Followup to 'His was the most human...'
m.r.leeper
Followup to "His was the most human..."
by Mark R. Leeper
There has been quite a lot of discussion on the net about an article I
posted claiming that calling Spock's soul "human" was insensitive. The
article was intended to be light in tone, but it was also intended to
illustrate a gripe I have had with the series. STAR TREK sets up a number
of circumstances in which logical (Vulcan) and emotional (human) approaches
to problem-solving are compared. That is potentially a very interesting
comparison to make. The problem is that the script-writer inevitably
contrives to have Spock's logical side lose. In STAR TREK III McCoy even
comments on all those arguments that Spock lost. Now since argument should
be an exercise in logic, anyone who uses pure logic on his/her side should
not lose an argument. The best you can hope for against a (hypothetical)
perfect logician is not to lose against him/her.
So how did Spock lose arguments? In one episode Spock was in charge of
a lost shuttlecraft party. The ENTERPRISE was giving up looking. Spock
took all the remaining energy and put it into an emergency burst from the
engines. The ENTERPRISE picked up the signal and the party was rescued.
Later Spock loses an argument over the incident because, as Kirk claims, the
emergency call against all odds was a human and emotional thing to do. The
scriptwriter would have us believe the logical course of action would be to
lie down and die and to pass up even a faint hope of rescue. I would have
thought that what Spock did was the only logical thing to do, but the script
has Spock accept it as an emotional action. With arguments as contrived as
that, it's no wonder that the side in favor of logic loses. It is
unrealistic that Spock would accept such a feeble argument, let alone lose
to it. I have been watching some old episodes, and time and again when the
humans claim the human way is superior, the arguments are just as contrived.
I heard an author (Diane Duane) reading an excerpt from a draft "Star
Trek" novel. Spock was playing chess, was put in check, and with his logic
could see no way out. McCoy takes over for him and with an emotional attack
turns the tide of the game. Hurrah! Another triumph for emotionalism over
logic. One minor problem: McCoy's counterattack did not take Spock out of
check. And for good reason. Chess is a game of logic. If there was a way
to get out of check, a logical approach would find it and Spock should have
seen it. The scene is calculated to show the human approach superior and to
feed to egos of the reader, but it makes no sense that way.
The thing is, this question of emotionalism versus rationalism is not
just an academic issue. We live in a world in which large numbers of people
really do retreat from rationalism. People turn to astrology, to mysticism,
to cults in increasing numbers. A small part of the cause is that science
fiction films present an anti-rationalist/pro-emotionalist viewpoint. STAR
TREK says emotion is better than logic; STAR WARS says, "Trust your feelings
[not your computer]." WARGAMES says, don't trust your national defenses to
a computer. Speaking of trusting your feelings, I am told that one of the
New York black-outs occurred because the computer governing the power system
told an operator to shut down the power to one borough and the operator
refused to do it. That borough lost power anyway and the others followed it
like dominoes. A whole city was blacked out rather than just one borough
because an operator trusted his feelings more than his computer.
Actually Spock, as he is in the TV series is pretty close to an ideal
as far as I am concerned. He has both emotions and logic but under most
circumstances he is able to control the emotions and act as the logic
dictates. It is McCoy and occasionally Kirk who seem to have problems
coming to terms with Spock in being human. Spock seems to be comfortable
with his origins when there isn't someone else trying to rub his nose in
them.
I would still contend that if you have someone half white, half
American Indian, it would be in extremely bad taste to say in his eulogy
that he had the should of a white man. And for the same reason, I think
Kirk's eulogy for Spock was extremely ill-considered. Luckily, he may get
another chance.
Between Usenet and e-mail I got several responses, ranging from two or
three people who entirely agreed with me (you know who you are and thanks)
to people who disagreed politely (mostly for whom the above has been
written). The most fun I got from a response was from the one flame.
(Actually I expected flames from people who might have mistakenly thought I
was attacking Christianity. Luckily none of those, though maybe people are
more sensitive about STAR TREK than religion!) This flame asked me, who do
I think I am to criticize STAR TREK. (Sorry, sir. Who do I have to be?
Can I get a license for it someplace?) The flamer also tells me that if I
don't like STAR TREK I don't have to watch it. Actually I like some parts,
I don't like others. But to respond to the flamer, imagine me standing up,
an angry grimace on my face, and yelling at the flamer, "Who do you think
you are to criticize my review? If you don't want to read my stuff you
don't have to." So there.
Mark R. Leeper
...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
Roger J. Noe
Various rebuttals to "... his was the most human."
by Roger J. Noe
Mark Leeper recently wanted to know where he could get a license for
criticizing Star Trek. It is in fact carefully regulated. Licenses
can be obtained by sending subspace requests to Starfleet Headquarters,
San Francisco, California, North America, Sol III. Now on with the
important stuff . . .
> In STAR TREK III McCoy even comments on all those arguments that Spock
> lost. Now since argument should be an exercise in logic . . . [Spock]
> should not lose an argument.
He never did. That's McCoy's opinion, that Spock lost arguments.
Regarding Spock's decisions at the end of "The Galileo Seven":
> I would have thought that what Spock did was the only logical thing to
> do, but the script has Spock accept it as an emotional action.
Not at all. Spock says it was logical to take an illogical action.
About Diane Duane and the screwed-up chess scene with McCoy and Spock:
If Spock says he cannot find a way out of check, then any conclusion
Duane writes which has McCoy winning the game is STUPID. This only
proves that Diane Duane is a particularly bad writer, especially when
it comes to Star Trek.
> STAR TREK says emotion is better than logic;
On the contrary, Star Trek says they are different, neither is superior.
Accept both as useful in their own circumstances. IDIC.
> Spock, as he is in the TV series is pretty close to an ideal . . .
> It is McCoy and occasionally Kirk who seem to have problems . . .
> Spock seems comfortable with his origins when there isn't someone else
> trying to rub his nose in them.
I agree 95 per cent. Spock wasn't comfortable until the end of
"Star Trek: The Motion Picture".
The half-white, half-AmerIndian analogy only applies if the person had
tried to suppress his white half for years and only recently came to
terms with the fact that his white half is valuable; he is not a whole
person as long as he suppresses half of himself. That's what ALL of
the first Star Trek movie is about.
> Spock denied being human (he does so in ST3).
Context, please?
> [the eulogy] was a comment that . . . Spock, if he were alive, would
> have denied . . .
I disagree strongly. He would have said, "Why, thank you, Captain."
> It would have been much better to say he represented the best that was
> human and the best that was Vulcan.
Absolutely.
--
"Listen, in order to maintain airspeed velocity a swallow needs to beat
its wings forty-three times every second. Right?"
Roger Noe ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe
MKR
>
>> I would have thought that what Spock did was the only logical thing to
>> do, but the script has Spock accept it as an emotional action.
>
>Not at all. Spock says it was logical to take an illogical action.
>
an illogical act, but Spock accepted that it was (well, the script writers
accepted that it was).
>
>> STAR TREK says emotion is better than logic;
>
>On the contrary, Star Trek says they are different, neither is superior.
>Accept both as useful in their own circumstances. IDIC.
>
Yes, but at the end of ST:TMP, Kirk makes some inane comment about
why mankind is so great - "the capcaity to leap beyond logic." I submit
that it is this capacity that causes problems, and when it solves them, it
is either pure luck or evidence of script writers.
>
>The half-white, half-AmerIndian analogy only applies if the person had
>tried to suppress his white half for years and only recently came to
>terms with the fact that his white half is valuable; he is not a whole
>person as long as he suppresses half of himself. That's what ALL of
>the first Star Trek movie is about.
>
I disagree - I think the only excuse for that remark is that there
really are no vulcans to be offended. If there were such a beast, and if
genetics allowed them to inter-breed (iron-based systems with copper-based),
I would assume that either of these remarks would offend the halfbreed:
He was the ultimate human.
He was the ultimate vulcan.
>> [the eulogy] was a comment that . . . Spock, if he were alive, would
>> have denied . . .
>
>I disagree strongly. He would have said, "Why, thank you, Captain."
>
I think he would have ripped Jim a new asshole and then started
to cry, yelling "Am not! Am not! Am not! Whatever you say I am you are
only more so!"
>> It would have been much better to say he represented the best that was
>> human and the best that was Vulcan.
>
>Absolutely.
Absolutely.
> Roger Noe ihnp4!riccb!rjnoe
--MKR
Ray Chen
Mark, do you remember what novel/draft this came from?
The reason for this inquiry is that the scene you've described sounds
very similar to a scene in "My Enemy, My Ally" by Dianne Duane
(her latest, published Star Trek novel). There, *Kirk* and Spock were
playing a new variant on chess, "4-D" chess. When it looked like Kirk
had had it and was about to resign, McCoy asked if he could take over,
did so, made some changes, (don't ask to me explain exactly what but it
was believable) and promptly beat Spock.
Before you go jumping about how McCoy shouldn't have been able
to beat Spock if Kirk couldn't, remember that the game was a
*new* variant with a very complex wrinkle that neither Spock
nor Kirk had ever played before.
I'm thinking what Mark may have heard was Dianne Duane
reading a draft section of "My Enemy, My Ally" that was changed
before it got published.
I don't remember when "My Enemy, My Ally" was published and
I don't have it handy (it's in Maryland, unfortunately).
Mark, you remember when you heard the draft read?
Ray Chen
gatech!gitpyr!chen
P.S. -- Also, even if what Mark heard was a draft of a new novel,
I don't really think it's fair to judge Dianne on something
that wasn't published yet. She seems to have an "airy" or
semi-romantic writing style. So while I don't think she'll ever
write a darker story like "City on the Edge of Forever",
or "Balance of Terror", I do think she does a good job
of writing interesting stories that stay ring true.
Much more so than many authors I've seen out there.
(At the risk of offending people, need I mention the
"Vulcan Academy Murders" or far worse, "The Trellisane
Confrontation" ?? Ugh.)
Ray Chen
my room.)
Ray Chen
gatech!gitpyr!chen
Jim Stivers
>
> Followup to "His was the most human..."
> by Mark R. Leeper
Point 1:
> So how did Spock lose arguments? In one episode Spock was in charge of
>a lost shuttlecraft party. The ENTERPRISE was giving up looking. Spock
>took all the remaining energy and put it into an emergency burst from the
>engines. The ENTERPRISE picked up the signal and the party was rescued.
>Later Spock loses an argument over the incident because, as Kirk claims, the
>emergency call against all odds was a human and emotional thing to do. The
>scriptwriter would have us believe the logical course of action would be to
>lie down and die and to pass up even a faint hope of rescue. I would have
>thought that what Spock did was the only logical thing to do, but the script
>has Spock accept it as an emotional action. With arguments as contrived as
>that, it's no wonder that the side in favor of logic loses. It is
>unrealistic that Spock would accept such a feeble argument, let alone lose
>to it. I have been watching some old episodes, and time and again when the
>humans claim the human way is superior, the arguments are just as contrived.
Point 2:
> I heard an author (Diane Duane) reading an excerpt from a draft "Star
>Trek" novel. Spock was playing chess, was put in check, and with his logic
>could see no way out. McCoy takes over for him and with an emotional attack
>turns the tide of the game. Hurrah! Another triumph for emotionalism over
>logic. One minor problem: McCoy's counterattack did not take Spock out of
>check.
Although this is my first reply on the network I've been reading
the articles for some time now and I have a few comments on some of the
points that Mr. Leeper was tring to make in this article. As for point
one that I have abstracted from the article, I AGREE with you that Spock
did do the most logical option available to him , Scotty even agrees that
it was probably the best possible move. As for the part about Spock accepting
it as an emotional situation, I feel that it was too late in the program to
really start a big debate on the issue. Time, I feel, got to Spock NOT the
writers themselves.
On his point two, if Bones did not take Spock out of check he loses
therefore HOW could he turn the game around ?????? Granted if there was a
possible move Spock would have found it BUT the computer could NOT beat
him because he programmed the computer HIMSELF. He says so in an episode,
I forget the name of it, where Jim Kirk is on trial for ejecting a pod too
soon, but I digress. I just wnated to make the point clear to all that Spock
should not lose unless he makes a mistake(a HUMAN characteristic) and that
the game was lost before Bones took over for him so any argument about
LOGIC vs EMOTIONALISM is absurd.
Other opinions ?????
Ben Lotto
I shot Kirk today. And Spock. And McCoy.
I left all the extras alive.
-Ben
m.r.leeper
>> lost. Now since argument should be an exercise in logic . . . [Spock]
>> should not lose an argument.
>
>He never did. That's McCoy's opinion, that Spock lost arguments.
I think it was also the opinion of the director. Why else would Spock
have a puzzled expression on his face and Kirk and McCoy have smiles of
apparent victory?
>Regarding Spock's decisions at the end of "The Galileo Seven":
>
>> I would have thought that what Spock did was the only logical thing to
>> do, but the script has Spock accept it as an emotional action.
>
>Not at all. Spock says it was logical to take an illogical action.
But it wasn't an illogical action. It is a contradiction in terms to
be logical to take an illogical action. In this case the logical
action is to take whatever action is possible. The emotional response
would be to either do the same or to give in to pessimism and not try.
I would rather have the logical entity making the decisions, not an
emotional one.
>
>About Diane Duane and the screwed-up chess scene with McCoy and Spock:
>If Spock says he cannot find a way out of check, then any conclusion
>Duane writes which has McCoy winning the game is STUPID. This only
>proves that Diane Duane is a particularly bad writer, especially when
>it comes to Star Trek.
Someone must have pointed this out to her. I am told that by the time
the book came to print, it was Kirk who had given up on the game, not
Spock. I have not seen the book but this is a much more satisfying way
of doing the scene.
>
>> STAR TREK says emotion is better than logic;
>
>On the contrary, Star Trek says they are different, neither is superior.
>Accept both as useful in their own circumstances. IDIC.
Maybe that is what they are saying, since I think everyone involved
thinks Spock is pretty useful to have aboard. I am not sure in what
situations the emotional mind is actually better than the logical one.
An unfeeling piece of logical machinery, assuming it is properly
programmed for the situations it will face, and assuming that
programming has the proper sets of priorities, should match or beat the
emotional approach every time.
>
>> Spock, as he is in the TV series is pretty close to an ideal . . .
>> It is McCoy and occasionally Kirk who seem to have problems . . .
>> Spock seems comfortable with his origins when there isn't someone else
>> trying to rub his nose in them.
>
>I agree 95 per cent. Spock wasn't comfortable until the end of
>"Star Trek: The Motion Picture".
Yes, but that story was contrived to say that Spock saw something
better in the mixed approach. It was making the false statement that
creativity and pure logic are mutually exclusive. As a mathematician I
know that is balderdash. There is nothing illogical about curiosity or
creativity. In pure mathematics logic, creativity and curiosity come
together very well.
>
>The half-white, half-AmerIndian analogy only applies if the person had
>tried to suppress his white half for years and only recently came to
>terms with the fact that his white half is valuable; he is not a whole
>person as long as he suppresses half of himself. That's what ALL of
>the first Star Trek movie is about.
I don't follow why you say the analogy isn't applying. Spock's soul
wasn't human. If anything it was better than human.
>
>> Spock denied being human (he does so in ST3).
>
>Context, please?
Sorry it was ST2. I was listening to it as I was writing. I haven't
had a chance to go back and find the line again.
>
>> [the eulogy] was a comment that . . . Spock, if he were alive, would
>> have denied . . .
>
>I disagree strongly. He would have said, "Why, thank you, Captain."
He did point out that he wasn't human in ST2 so I disagree with you.
Mark Leeper
...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
Science Fiction + Fantasy Society
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Keywords:
Xref: ukc net.startrek:97 net.sf-lovers:7221
Xpath: ukc eagle
Well done! It's about time someone stood up for those cute little red ones
that never seem to come back!
Jerry Aguirre
>The reason for this inquiry is that the scene you've described sounds
>very similar to a scene in "My Enemy, My Ally" by Dianne Duane
>(her latest, published Star Trek novel). There, *Kirk* and Spock were
>playing a new variant on chess, "4-D" chess. When it looked like Kirk
>had had it and was about to resign, McCoy asked if he could take over,
>did so, made some changes, (don't ask to me explain exactly what but it
>was believable) and promptly beat Spock.
>
>Before you go jumping about how McCoy shouldn't have been able
>to beat Spock if Kirk couldn't, remember that the game was a
>*new* variant with a very complex wrinkle that neither Spock
>nor Kirk had ever played before.
The reason it was believable was in the nature of the game. Unlike
standard chess where all positions are visible this was more like
"battleship" or poker in that the "position" of many of the opponents
pieces were UNKNOWN. Thus a major portion of the game was in trying to
outguess an apponents stratigy.
McCoy explained that he used information gleened from Spock's
(confidential) psychological medical records and exploited a weekness in
Spock's personality.
This was entirely consistent with previous stories in which Kirk has
pointed out that, in a game like poker, logic isn't enough. It is also
consistent with McCoy's constant poking at Spock's psychology.
Jerry Aguirre @ Olivetti ATC
{hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|glacier|olhqma}!oliveb!jerry
Sean Yoda Rouse
>>> lost. Now since argument should be an exercise in logic . . . [Spock]
>>> should not lose an argument.
>>
>>He never did. That's McCoy's opinion, that Spock lost arguments.
>
>I think it was also the opinion of the director. Why else would Spock
>have a puzzled expression on his face and Kirk and McCoy have smiles of
>apparent victory?
>
I always looked upon the line as humorous and meant as a joke. McCoy and
Spock always argued, but I can't recall either of them winning one, something
always came up that interupted the arguement.
>>About Diane Duane and the screwed-up chess scene with McCoy and Spock:
>>If Spock says he cannot find a way out of check, then any conclusion
>>Duane writes which has McCoy winning the game is STUPID. This only
>>proves that Diane Duane is a particularly bad writer, especially when
>>it comes to Star Trek.
>
>Someone must have pointed this out to her. I am told that by the time
>the book came to print, it was Kirk who had given up on the game, not
>Spock. I have not seen the book but this is a much more satisfying way
>of doing the scene.
How about in Charlie X when Captain Kirk beats Spock. Spock says something
like "Your illogical manner of playing chess sometimes has it's advantages".
If that's not exactly right, which wouldn't surprise me, I'm sure the poster
will fix it. Anyway, Kirk beat him, so why couldn't McCoy beat him?
>>
>>> STAR TREK says emotion is better than logic;
>>
>>On the contrary, Star Trek says they are different, neither is superior.
>>Accept both as useful in their own circumstances. IDIC.
>
>Maybe that is what they are saying, since I think everyone involved
>thinks Spock is pretty useful to have aboard. I am not sure in what
>situations the emotional mind is actually better than the logical one.
>An unfeeling piece of logical machinery, assuming it is properly
>programmed for the situations it will face, and assuming that
>programming has the proper sets of priorities, should match or beat the
>emotional approach every time.
>
An example when logic doesn't win: The Cobermite Maneuver,
Spock likens the battle of wits between the Enterprise and the First Federation
to a game of chess, in which they've lost. But Kirk says, "Not chess, poker",
and then uses the Cobermite bluff to get out of that situation.
>>> Spock denied being human (he does so in ST3).
>>
>>Context, please?
>
>Sorry it was ST2. I was listening to it as I was writing. I haven't
>had a chance to go back and find the line again.
It takes place when Spock goes to save the Enterprise. McCoy says,
"No human can survive the radiation thats in there!". To which Spock
replies, "As you are most fond of saying Doctor, I am not human."
(Remember all the times McCoy says, "You green-blooded, inhuman....")
>>
>>> [the eulogy] was a comment that . . . Spock, if he were alive, would
>>> have denied . . .
>>
>>I disagree strongly. He would have said, "Why, thank you, Captain."
>
>He did point out that he wasn't human in ST2 so I disagree with you.
Still, it was meant as compliment. I thought it was proper. Kirk wasn't
saying that Spock was a human being, folks. When he said, "of all of
the souls I have ever met, his was the most human.", he meant that Spock
had shown the ideals of humanity more than anyone else.
Let's look at some of the "human" things Spock has done...
He endangered his career to save Captain Pike, with whom he had served
on the Enterprise.
He saved a few Enterprise crewmen in different episodes at the risk of
his own life (Ens. Garavick, Stiles, etc)
He sacrificed his life to save everyone on board the Enterprise.
There are others, but I just can't think of them, I'm sure other
people can add to this list, but even those two are human, especially the
first one. Do you think that Spock would've thought of taking someone else
to Tarsis 4? I don't. There is logic in what Spock did, but if Spock was
human, he would have done the same. To me, that's what Kirk meant by saying
"his was most human". Just think about that for a while.
-Sean "Yoda" Rouse
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
ARPA: cc...@cory.berkeley.edu
UUCP: ucbvax!cory!cc-30
"Television...destroys the mind, corrupts the soul."
--Remington Steele
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
David desJardins
>
>The reason it was believable was in the nature of the game. Unlike
>standard chess where all positions are visible this was more like
>"battleship" or poker in that the "position" of many of the opponents
>pieces were UNKNOWN. Thus a major portion of the game was in trying to
>outguess an apponents stratigy.
>
>McCoy explained that he used information gleened from Spock's
>(confidential) psychological medical records and exploited a weekness in
>Spock's personality.
>
>This was entirely consistent with previous stories in which Kirk has
>pointed out that, in a game like poker, logic isn't enough. It is also
>consistent with McCoy's constant poking at Spock's psychology.
Sorry for cross-posting to net.games, but I want to clear up a fairly
common misconception. In *all* games satisfying certain minimal criteria
(finiteness etc.), whether or not they contain hidden information, there
is an "optimal" strategy. This includes battleship and poker, the examples
given above.
Obviously this strategy cannot be sufficient to win any individual game,
but it is optimal in the sense that no strategy is statistically superior
in a long run of games. And in particular, since all decisions in the
optimal strategy are made randomly, no knowledge of the opponent's psychology
can be helpful against a player who plays the optimal strategy.
A note: the example of battleship is particularly interesting to me as
I have spent some time trying to work out optimal strategy for simplified
versions of this game. If there is any interest in discussing this on
the net, or if anyone has interesting insights into this problem please
let me know. (Maybe we need a net.games.theory? :-))
-- David desJardins
P.S. Please direct followup articles to only the applicable newsgroups.
mike knudsen
It is also ironic that what McCoy did was very LOGICAL,
based on the medical records.
I'd rather you had said that Spock couldn't beat Kirk because
he couldn't think enuf like a human to outguess Kirk's
strategies -- whereas another emotional, intuitive, etc.
human (like Bones) could.
In fact, Spock might lose often since he simply couldn't
imagine all the stupid, crazy random things a human might
do. Somehwere I recall an SF story where some people
beat a big computer/robot/Vger/whatever for that reason
at something really important -- wish I could recall
the details.
mike k
KW Heuer
>In article <6...@oliveb.UUCP> je...@oliveb.UUCP (Jerry Aguirre) writes:
>>The reason it was believable was in the nature of the game. Unlike
>>standard chess where all positions are visible this was more like
>>"battleship" or poker in that the "position" of many of the opponents
>>pieces were UNKNOWN. Thus a major portion of the game was in trying to
>>outguess an apponents stratigy.
>>
>>McCoy explained that he used information gleened from Spock's
>>(confidential) psychological medical records and exploited a weekness in
>>Spock's personality.
>>
>>This was entirely consistent with previous stories in which Kirk has
>>pointed out that, in a game like poker, logic isn't enough. It is also
>>consistent with McCoy's constant poking at Spock's psychology.
>
>battleship and poker, the examples given above.... This strategy ...
>is optimal in the sense that no strategy is statistically superior
>in a long run of games. And in particular, since all decisions in the
>optimal strategy are made randomly, no knowledge of the opponent's
>psychology can be helpful against a player who plays the optimal strategy.
True, but in most games which are actually played by intelligent people
the optimal strategy is so complex that it can't be computed efficiently,
so each player must create his own approximation to optimality (and
possibly revise it as the game progresses). And without a true optimal
strategy, psychology can play an important role, even in modern chess.
Btw, it is interesting to note that it is sometimes better *not* to play
"optimally". If you are convinced that your opponent isn't using his
optimal strategy, there is often a counter-strategy which will give you
a higher payoff -- until he catches on and plays the counter-counter-
strategy, which is a good time to switch back to the optimum.
Anyway, it seems to me that the incident from Star Trek was scientifically
sound, which is nice for a change. :-)
Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint
m.r.leeper
>>>About Diane Duane and the screwed-up chess scene with McCoy and Spock:
>>>If Spock says he cannot find a way out of check, then any conclusion
>>>Duane writes which has McCoy winning the game is STUPID. This only
>>>proves that Diane Duane is a particularly bad writer, especially when
>>>it comes to Star Trek.
>>
>>Someone must have pointed this out to her. I am told that by the time
>>the book came to print, it was Kirk who had given up on the game, not
>>Spock. I have not seen the book but this is a much more satisfying way
>>of doing the scene.
>
>How about in Charlie X when Captain Kirk beats Spock. Spock says something
>like "Your illogical manner of playing chess sometimes has it's advantages".
>If that's not exactly right, which wouldn't surprise me, I'm sure the poster
>will fix it. Anyway, Kirk beat him, so why couldn't McCoy beat him?
You are comparing apples and oranges. In a whole game, someone who
plays illogically might on rare occasions be unpredictable enough to
have a minor advantage. If it was more often than rare occasions and
if the advantage was significant, that would be a logical way to play,
probably using some randomizing element to create the unpredictability.
However in the Duane draft game the situation was that Spock could not
get his side out of check and when McCoy took over he could. If a
logical mind cannot find a way out of check, it is unlikely that an
illogical mind would. Nothing but logic will get you out of check.
Emotional approaches only come in if there are two or more ways out of
check and you have to choose between them.
>There is logic in what Spock did, but if Spock was human, he
>would have done the same. To me, that's what Kirk meant by saying
>"his was most human". Just think about that for a while.
How about thinking about this for a while. We are all agreed that Kirk
meant the statment to be a compliment. How it was intended is not the
issue. What we are talking about is more the taste that Kirk used in
choosing this "compliment." If the series actually has the point of
view that humans are superior to Vulcans then it fits perfectly into
that context, but the whole context if questionable. I just don't
like having my science fiction say to me "Ain't it great that we are
human and not like that Vulcan." I don't see that it is so much better
to be human if at all. If the series is taking a more objective point
of view, it is just the Kirk eulogy that is in bad taste.
If possible I would like to stop beating this dead horse. :-)
Mark Leeper
...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
mce...@uiucdcs.cs.uiuc.edu
> How about in Charlie X when Captain Kirk beats Spock. Spock says something
> like "Your illogical manner of playing chess sometimes has it's advantages".
Hasn't anyone else noticed that this statement is idiotic? If Kirk won, how
can his play be described as "illogical"?
Scott McEwan
{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan
"What? That? It was just a filthy demon! It wasn't even from this dimension!"
Barry Margolin
>> How about in Charlie X when Captain Kirk beats Spock. Spock says something
>> like "Your illogical manner of playing chess sometimes has it's advantages".
>
>Hasn't anyone else noticed that this statement is idiotic? If Kirk won, how
>can his play be described as "illogical"?
Have you ever played a game and tried to lose while the other player is
playing normally? I often do this when playing games against the
computer, just for variety. It's remarkable how well you can do when
trying to do poorly. The problem is that the other player makes
decisions predicated on the assumption that you will be playing
logically. When a player is building a move tree in his mind, he
generally only expands certain branches, and makes his move based on
that pruned tree; if the opponent decides to follow one of the other,
less promising branches, the player's original move may turn out to be
less than optimal.
A good way to confound a logical player is to make completely random
moves. The logic involved in strategic game playing generally involves
predicting the other player's moves; this is quite difficult if the
other player is random. Kirk's play was probably not random, but he
probably guessed every now and then, which was enough to throw Spock's
strategy off.
--
Barry Margolin
ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics
UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar
mce...@uiucdcs.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> How about in Charlie X when Captain Kirk beats Spock. Spock says something
>>> like "Your illogical manner of playing chess sometimes has it's advantages".
>>
>>Hasn't anyone else noticed that this statement is idiotic? If Kirk won, how
>>can his play be described as "illogical"?
>
> Have you ever played a game and tried to lose while the other player is
> playing normally? I often do this when playing games against the
> computer, just for variety. It's remarkable how well you can do when
> trying to do poorly. The problem is that the other player makes
> decisions predicated on the assumption that you will be playing
> logically. When a player is building a move tree in his mind, he
> generally only expands certain branches, and makes his move based on
> that pruned tree; if the opponent decides to follow one of the other,
> less promising branches, the player's original move may turn out to be
> less than optimal.
>
> A good way to confound a logical player is to make completely random
> moves. The logic involved in strategic game playing generally involves
> predicting the other player's moves; this is quite difficult if the
> other player is random. Kirk's play was probably not random, but he
> probably guessed every now and then, which was enough to throw Spock's
> strategy off.
In other words, this is a LOGICAL way to play against such a player, right?
Scott McEwan
{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan
"I'm sorry, sir. According to your identification you're not even born
yet. Come back in 500 years."
M...@psuvma.bitnet
Isn't that a contradiction in terms? (Where have I heard that before?)
-------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
| James D. Maloy | THIS SPACE |
| The Pennsylvania State University | FOR RENT |
| | |
| UUCP Path: ihnp4!psuvax1!m...@psuvma.bitnet | Call 555-6821 |
| | |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I am pleased to see we have differences. May we together become
greater than the sum of both of us."
-- Surak of Vulcan
Ken Arromdee
>>> other player is random. Kirk's play was probably not random, but he
>>> probably guessed every now and then, which was enough to throw Spock's
>>> strategy off.
>>In other words, this is a LOGICAL way to play against such a player, right?
>Isn't that a contradiction in terms? (Where have I heard that before?)
The point is that randomly does NOT mean "without logic", that in fact
the most logical move can be a random decision. I am cross-posting this to
net.math to see if any game theorists can confirm this... (can you?)
--
"Father, they DO know what they are doing!"
Kenneth Arromdee
BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS
CSNET: ins_...@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhu...@hopkins.ARPA
UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!whuxcc} !jhunix!ins_akaa
Patrick M Juola
>>>> A good way to confound a logical player is to make completely random
>>>> moves. The logic involved in strategic game playing generally involves
>>>> predicting the other player's moves; this is quite difficult if the
>>>> other player is random. Kirk's play was probably not random, but he
>>>> probably guessed every now and then, which was enough to throw Spock's
>>>> strategy off.
>>>In other words, this is a LOGICAL way to play against such a player, right?
>>You mean the logical thing to do is to play randomly, without logic?
>>Isn't that a contradiction in terms? (Where have I heard that before?)
>The point is that randomly does NOT mean "without logic", that in fact
>the most logical move can be a random decision. I am cross-posting this to
>net.math to see if any game theorists can confirm this... (can you?)
>--
If I have to post another games theory article....
All right, guys -- in the *general* case, there are games that the *best*,
read *most logical*, strategy is to play randomly. Read any games theory,
finite mathematics, or linear algebra text to find examples. I'll mention
just one -- you and your opponent set a penny down, either heads or tails.
If you match, you win; otherwise your opponent wins. The best strategy is
to play randomly. No matter what he does, you will at least break even.
Now, on to the chess example. First of all -- let's get something straight.
Spock is NOT infinitely intelligent -- he can be beaten (by the computer, by
Kirk.) He is simply a damn good player, but Kirk can sometimes come up with
an attack that Spock didn't expect. Heck, Spock may even make "blunders"!
To those of you who think Spock is never wrong, just remember that he
botched the acetylcholine test in "The Immunity Syndrome" or whatever the
cosmic amoeba was called....
The next person who posts a games theory article will feel the full force
of my wrath....
Pat Juola
Hopkins Maths
"Mr. Chekov, arm photon torpedoes!"
m.r.leeper
>>In other words, this is a LOGICAL way to play against such
>>a player, right?
>
Or pseudo-randomly.
>without logic?
No, to play pseudo-randomly with logic. In game theory one often sees
that the best results can be accomplished by using a randomizing
element. Suppose you are playing the children's game of "which had is
the candy in?" The best strategy in this game is to decide perfectly
randomly which hand to put the candy in. The fact that decisions are
made randomly in a process does not imply that that process is without
logic. In fact it may be totally logical and still have a randomizing
element.
>Isn't that a contradiction in terms? (Where have I heard that
>before?)
Hardly. Why do you keep insisting that logic and randomness are
completely incompatible?
Mark Leeper
...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
mce...@uiucdcs.cs.uiuc.edu
>>> A good way to confound a logical player is to make completely random
>>> moves. The logic involved in strategic game playing generally involves
>>> predicting the other player's moves; this is quite difficult if the
>>> other player is random. Kirk's play was probably not random, but he
>>> probably guessed every now and then, which was enough to throw Spock's
>>> strategy off.
>
>>
>
> Isn't that a contradiction in terms? (Where have I heard that before?)
Only because you are making the totally illogical assumption that playing
randomly is illogical. The idea is to win the game; if playing randomly
leads to victory, then it is logical to play randomly. "Random" is
not the opposite of "logical".
Doug Gwyn
> >>> moves. The logic involved in strategic game playing generally involves
> >>> predicting the other player's moves; this is quite difficult if the
> >>> other player is random. Kirk's play was probably not random, but he
> >>> probably guessed every now and then, which was enough to throw Spock's
> >>> strategy off.
> >>In other words, this is a LOGICAL way to play against such a player, right?
> >You mean the logical thing to do is to play randomly, without logic?
> >Isn't that a contradiction in terms? (Where have I heard that before?)
> The point is that randomly does NOT mean "without logic", that in fact
> the most logical move can be a random decision. I am cross-posting this to
> net.math to see if any game theorists can confirm this... (can you?)
Yes, logical play in a two-player, zero-sum, discrete, finite,
perfect-information, non-cooperative* game in general actually
REQUIRES the use of a device for making a weighted random choice
among several alternative pure strategies. A good, although
rather dated, elementary introduction to this subject can be
found in "The Compleat Strategist", written long ago by someone
(whose name I have unfortunately forgotten) from the Rand Corp.
* I wonder if I included enough qualifiers.
M...@psuvma.bitnet
>>>In other words, this is a LOGICAL way to play against such
>>>a player, right?
>>
>
>
>>without logic?
>
>No, to play pseudo-randomly with logic. In game theory one often sees
>that the best results can be accomplished by using a randomizing
>element. Suppose you are playing the children's game of "which had is
>the candy in?" The best strategy in this game is to decide perfectly
>randomly which hand to put the candy in. The fact that decisions are
>made randomly in a process does not imply that that process is without
>logic. In fact it may be totally logical and still have a randomizing
>element.
>
>>before?)
>
>completely incompatible?
> Mark Leeper
to take an illogical action is a contradiction in terms." Ever since then,
I've been trying to show that it is NOT a contradiction, and that your own
position on "pseudo-randomness" is proof of this.
Consider the following example: I have to deliver a package to someone,
and it has to be there by a certain time. I have a choice of two roads to
take, road A or road B. I know that one of them is very crowded and slow at
this time of day (and would prevent me from arriving on time), but I can't
remember which one it is. No one else around knows either. Finally, with no
other alternative, I flip a coin. Using the result of the coin flip, I decide
on road A.
Question: Was my decision to take road A a logical decision?
Answer: NO!! I had no logical reason of any kind to pick road A
over road B.
Question: Was my decision to choose between the two roads with a
coin flip a logical decision?
Answer: YES!! With no facts available, the only logical
alternative was to abandon logic and resort to randomness.
Hopefully this will clear up my position once and for all. Randomness
CAN become a logical alternative, but it is NOT itself logical. So, there ARE
times when the logical thing to do is be illogical; but, a creature/machine
that is both devoted to pure logic and loath to be illogical at any time for
any reason would never see this.
-------
------------------
James D. Maloy | THIS SPACE |
The Pennsylvania State University | FOR RENT |
lam...@boring.uucp
> (whose name I have unfortunately forgotten) from the Rand Corp.
J.D. Williams, The Compleat Strategyst, McGraw-Hill, 1954.
--
Lambert Meertens
...!{seismo,okstate,garfield,decvax,philabs}!lam...@mcvax.UUCP
CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science), Amsterdam
David desJardins
>the most logical move can be a random decision. I am cross-posting this to
>net.math to see if any game theorists can confirm this... (can you?)
Yes, in fact in almost all hidden-information games (that is, games where
you do not know exactly what your opponent is doing) random moves are often
part of the optimal strategy.
In games like chess with no hidden information the optimal strategy never
requires random decisions, but some random decisions can nevertheless be
useful in real, non-optimal strategies (for example, to avoid repeating
previous defeats).
-- David desJardins
Steve Schlaifer x3171 156/224
> Yes, logical play in a two-player, zero-sum, discrete, finite,
> perfect-information, non-cooperative* game in general actually
> REQUIRES the use of a device for making a weighted random choice
> among several alternative pure strategies. A good, although
> rather dated, elementary introduction to this subject can be
> found in "The Compleat Strategist", written long ago by someone
> (whose name I have unfortunately forgotten) from the Rand Corp.
>
was published by McGraw-Hill in 1966. It was from a RAND corporation research
study. Copyright dates are given as 1954 and 1966 RAND corporation.
--
...smeagol\ Steve Schlaifer
......wlbr->!jplgodo!steve Advance Projects Group, Jet Propulsion Labs
....group3/ 4800 Oak Grove Drive, M/S 156/204
Pasadena, California, 91109
+1 818 354 3171
m.r.leeper
>>Hardly. Why do you keep insisting that logic and
>>randomness are completely incompatible?
>
>"To be logical to take an illogical action is a
>contradiction in terms." Ever since then, I've been trying
>to show that it is NOT a contradiction, and that your own
>position on "pseudo-randomness" is proof of this.
incompatible. It seems to me you have just been making this false
statement over and over. I was going to give you the example of
evens-odds as an example of a game in which the logical thing to do is
to make random choices. Another poster beat me to it by giving the
same example with pennies.
>Consider
>the following example: I have to deliver a package to
>someone, and it has to be there by a certain time. I have a
>choice of two roads to take, road A or road B. I know that
>one of them is very crowded and slow at this time of day
>(and would prevent me from arriving on time), but I can't
>remember which one it is. No one else around knows either.
>Finally, with no other alternative, I flip a coin. Using
>the result of the coin flip, I decide on road A.
>
>Question: Was my decision to take road A a logical decision?
>Answer: NO!! I had no logical reason of any kind to pick road
>A over road B.
>Question: Was my decision to choose between the two roads
>with a coin flip a logical decision?
>Answer: YES!! With no facts available, the
>only logical alternative was to abandon logic and resort to
>randomness.
The logical thing to do is use all the data at your disposal to make
the best decision between two alternatives. If no data gives you any
information as to which is better use a choice method and follow that
choice. Your second question you have answered correctly except that
it is not abandoning logic. It is choosing the most logical course of
action: finding a choice algorithm and abiding by that choice. You are
absolutely wrong on your first answer though. The logical reason you
had for choosing A is that you had picked a choice algorithm (logically
as you admit) and it told you to take road A. You are merely complying
with the choice algorithm that you have logically chosen.
>
>Hopefully this will clear up my position once and for all.
>Randomness CAN become a logical alternative, but it is NOT
>itself logical.
If we are going to word this precisely, randomness is a statistical
condition that is neither logical nor illogical. Those adjectives don't
apply to the word "randomness" itself. The decision that an optimal
choice algorithm available to you includes a randomizing element can be
a logical decision as you say above. The decision to follow the
dictates of an optimal choice algorithm is ALWAYS logical. (Please
note, incidently, we say AN optimal choice algorithm, not THE optimal
choice algorithm. Another choice algorithm that gives you another
answer can also be optimal. But it better give you an answer that it
just as good based on the data you have.)
Oh, and it should be noted for others getting involved in this
discussion that I never claimed that Kirk or McCoy could not beat
Spock in a generalized game of chess. The original question dealt with
Spock not being able to find a way out of check and another player
finding one. Finding a way out of check is a much simpler problem than
simply winning and a logical mind like Spock's should find a way out if
anyone could.
Mark Leeper
...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper
mce...@uiucdcs.cs.uiuc.edu
> A long time ago in a posting far, far away, you said that "To be logical
> to take an illogical action is a contradiction in terms."
And I agreed to it. It seems so obvious to me that I'm amazed that anyone
would argue against it.
> Ever since then,
> I've been trying to show that it is NOT a contradiction, and that your own
> position on "pseudo-randomness" is proof of this.
Mark also said:
>Hardly. Why do you keep insisting that logic and randomness are
>completely incompatible?
which you don't seem to understand. I will state it again: saying that
an action is random DOES NOT automatically imply that it is illogical.
> Consider the following example: I have to deliver a package to someone,
> and it has to be there by a certain time. I have a choice of two roads to
> take, road A or road B. I know that one of them is very crowded and slow at
> this time of day (and would prevent me from arriving on time), but I can't
> remember which one it is. No one else around knows either. Finally, with no
> other alternative, I flip a coin. Using the result of the coin flip, I decide
> on road A.
>
> Question: Was my decision to take road A a logical decision?
> Answer: NO!! I had no logical reason of any kind to pick road A
> over road B.
WRONG! Since both roads have the same probability of being the "correct"
road, ANY method of selecting between them is logical. An illogical
decision would be to take road C, which doesn't go where you want to,
or to select randomly when the probabilities are NOT equal.
> Question: Was my decision to choose between the two roads with a
> coin flip a logical decision?
> Answer: YES!! With no facts available, the only logical
> alternative was to abandon logic and resort to randomness.
Right and wrong. While I obviously agree that the choice was logical, it
is not true that "the only logical alternative was to abandon logic and
resort to randomness" on two points: 1) logic is not abandoned, and
2) resorting to randomness is not the only alternative; ANY method of
selecting a road is equally logical.
>
> Hopefully this will clear up my position once and for all. Randomness
> CAN become a logical alternative, but it is NOT itself logical. So, there ARE
> times when the logical thing to do is be illogical; but, a creature/machine
> that is both devoted to pure logic and loath to be illogical at any time for
> any reason would never see this.
I think all you've proven is that you're schizophrenic.
Scott McEwan
{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan
Green s/m watchlizard seeks s/f/wl - object: companionship. Reply
Box 23, Cynosure.
Andrew Koenig
random decisions.
Each of us puts a penny on the table, covered by a hand
so the other cannot see it. We then both remove our hands
from the pennies. If they match, you win. If not, I win.
B.KORT
is to randomly select a move among a set of alternatives.
This leads to an interesting point. To a disinterested observer,
a random strategy may be perceived as an "irrational" strategy.
(Hence the phrase, "there is method to his madness.) In general,
if someone is evidently following a nondeterministic (hence
unpredictible) strategy, is it decidable whether the person is
using a logical random strategy or merely behaving erratically?
It seems to me that it would be very difficult to decide the issue
unless one had many repetitions of the play upon which to cumulate
statistics.
--Barry Kort ...ihnp4!houxm!hounx!kort