba fhpxrq
onpx vagb Natry'f tubfg ng gur raq.
Sam
George W Harris wrote:
> If we had an example of a person who was both a
> ghost and a vampire that'd be a compelling argument, but
> we don't.
Jr unir na rknzcyr bs n crefba'f tubfg npghnyyl svtugvat gur inzcver
bafperra.
Opus the Penguin
> "\(Harmony\) Watcher" <nob...@nonesuch.com> wrote:
>>
>> If your duplicate behaves 100% like what you would have behaved
>> in every situation and every time, it has your "consciousness",
>> by any sane definition of consciousness. Your duplicate carry out
>> what you would have done in every aspect and every time. In the
>> final analysis, it has your "you-essence". It is you.
>
> Except that I am not behind its eyes looking out. If you whacked
> its leg, I wouldn't feel pain. If it read a new book today, I
> wouldn't have access to whatever it learned. And if I died
> tomorrow, I would cease to perceive anything, even if the
> duplicate-me continued to live.
>
> That's all I mean by "consciousness" -- the unique awareness of
> self that cannot be shared by two separate entities, even
> identical ones, simply because they are separate entities.
>
Both of you might have fun with several of the short stories in
_Axiomatic_ by Greg Egan. The story "Learning to Be Me" is especially
pertinent. And fascinating and cool. Go out and get a copy. Now.
Shoo!
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
George W Harris
wrote:
:
Ab, jr qba'g. Jr unir na rknzcyr bs
ercerfragngvbaf bs gjb nfcrpgf bs Natry svtugvat
rnpu bgure va n flzobyvp qernzjbeyq.
--
"Intelligence is too complex to capture in a single number." -Alfred Binet
Lord Usher
news:dsample-F13866...@news.giganews.com:
>> In the real world, I pretty much agree with this.
>>
>> But on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, consciousness is pretty obviously
>> seated in the soul, as shown by the fact that if you know the right
>> spell you can actually conjure up a dead person's soul and have a
>> conversation with him.
>
> Since Buffyverse people are conscious with or without souls, I'd say
> that consciousness obviously isn't seated in the soul.
Gur bayl crefba jr rire zrg jub jnf *gehyl* fbhyyrff, nf bccbfrq gb fvzcyl
ynpxvat n *uhzna* fbhy, jnf Elna va VTLHZF. Naq gur cbvag bs gur rcvfbqr vf
gung ur *jnfa'g* pbafpvbhf -- gung ur jnf n "oynpx ibvq" jub npgrq bhg bs
cher fgvzhyhf/erfcbafr, "abg sbe nal ernfba ng nyy."
Lord Usher
news:5lot5291sctb7ikv7...@4ax.com:
[Reversed ROT-13 corrected.]
> On 7 May 2006 20:29:34 -0700, "Sam" <hyperevol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>:
>:George W Harris wrote:
>:> If we had an example of a person who was both a
>:> ghost and a vampire that'd be a compelling argument, but
>:> we don't.
>:
>:Jr unir na rknzcyr bs n crefba'f tubfg npghnyyl svtugvat gur inzcver
>:bafperra.
>
> Ab, jr qba'g. Jr unir na rknzcyr bs
> ercerfragngvbaf bs gjb nfcrpgf bs Natry svtugvat
> rnpu bgure va n flzobyvp qernzjbeyq.
No, Sam's right (as usual :) ).
"Fbhy'f nyernql va gur rgure, oblb. V pna fzryy vg. Ubj 'obhg V fraq vg
bss gb gung ovt chccl erfphr va gur fxl?"
Fb fnlf Natryhf nf ur svtugf jvgu gur ercerfragngvba bs tbbq-thl Natry.
Ur oryvrirf gung qrfgeblvat uvf bccbarag jvyy nyfb qrfgebl Natry'f fbhy
-- naq guvf oryvrs vf ng yrnfg cnegvnyyl inyvqngrq ol uvf zlfgvpny
inzcver frafr ("V pna fzryy vg"). Guvf fhttrfgf cerggl pyrneyl gung
tbbq-thl Natry vf abg whfg n cflpubybtvpny ercerfragngvba ohg n
zrgnculfvpny bar -- fcrpvsvpnyyl, n ercerfragngvba bs Natry'f uhzna
fbhy.
George W Harris
wrote:
:George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote in
Gur xrl jbeq orvat *ercerfragngvba*. Gung vfa'g
*npghnyyl* Natry'f fbhy, be n tubfg, naq gung vfa'g *npghnyyl*
Natryhf, fbhyyrff inzcver. Jr pna'g ernyyl qenj nal
pbapyhfvbaf nobhg jurgure gur fbhy gung Wnfqryvn unq
genccrq unf nal zrzbevrf be crefbanyvgl. Fvapr fbhyrq
Natry arire zragvbaf nal zrzbevrf bs gur gvzr uvf fbhy
fcrag njnl sebz uvf obql, gung'f n cerggl pyrne vaqvpngvba
gung vg qbrfa'g.
:
:--
:Lord Usher
:"I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."
peachy ashie passion
I find it so disconcerting to have some English stuck there in the
middle of your Klingon.
Don Sample
Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Buffy's roommate Kathy was also explicitly stated as being soulless.
Lord Usher
>> Gur bayl crefba jr rire zrg jub jnf *gehyl* fbhyyrff, nf bccbfrq gb
>> fvzcyl ynpxvat n *uhzna* fbhy, jnf Elna va VTLHZF. Naq gur cbvag bs
>> gur rcvfbqr vf gung ur *jnfa'g* pbafpvbhf -- gung ur jnf n "oynpx
>> ibvq" jub npgrq bhg bs cher fgvzhyhf/erfcbafr, "abg sbe nal ernfba ng
>> nyy."
>
> Buffy's roommate Kathy was also explicitly stated as being soulless.
But in that case "soulless" meant what it usually means -- lacking a *human
soul.
--
Lord Usher
(who is pretty sure we've had this exact conversation before)
Don Sample
Lord Usher <lord_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Don Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote in
> news:dsample-30DCF4...@news.giganews.com:
>
> >> Gur bayl crefba jr rire zrg jub jnf *gehyl* fbhyyrff, nf bccbfrq gb
> >> fvzcyl ynpxvat n *uhzna* fbhy, jnf Elna va VTLHZF. Naq gur cbvag bs
> >> gur rcvfbqr vf gung ur *jnfa'g* pbafpvbhf -- gung ur jnf n "oynpx
> >> ibvq" jub npgrq bhg bs cher fgvzhyhf/erfcbafr, "abg sbe nal ernfba ng
> >> nyy."
> >
> > Buffy's roommate Kathy was also explicitly stated as being soulless.
>
> But in that case "soulless" meant what it usually means -- lacking a *human
> soul.
Giles: But while the Mok'tagar can assume many forms and guises,
including human, they can always be recognized by others
of their kind due to the lack of a soul.
Nothing about it being a human soul, and if it is the lack of a human
soul, how are the Mok'tagar supposed to tell members of their kind from
vampires and other demons that don't have human souls?