Was the One Ring sentient? (proposed FAQ entry)

Stan Brown

unread,

May 13, 2002, 8:24:45 AM5/13/02

to

In the FAQ of the Rings <http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm>
I promise to answer this question. Before putting my answer into the
FAQ, I'd like to get comments and (I'm sure) improvements from the
group. Since there are multiple points of view on this issue, I'd
like to represent the major ones fairly.

(FWIW, I was of the opinion that the Ring was not sentient, but just
gave off some sort of "field of evil". While I think it is possible
to explain most of what happened on that basis, I don't think that
explains why the Ring would slip on or off a finger. So I have come
around to the view that the Ring was sentient, though I still think
it was Frodo and not the Ring speaking to Gollum on Mount Doom.)

Was the One Ring sentient? (Draft version 0.1)
=========================

The /American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language/ (Third
Edition, 1992) defines "sentient" as "1. Having some perception;
conscious. ... 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling." When people
ask whether the Ring was sentient, typically they aren't
wondering whether it could feel but whether it could make choices
and act on a definite purpose.

While we cannot answer definitely "Yes" or "No", it is consistent
with what Tolkien has written to say that the Ring could act
independently.

When telling Frodo about the Ring's history, Gandalf says "A Ring
of Power looks after itself, Frodo. It may slip off
treacherously, but its keeper never abandons it. At most he plays
with the idea of handing it on to someone else's care - and that
only at an early stage, when it first begins to grip. But as far
as I know Bilbo alone in history has ever gone beyond playing,
and really done it. He needed all my help, too. And even so he
would never have just forsaken it, or cast it aside. It was not
Gollum, Frodo, but the Ring itself that decided things. The Ring
left him." (I 2 68-69)

And a little later, Gandalf makes the point again with more
examples: "The Ring was trying to get back to its master. It had
slipped from Isildur's hand and betrayed him; then when a chance
came it caught poor Déagol, and he was murdered; and after that
Gollum, and it had devoured him. It could make no further use of
him: he was too small and mean; and as long as it stayed with him
he would never leave his deep pool again. So now, when its master
was awake once more and sending out his dark thought from
Mirkwood, it abandoned Gollum. Only to be picked up by the most
unlikely person imaginable: Bilbo from the Shire!" (I 2 69)

In a Letter, Tolkien says directly, "Even from afar [Sauron] had
an effect upon it, to make it work for its return to himself." L
#246 332)

So if the Ring could act to bring about its purpose -- getting
back to Sauron -- then why did it expose itself to Bilbo? More
directly, when "an Orc would [suit] it better" doesn't such a
choice argue that the Ring was not making choices?

Gandalf meets this objection: The fact that Bilbo picked up the
Ring was not the Ring's doing, and not Sauron's. "There was more
than one power at work, Frodo. ... beyond any design of the
Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was
meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker." (I 2 69) In other
words, someone other than the Ring chose Bilbo -- Eru? the Valar?
-- we are not told. On this view, where the Ring made a choice
was in slipping off Bilbo's finger and betraying him to the Orcs
(Hobbit V 99), as it had betrayed Isildur (UT GF 279). And it's
quite possible that the Ring tried to betray Frodo by slipping onto
his finger at the Prancing Pony in Bree (I 9 176), though Aragorn
seems to blame Frodo (I 9 177).

On the other hand, it is certainly possible to argue that the
Ring didn't make choices any more than an ant does: that in
effect it operated out of instinct, a sort of Sauron-tropism.
Tolkien's word "trying" is not conclusive: we often speak of a
lower animal "trying" to do something where we don't imply
conscious thought. We can even say that ivy "tries" to get better
sunlight when it grows up the side of a house.

It is one thing to state that the Ring was sentient and made
choices; though that is not the only possible interpretation. It
goes much further to say that the Ring spoke to Gollum on Mount
Doom. (VI 3 979) That is a much more controversial issue, for
which you are referred to the Tolkien Newsgroups FAQ entry "Did
the Ring itself speak to Gollum on Mt. Doom?" at
<http://tolkien.slimy.com/faq/Internal.html#RingSpeak>.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://oakroadsystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ: http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm

Aris Katsaris

unread,

May 13, 2002, 9:04:43 AM5/13/02

to

"Stan Brown" <qx1...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.17497a976...@news.odyssey.net...

> In the FAQ of the Rings <http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm>
> I promise to answer this question. Before putting my answer into the
> FAQ, I'd like to get comments and (I'm sure) improvements from the
> group. Since there are multiple points of view on this issue, I'd
> like to represent the major ones fairly.

For starters how frequently an asked question is this? Before showing
us the answer to judge, IMO it's needed to demonstrate the frequency
of the question to judge the need for a possible inclusion.
(the problem with FAQs that are many dozens pages long is that
nobody reads them. Best put in FAQs only the real frequently asked
questions)

Aris Katsaris

Troels Forchhammer

unread,

May 13, 2002, 11:17:09 AM5/13/02

to

"Stan Brown" <qx1...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.17497a976...@news.odyssey.net...

> In the FAQ of the Rings <http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm>
> I promise to answer this question. Before putting my answer into the
> FAQ, I'd like to get comments and (I'm sure) improvements from the
> group. Since there are multiple points of view on this issue, I'd
> like to represent the major ones fairly.
>
> (FWIW, I was of the opinion that the Ring was not sentient, but just
> gave off some sort of "field of evil". While I think it is possible
> to explain most of what happened on that basis, I don't think that
> explains why the Ring would slip on or off a finger. So I have come
> around to the view that the Ring was sentient, though I still think
> it was Frodo and not the Ring speaking to Gollum on Mount Doom.)

I never even considered the possibility of the Ring speaking - I'll
have to read the passage again to see if I can make that make sense
at all ;-)

> Was the One Ring sentient? (Draft version 0.1)
> =========================
>
> The /American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language/ (Third
> Edition, 1992) defines "sentient" as "1. Having some perception;
> conscious. ... 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling." When people
> ask whether the Ring was sentient, typically they aren't
> wondering whether it could feel but whether it could make choices
> and act on a definite purpose.

I have no doubt that the Ring could somehow sense it's surroundings -
how else could it 'pick' such critical moments to slip off (and posibly
on) fingers.

> While we cannot answer definitely "Yes" or "No", it is consistent
> with what Tolkien has written to say that the Ring could act
> independently.

You might reference the speach of the black sword in Narn i Hîn
Húrin to show that Tolkien was not averse to sentient inanimate
objects.

> It is one thing to state that the Ring was sentient and made
> choices; though that is not the only possible interpretation. It
> goes much further to say that the Ring spoke to Gollum on Mount
> Doom. (VI 3 979) That is a much more controversial issue, for
> which you are referred to the Tolkien Newsgroups FAQ entry "Did
> the Ring itself speak to Gollum on Mt. Doom?" at
> <http://tolkien.slimy.com/faq/Internal.html#RingSpeak>.

I would think that the frequency with which references to this
question pops up would justify the inclusion of the above in the
RingFAQ - otherwise I might just have to raise question repeatedly
myself ;-)
(I know I'm a pest, but I really think this question is extremely
interesting, and that is - for me - a valid factor in deciding whether
to include the question).

--
Troels Forchhammer
Please reply to (t.f...@mail.dk)

For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided
into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from,
and (d) rocks.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites)

Mark Constantino

unread,

May 13, 2002, 2:07:12 PM5/13/02

to

>Best put in FAQs only the real frequently asked
>questions

Chicken dung! What you really want to know is which type of varnish Tolkien
prefers? The dead do not tell their secrets and magicians never reveal their
jokes.

But the answer is easily obtained from experiment and the idea of "magnitude of
material effect". The guy on the left is no Xena.

Strider

unread,

May 13, 2002, 2:33:33 PM5/13/02

to

"Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
news:abodoj$74n$1...@usenet.otenet.gr...

I would suspect that since the movie this is a question that is being
asked fairly frequently, for it is clear that in the movie the ring is
indeed sentient in some way: The damn thing speaks. As the movie
Gandalf says, "It wants to be found."

So imo this is a worthy question to be included and addressed in the
FAQ.

Al

the softrat

unread,

May 13, 2002, 3:26:33 PM5/13/02

to

NO! THE FUCKING RING WAS NOT SENTIENT!

Live with it!

the softrat "He who rubs owls"
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
"A new study shows that licking a frog can cure depression. The
down side is, the minute you stop licking, the frog gets
depressed again." --Jay Leno

Pradera

unread,

May 13, 2002, 3:28:26 PM5/13/02

to

Użytkownik the softrat <sof...@pobox.com> w wiadomooci do grup dyskusyjnych
napisał:vp40euk24puafkof3...@4ax.com...

> NO! THE FUCKING RING WAS NOT SENTIENT!
>
> Live with it!

He failed on most IQ tests - got only 20-30... when encountered a problem
'choose a symbol' he always pointed the round ones...

--
Pradera.
'I am known under many names...
Sigurd to some...Pradera to others...
In 1997 I was called Dorxter...
So yes, you may call me Pradera.'

Nystulc

unread,

May 13, 2002, 3:46:27 PM5/13/02

to

Stan Brown wrote:

>It is one thing to state that the Ring was sentient and made
>choices; though that is not the only possible interpretation. It
>goes much further to say that the Ring spoke to Gollum on Mount
>Doom. (VI 3 979) That is a much more controversial issue, for
>which you are referred to the Tolkien Newsgroups FAQ entry "Did
>the Ring itself speak to Gollum on Mt. Doom?" at
><http://tolkien.slimy.com/faq/Internal.html#RingSpeak>.

Except that referencing this site via a link will provide no information that
you could not provide yourself far more efficiently. Jensen's FAQ devotes
about a single line each to both sides in the "Ring Speaks debate".

This is the only way he could be "balanced" (depending on what you call
"balanced"). After all, the argument in favor of the Ring speaking consists of
a single line: "Tolkien says the Ring Spoke, so There!" Jensen's summary of
the counterarguments, which could easily make a long essay, is by no means
adequate, but if he were to provide one, he would no doubt be accused of an
unbalanced presentation.

BTW, I was reading through your other posts, and, while most is great, I
thought one answer was misleading. Your answer to the question "Why did Sauron
cripple himself by making the Ruling Ring?" begins with the phrase "Because he
had to."

Sauron did not "have to" do anything, unless you take his goals into account.
Stating these goals would make a more appropriate and direct answer to the
question. Sauron wanted to enslave the world. For this he needed more power.
The creation of the Ruling Ring was part off a scheme to enhance his power by
stealing to himself the Power of the Elves, whom he had tricked into investing
their inherent power into magic Rings.

And, of course, you fail to immediately challenge (and acknowledge by
implication) the false assumption of the question - which is that Sauron was
crippled by the creation of the Ring. He was not crippled, not even when not
wearing it. When he did wear it, however, his power was considerably enhanced.
Only the Ring's destruction would cripple him, and that was something which he
never envisioned, for he had made the Ring virtually indestructible by any
being of lesser power.

Nystulc

unread,

May 13, 2002, 3:52:19 PM5/13/02

to

Aris Katsaris wrote:

>For starters how frequently an asked question is this? Before showing
>us the answer to judge, IMO it's needed to demonstrate the frequency
>of the question to judge the need for a possible inclusion.
>(the problem with FAQs that are many dozens pages long is that
>nobody reads them. Best put in FAQs only the real frequently asked
>questions)

Stan Brown's "FAQ of the Rings" is not a general Tolkien FAQ, but rather a
specialized Q&A providing trivia about Rings of Power. This question is quite
appropriate for inclusion. The only debatable issue is whether he should call
his site an "FAQ" or maybe something else to avoid confusion, so that newbies
looking for the real FAQ don't go to the wrong place.

Mark Constantino

unread,

May 13, 2002, 4:10:58 PM5/13/02

to

>NO! THE FUCKING RING WAS NOT SENTIENT!
>

OOooooooou!

TemporaryGaBe

unread,

May 13, 2002, 4:15:04 PM5/13/02

to

>"1. Having some perception;
>conscious. ... 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling." When people
>ask whether the Ring was sentient, typically they aren't
>wondering whether it could feel but whether it could make choices
>and act on a definite purpose.

I would take one more step and say that the Ring _did_ experience sensation and
feeling. When Bombadil wore the Ring, it expanded to fit his finger. When
Frodo got it back it obviously shrank to fit his own. If the Ring could not
feel, how would it "know" when to stop shrinking? I would also think the Ring
has to know the difference between living and nonliving matter, because if it
didn't, wouldn't it shrink to fit the chain? It might be difficult to imagine,
but this is a magical Ring, and I would certainly be open to the possibility
that the Ring had some "mind" of its own.

gabe

Pradera

unread,

May 13, 2002, 4:16:28 PM5/13/02

to

Użytkownik TemporaryGaBe <tempor...@aol.com> w wiadomości do grup
dyskusyjnych napisał:20020513161504...@mb-mk.aol.com...

> >"1. Having some perception;
> >conscious. ... 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling." When people
> >ask whether the Ring was sentient, typically they aren't
> >wondering whether it could feel but whether it could make choices
> >and act on a definite purpose.
>
> I would take one more step and say that the Ring _did_ experience
sensation and
> feeling. When Bombadil wore the Ring, it expanded to fit his finger.
When
> Frodo got it back it obviously shrank to fit his own. If the Ring could
not
> feel, how would it "know" when to stop shrinking?

Remembering shapes and elasticity is not a matter of being sentient... it
seems though that Sauron was the first to invent elastic metal.

AC

unread,

May 13, 2002, 4:42:07 PM5/13/02

to

On 13 May 2002 19:46:27 GMT, nys...@cs.com (Nystulc) wrote:
>Sauron did not "have to" do anything, unless you take his goals into account.
>Stating these goals would make a more appropriate and direct answer to the
>question. Sauron wanted to enslave the world. For this he needed more power.
>The creation of the Ruling Ring was part off a scheme to enhance his power by
>stealing to himself the Power of the Elves, whom he had tricked into investing
>their inherent power into magic Rings.

I don't think that enhancing his power and making "more" power are the
same thing. I don't think that the Ring gave Sauron any "more" power
as a direct mathematical statement (ie. 1+1=2). I think by putting
forth his power into the Ring he gained a great ability to dominate
minds, which appears to have been the Ruling Rings purpose.

>
>And, of course, you fail to immediately challenge (and acknowledge by
>implication) the false assumption of the question - which is that Sauron was
>crippled by the creation of the Ring. He was not crippled, not even when not
>wearing it. When he did wear it, however, his power was considerably enhanced.
> Only the Ring's destruction would cripple him, and that was something which he
>never envisioned, for he had made the Ring virtually indestructible by any
>being of lesser power.

He was indeed crippled by the lack of the Ring. As Tolkien said in
Letters, he was effectively less powerful in the Third Age than he was
during the Second.

--
AaronC

Troels Forchhammer

unread,

May 13, 2002, 5:00:49 PM5/13/02

to

Stan Brown wrote:

> So I have come
> around to the view that the Ring was sentient, though I still think
> it was Frodo and not the Ring speaking to Gollum on Mount Doom.)

Just reread the passage with this view in mind, and I now (for the first
time) see how it can be construed to mean that the Ring spoke to
Gollum. Don't believe it either!
I guess the counter arguments have been presented thoroughly and
repeatedly here, so I won't go into that - I just wanted to state for the
record that though I strongly support the idea of a sentient Master Ring,
I do not believe that it spoke at Mount Doom!

--
Troels Forchhammer
Please reply to t.f...@mail.dk

They both savoured the strange warm glow of being much more
ignorant than ordinary people, who were only ignorant of
ordinary things.
-- Discworld scientists at work (Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites)

Jay Random

unread,

May 13, 2002, 6:58:34 PM5/13/02

to

Pradera wrote:

>
> Remembering shapes and elasticity is not a matter of being sentient... it
> seems though that Sauron was the first to invent elastic metal.

The Ring did not simply alter its size to fit the wearer's finger.
Sometimes it altered its size specifically so as _not_ to fit, as when
it slipped off of Isildur's finger. (I'm not sure it's stated just how
Gollum came to lose it, but I suspect it was another case of
expanding-Ring syndrome.) Tolkien quite specifically states that the
Ring `no longer had any use for Gollum'. To use things (or people) as
instruments implies goals, what the Scholastics called `final causes';
to have goals implies sentience, if not outright intelligence.

You may try to shrug this off by saying that Gandalf was speaking
figuratively. But the essential `narrative protocol' of fantasy
literature, including the Northern myths & legends that so profoundly
informed Tolkien's life & work, is that _the pathetic fallacy is to be
taken as literally true_. In real life (or in a story in a `realistic'
setting), if I say my ring fell off my finger on purpose, I am
attributing an impossible quality to it. Rings don't have a sense of
purpose; they don't do things on their own. If a character in a
`realistic' novel says something of this kind, we know one of two
things: either he's telling a tall tale for humorous effect (the
Murphy's Law method of attributing malice to inanimate objects), or he's
out of his head. We know he's an unreliable narrator. In fantasy, we
_must_ assume that the narrator is reliable unless & until we are given
information to the contrary. Rings _can_ be sentient in a work of
fantasy; horses can fly, the dead can walk the earth, men can be
immortal, the world can be flat & teeming with incorporeal spirits. We
have only the author's word for what constitutes `reality' inside his
story. We have Tolkien's word that the Ring made decisions on its own &
was trying to get back to its master. By the rules of the game, we have
to accept that as the literal truth within the frame of the tale.

(Gandalf, incidentally, proved himself many times to be the most
reliable narrator of all the characters in LOTR. His statements are
almost always in accord with Tolkien's own pronouncements about that
world, & in fact he often seems to speak as an author-surrogate.
Whenever Tolkien needs to give the readers background information, &
also needs to feed it to the other characters, he generally has Gandalf
do it, because Gandalf can speak to both audiences at once.)

Aris Katsaris

unread,

May 13, 2002, 7:14:07 PM5/13/02

to

"Jay Random" <jra...@bondwine.ca> wrote in message
news:3CE0451...@bondwine.ca...

>
> Pradera wrote:
>
> > Remembering shapes and elasticity is not a matter of being sentient... it
> > seems though that Sauron was the first to invent elastic metal.
>
> The Ring did not simply alter its size to fit the wearer's finger.
> Sometimes it altered its size specifically so as _not_ to fit, as when
> it slipped off of Isildur's finger. (I'm not sure it's stated just how
> Gollum came to lose it, but I suspect it was another case of
> expanding-Ring syndrome.) Tolkien quite specifically states that the
> Ring `no longer had any use for Gollum'. To use things (or people) as
> instruments implies goals, what the Scholastics called `final causes';
> to have goals implies sentience, if not outright intelligence.

I disagree... I think that objects in Tolkien's universe can have "will" without
having sentience. Morgoth's will may be imbued throughout the world, and
Sauron's will may have been bound inside the ring, and Eol's dark will might
still live on inside Gurthang, and elven sword might be "glad" when they had
the chance to kill orcs, and the Silmaril may have chosen to bear Beren's
touch...

...but IMO sentience is something different, awareness of one's own self.
I don't think that the Melkor element is sentient, even though it may have
a "will". Nor do I think that the Ring or the Silmaril was sentient...

Gurthang's a somewhat different matter because it seems even more self-aware
than most other objects when it responds to Turin's question - but then again
who was there to witness it speaking except soon-to-be-dead Turin himself?

Aris Katsaris

Stan Brown

unread,

May 13, 2002, 10:15:34 PM5/13/02

"This is all very interesting, and I daresay you already see me
frothing at the mouth in a fit; but no, I am not; I am just
winking happy thoughts into a little tiddle cup." (Nabokov,
Lolita)

Kristian Damm Jensen

unread,

May 14, 2002, 2:08:26 AM5/14/02

to

the softrat wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 May 2002 22:16:06 -0400, qx1...@bigfoot.com (Stan Brown)
> wrote:
> >the softrat <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >>NO! THE FUCKING RING WAS NOT SENTIENT!
> >>
> >>Live with it!
> >
> >Well, _that_ was constructive!
> >
> Sometimes I think that I am too subtle for this newsgroup.

As subtle as a sledgehammer.

--
Kristian Damm Jensen | Feed the hungry at www.thehungersite.com
kristian-d...@cgey.dk | Two wrongs doesn't make a right,
ICQ# 146728724 | but three lefts do.

Troels Forchhammer

unread,

May 14, 2002, 3:21:48 AM5/14/02

to

"Stan Brown" <qx1...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Aris Katsaris <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> > ...but IMO sentience is something different, awareness of one's own
self.
> > I don't think that the Melkor element is sentient, even though it may
have
> > a "will". Nor do I think that the Ring or the Silmaril was sentient...
>
> Couldn't the Ring be sentient because of sharing not only part of
> Sauron's power but part of Sauron's soul? (That's a new thought with
> me, so it might be completely silly.)

I think this is very similar to the thought I was trying to develop, when
I suggested that the Ring might have shared some of Sauron's Flame
Imperishable (I have this idea that the FI is a necessary though perhaps
not sufficient requirement for a soul).

I do think that whatever sentience / awareness the One Ring had, this
had its ultimate source in the power that came from Sauron - I don't
think he had the power to create a new awareness - merely a semi-
independent extension of his own will and awareness.

I do not believe that the Ring had an awareness of itself as an independent
entity - rather I believe it had an awareness of its maker (or master - it
never had other masters than Sauron, so it's hard to tell the difference)
his will and wishes. The Ring would - if its consciousness was sufficiently
developed - IMO have understood itself as an extension of its maker.

> As for the Silmaril being sentient, we do read that before Morgoth's
> throne "the jewel suffered [Beren's] touch and hurt him not." That
> sounds a bit like the Silmaril making a decision.
>
> What do others think?

It does indeed.
I don't think it would be entirely out of question either - the use of
personification - attributing conscious will and awareness - to animals
and objects are common in myth, and Tolkien seems IMO to have
been consciously utilizing the traditional narrative devices of the North
European mythical tradition.

This rather opens the field. When Gandalf says that "_It_ may slip off
treacherously..." he is speaking of the Rings of Power in general - does
this mean that all the Rings of Power were to some extent sentient?
Though IMO this would be to a lesser extend than the Master Ring.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Please send replies to <t.f...@mail.dk>

"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."
Wolfgang Pauli, on a paper submitted by a physicist colleague

Troels Forchhammer

unread,

May 14, 2002, 3:32:31 AM5/14/02

to

"Jay Random" <jra...@bondwine.ca> wrote in message

news:3CE08767...@bondwine.ca...
>
<snipping dictionary definitions of sentience>
For the record I belive the One Ring was conscious.

>
> When _I_ say the Ring was sentient, I mean that it was capable of
> sensing & reacting to its surroundings (which is obviously true), & that
> it had certain functions or faculties suggestive of mental capacity,
> such as will, the ability to choose or reject a bearer, & (most
> important of all) the power to influence its wearer by suggestion.
> Recall Sam's vision of `Samwise the Strong, Hero of the Age',
> overthrowing Barad-dūr & turning Mordor into a garden, while he had the
> Ring on. What I do _not_ mean is that it was necessarily self-aware,
> that it had any mental process so complete & integrated that we should
> call it a `personality'. It had various mental functions, & some of
> these were exceedingly powerful: we should not be surprised at this, for
> they came from the spirit of Sauron. It was not a complete, functioning
> mind in itself: we should expect this, for Sauron made the Ring to
> express his own will to power, not to be capable of contradicting it.

I think we agree on the basics here.
I believe the One Ring was capable of pursuing a goal - making
rational decisions and formulating strategies towards obtaining that
goal, but I do _not_ believe that the Ring was capable of formulating
that goal - the final cause must come from Sauron.

This formulating of goals - or final causes if you will - is IMO at
the core of the personality, so I cannot believe either that the Ring
had what we should call a personality.

Aris Katsaris

unread,

May 14, 2002, 4:33:17 AM5/14/02

to

"Stan Brown" <qx1...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message

news:MPG.174a3d4ff...@news.odyssey.net...

> Aris Katsaris <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >...but IMO sentience is something different, awareness of one's own self.
> >I don't think that the Melkor element is sentient, even though it may have
> >a "will". Nor do I think that the Ring or the Silmaril was sentient...
>
> Couldn't the Ring be sentient because of sharing not only part of
> Sauron's power but part of Sauron's soul? (That's a new thought with
> me, so it might be completely silly.)

Didn't Tolkien says that each soul under Eru is indivisible? I'll have to
search for that.

> As for the Silmaril being sentient, we do read that before Morgoth's
> throne "the jewel suffered [Beren's] touch and hurt him not." That
> sounds a bit like the Silmaril making a decision.

Yes, I said, I believe they can have a will and make decisions without
being sentient...

Aris Katsaris

Tim Howe

unread,

May 14, 2002, 7:30:53 AM5/14/02

to

Delurking briefly ...

Jay Random <jra...@bondwine.ca> wrote in message news:<3CE0451...@bondwine.ca>...

> Pradera wrote:
>
> >
> > Remembering shapes and elasticity is not a matter of being sentient... it
> > seems though that Sauron was the first to invent elastic metal.
>
>
> The Ring did not simply alter its size to fit the wearer's finger.
> Sometimes it altered its size specifically so as _not_ to fit, as when
> it slipped off of Isildur's finger. (I'm not sure it's stated just how
> Gollum came to lose it, but I suspect it was another case of
> expanding-Ring syndrome.) Tolkien quite specifically states that the
> Ring `no longer had any use for Gollum'. To use things (or people) as
> instruments implies goals, what the Scholastics called `final causes';
> to have goals implies sentience, if not outright intelligence.

not necessarily. It certainly implies Saruon's sentience, but not
necessarily the ring's. The ring could have been pre-programmed so to
speak to behave in certain ways without actually making decisions of
it's own. We don't think of computers as being sentient despite some
behaviors which may appear as such. For example, Saruon "programmed"
the ring to either slip on or off at any time it may place an enemy
into peril. Or if an owner possessed it too long without concern for
using it. Gollum lost the ring only after he no longer really needed
to use it most of the time. Isildur was an enemy. Frodo was an enemy
(with regards to slipping onto his finger in Bree). However the ring
was also unable to do anything physical beyond changing size. And
that could be activated by the presence of a "spirit" or a "soul"
alone, hence it does not change while on the chain etc. Now, how it
recognized an enemy I don't know. It might be anyone other than
Saruon, or possibly it is triggered by some personality trait.

Also, interestingly, I don't know that the ring did change size for
Tom Bombadil. I'll have to re-read the passage but didn't he just
slip it onto the tip of his finger, implying that it does not change?

> You may try to shrug this off by saying that Gandalf was speaking
> figuratively. But the essential `narrative protocol' of fantasy
> literature, including the Northern myths & legends that so profoundly
> informed Tolkien's life & work, is that _the pathetic fallacy is to be
> taken as literally true_. In real life (or in a story in a `realistic'
> setting), if I say my ring fell off my finger on purpose, I am
> attributing an impossible quality to it. Rings don't have a sense of
> purpose; they don't do things on their own. If a character in a
> `realistic' novel says something of this kind, we know one of two
> things: either he's telling a tall tale for humorous effect (the
> Murphy's Law method of attributing malice to inanimate objects), or he's
> out of his head. We know he's an unreliable narrator. In fantasy, we
> _must_ assume that the narrator is reliable unless & until we are given
> information to the contrary.

Or it's a way of describing something as accurately as possible
without delving into an excessively long explaination. Or possibly
Gandalf does not know the exact nature of the ring because no one does
other than Saruon, and he isn't talking. The powers of the ring were
well known to all the wise, but the physical attributes mabye less so.
We know that despite his long struggle, Gandalf had to travel all the
way to Minas Tirith to study before he could say for sure that Frodo's
even WAS the one ring. Afterall, only one being held the ring before
it passed out of knowledge other than Saruon.

Which raises another question, if the one ring is sentient, does that
imply that the other rings of power are too? Gandalf's comment about
the ring seems to apply universally in this regard so I'd say yes.

> Rings _can_ be sentient in a work of
> fantasy; horses can fly, the dead can walk the earth, men can be
> immortal, the world can be flat & teeming with incorporeal spirits. We
> have only the author's word for what constitutes `reality' inside his
> story. We have Tolkien's word that the Ring made decisions on its own &
> was trying to get back to its master. By the rules of the game, we have
> to accept that as the literal truth within the frame of the tale.

But even decisions do not imply sentience necessarily, they merely
imply a sufficiently adequate set of rules or instincts. I'd argue
that ants are not sentient, but they do make decisions. Plants are
definately not sentient but they too make decisions in a way. To
imply sentience we'd have to prove that the ring somehow understood
the decisions.

Frankly though, given the tone of the stories, I agree that the ring
is sentient. In that it is at least dimly self-aware and makes
considered decisions. But I don't know that I can prove it, devil's
advocate and all that.

cheers

unread,

May 14, 2002, 6:11:22 PM5/14/02

to

"Stan Brown" <qx1...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message

news:MPG.174b4acb6...@news.odyssey.net...

> Aris Katsaris <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >I disagree... I think that objects in Tolkien's universe can have "will"
without
> >having sentience. Morgoth's will may be imbued throughout the world, and
> >Sauron's will may have been bound inside the ring, and Eol's dark will might
> >still live on inside Gurthang, and elven sword might be "glad" when they had
> >the chance to kill orcs, and the Silmaril may have chosen to bear Beren's
> >touch...
>
> I don't understand what you are saying here. Except for "glad" --
> which meets the definition of sentience -- all your examples of
> having a "will" don't seem like that to me at all. To me, having
> "will" implies having desires and doing something intended to
> achieve them -- which again means sentience.

I used "sentience" as a synonym for "self-awareness". Having "will"
for me simply implies having desires - doing something about them
isn't that necessary. Wasn't Sauron's will after all raised to impotence,
to the point where he *couldn't* do anything to achieve his desires?

"Will" as I use it may be a simple instinct, like a hungry dog wanting to
eat, or even an insect laying eggs. Not necessary a sign of sentience.

> The way you're using "will" seems to me a lot more like the effect
> of curses: bad things happen to people who are exposed, but it's the
> curse itself operating and not the cursed object.

Umm... no. I made no reference at all to the people "exposed", I'm simply
saying that it's not a "concscious" decision of the objects in questions. Their
behaviour is caused by their inherent nature, or their sharing in the will of
their makers.

If you would call an insect sentient simply because it "does things intended
to achieve its goals", or because it's aware of its environents, then those
objects were sentient. It's just not the definition I'm using.

Aris Katsaris

John B. Whelan

unread,

May 15, 2002, 6:42:20 AM5/15/02

to

sp...@nospam.com (AC) wrote in message news:<3ce02505....@news2.randori.com>...

> On 13 May 2002 19:46:27 GMT, nys...@cs.com (Nystulc) wrote:
> >Sauron did not "have to" do anything, unless you take his goals into account.
> >Stating these goals would make a more appropriate and direct answer to the
> >question. Sauron wanted to enslave the world. For this he needed more power.
> >The creation of the Ruling Ring was part off a scheme to enhance his power by
> >stealing to himself the Power of the Elves, whom he had tricked into investing
> >their inherent power into magic Rings.
>
> I don't think that enhancing his power and making "more" power are the
> same thing.

He did not "make" more power, he appropriated it. He tricked the
elves in investing their creative power into artifacts, and then
seized control of those artifacts.

> I don't think that the Ring gave Sauron any "more" power
> as a direct mathematical statement (ie. 1+1=2).

Where do you think the power that the Elves invested in their rings
went, when the Elves lost control of said rings?

> I think by putting
> forth his power into the Ring he gained a great ability to dominate
> minds, which appears to have been the Ruling Rings purpose.

In other words, by creating the One Ring, he gained "more" of the type
of power he wanted - power to dominate minds. And, of course, by
dominating other minds, he gained fairly direct control over the
inherent powers of others in addition to his own. Do you really argue
that one's power does not increase when another creature becomes one's
slave?

> >And, of course, you fail to immediately challenge (and acknowledge by
> >implication) the false assumption of the question - which is that Sauron was
> >crippled by the creation of the Ring. He was not crippled, not even when not
> >wearing it. When he did wear it, however, his power was considerably enhanced.
> > Only the Ring's destruction would cripple him, and that was something which he
> >never envisioned, for he had made the Ring virtually indestructible by any
> >being of lesser power.
>
> He was indeed crippled by the lack of the Ring. As Tolkien said in
> Letters, he was effectively less powerful in the Third Age than he was
> during the Second.

Sauron without the Ring was "crippled" compared to Sauron with the
Ring, but NOT compared to Sauron before he made the Ring (which is
what we are discussing). If, after making the Ring, Sauron had
immediately misplaced it, his power would not have increased, but
neither would it have been diminished. Only the destruction of the
Ring would cripple Sauron, and that was an eventuality he never
counted on.

"While he wore it, his power on Earth was actually enhanced. But even
if he did not wear it, that power existed and was in 'rapport' with
himself: he was not 'diminished'. Unless some other siezed it and
became possessed of it. If that happened, the new possessor could (if
sufficiently strong and heroic by nature) challenge Sauron, become
master of all that he had learned or done since the making of the One
Ring, and so overpower him and usurp his place."

Conrad Dunkerson

unread,

May 17, 2002, 6:38:30 PM5/17/02

to

"Stan Brown" <qx1...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message

news:MPG.174a3d4ff...@news.odyssey.net...

> As for the Silmaril being sentient, we do read that before Morgoth's
> throne "the jewel suffered [Beren's] touch and hurt him not." That
> sounds a bit like the Silmaril making a decision.

I'd call that more a use of figurative language. Similar to saying
that 'my car suffered my insistence that we drive to work again'.
I do not think it is indicative of sentience in the jewels - it can
be read that way, but I don't think that was Tolkien's intent.

As to the Ring. It shows some 'tendencies' which can be ascribed to
sentience but could also be put down to 'fate' or 'programming'. It
is possible that the Ring did not so much act voluntarily as inherently
influence events to bring suffering on any bearer other than Sauron...
like a traditional 'cursed object'. Alternatively, it could have some
simple defined parameters that it would follow without having any
understanding of self. Either of these can explain any of the
'actions' of the Ring (short of speaking if we were to accept that
reading).

Against the idea of true sentience and self-motivation are the various
times that the Ring was used in actions against Sauron's best
interests. If the Ring was aware and had a choice it should not under
any circumstances have made Sam seem menacing to the Orcs at the tower
of Cirith Ungol.

Ideologically speaking it should have been impossible for Sauron to
'create' a sentience... and since there is no mention of a spirit
being bound into the Ring the usual side-step around that problem does
not seem to apply. If the Ring were sentient - how?

That said, I believe the intent likely WAS for something like an
awareness/sentience, but limited in scope. Think of Sam's elven rope
which held perfectly for a long climb down the cliff and then came
loose with a half-hearted tug... this appears to be a clear case of
'decision making', but do we consider the rope sentient? I think it
is more likely that the rope (and the Ring) had a 'greater degree of
functional applicability'... they could be relied on to be more
useful/attuned to the owner's purposes than a regular item, but they
would still only act within a limited range defined by their natures.

Trevor Barrie

unread,

May 17, 2002, 6:17:39 PM5/17/02

to

In article <MPG.17497a976...@news.odyssey.net>,
Stan Brown <qx1...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Was the One Ring sentient? (Draft version 0.1)
>=========================
>
>The /American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language/ (Third
>Edition, 1992) defines "sentient" as "1. Having some perception;

>conscious. ... 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling." When people
>ask whether the Ring was sentient, typically they aren't
>wondering whether it could feel but whether it could make choices
>and act on a definite purpose.

In other words, whether the ring was rational, or perhaps
"self-willed". Sentience is a tangential issue.

>Gandalf meets this objection: The fact that Bilbo picked up the
>Ring was not the Ring's doing, and not Sauron's. "There was more
>than one power at work, Frodo. ... beyond any design of the
>Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was
>meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker." (I 2 69) In other
>words, someone other than the Ring chose Bilbo -- Eru? the Valar?
>-- we are not told. On this view, where the Ring made a choice
>was in slipping off Bilbo's finger and betraying him to the Orcs
>(Hobbit V 99), as it had betrayed Isildur (UT GF 279). And it's
>quite possible that the Ring tried to betray Frodo by slipping onto
>his finger at the Prancing Pony in Bree (I 9 176), though Aragorn
>seems to blame Frodo (I 9 177).

I don't recall any evidence that Aragon possessed any ringlore of note,
so I wouldn't put much weight on this. (And it's not even clear that he
blamed Frodo; he was dubious of the suggestion that the Ring wound up
on Frodo's finger by "accident", but that could be read both ways.)

>It is one thing to state that the Ring was sentient and made
>choices;

<grump> You're still saying "sentient", even though you point out up
front that sentience is not, in fact, what we're discussing here.

Stan Brown

unread,

May 17, 2002, 8:04:41 PM5/17/02

to

There's much more agreement on the main points than I had expected.
Here's a revised version, based on helpful comments from a number of
people. Unless somebody comes up with a real show-stopper, this
entry or something close to it will be added to the FAQ of the Rings
in a few days.

(If you want to know what's changed since version 0.1, diffs are
posted as a separate article in this thread.)

Was the One Ring sentient? (Draft version 0.2)
=========================

(This FAQ entry is based in part on the May 2002 thread "Was the One
Ring sentient?" in r.a.b.t. You can retrieve the entire thread at
>http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=MPG.17497a976...@news.odyssey.net .)

The /American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language/ (Third
Edition, 1992) defines "sentient" as "1. Having some perception;
conscious. ... 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling." When people
ask whether the Ring was sentient, typically they aren't
wondering whether it could feel but whether it could make choices

and act on a definite purpose. But we shall see evidence that the
Ring is sentient under both parts of the definition.

While we cannot answer definitely "Yes" or "No", it is consistent
with what Tolkien has written to say that the Ring could act
independently. This is also consistent with the traditions of
myth, where objects do think and feel. We see another example in
Turin's talking sword in /The Silmarillion/ ("Of Turin Turambar"
225)

What in the story suggests that the Ring could sense its
surroundings and make decisions?

When telling Frodo about the Ring's history, Gandalf says "A Ring
of Power looks after itself, Frodo. It may slip off
treacherously, but its keeper never abandons it. At most he plays
with the idea of handing it on to someone else's care - and that
only at an early stage, when it first begins to grip. But as far
as I know Bilbo alone in history has ever gone beyond playing,
and really done it. He needed all my help, too. And even so he
would never have just forsaken it, or cast it aside. It was not
Gollum, Frodo, but the Ring itself that decided things. The Ring
left him." (I 2 68-69)

And a little later, Gandalf makes the point again with more
examples: "The Ring was trying to get back to its master. It had
slipped from Isildur's hand and betrayed him; then when a chance
came it caught poor Déagol, and he was murdered; and after that
Gollum, and it had devoured him. It could make no further use of
him: he was too small and mean; and as long as it stayed with him
he would never leave his deep pool again. So now, when its master
was awake once more and sending out his dark thought from
Mirkwood, it abandoned Gollum. Only to be picked up by the most
unlikely person imaginable: Bilbo from the Shire!" (I 2 69)

The Ring certainly seems to choose to accept a master or abandon
one. Recall its betrayal of Isildur in the River near the Gladden
Fields. The Ring not only seems to make choices, it must be able
to sense its surroundings. When it grows smaller to stay on a
finger (remember that Bilbo's was less than half the diameter of
Sauron's or Isildur's) or larger again to slip off a finger, the
Ring must be able to sense the size of the finger that is wearing
it.

In a Letter, Tolkien says directly, "Even from afar [Sauron] had
an effect upon it, to make it work for its return to himself." L
#246 332)

So if the Ring could act to bring about its purpose -- getting
back to Sauron -- then why did it expose itself to Bilbo? More
directly, when "an Orc would [suit] it better" doesn't such a
choice argue that the Ring was not making choices?

Gandalf meets this objection: The fact that Bilbo picked up the
Ring was not the Ring's doing, and not Sauron's. "There was more
than one power at work, Frodo. ... beyond any design of the
Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was
meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker." (I 2 69) In other
words, someone other than the Ring chose Bilbo -- Eru? the Valar?
-- we are not told. On this view, where the Ring made a choice
was in slipping off Bilbo's finger and betraying him to the Orcs
(Hobbit V 99), as it had betrayed Isildur (UT GF 279). And it's
quite possible that the Ring tried to betray Frodo by slipping onto
his finger at the Prancing Pony in Bree (I 9 176), though Aragorn
seems to blame Frodo (I 9 177).

While these passages do suggest a sentient Ring, and most people
who posted to this thread accept that interpretation, it's
possible to interpret them in other ways: perhaps the Ring
operates out of instinct or like a computer program.

Some would argue that the Ring didn't make choices any more than
an ant does: that in effect it operated out of instinct, a sort
of Sauron-tropism. Tolkien's word "trying" is not conclusive: we
often speak of a lower animal "trying" to do something where we
don't imply conscious thought. We can even say that ivy "tries"
to get better sunlight when it grows up the side of a house.

Tim Howe (5c818355.02051...@posting.google.com, 14 May
2002) suggests another intriguing "non-sentient Ring"
explanation: Sauron may have programmed the Ring as we program a
computer or a robot. Computer programs can be fantastically
complicated and can _seem_ to make decisions -- the simple
"Eliza" program of the 1960s could even simulate a psychiatric
session with a real patient -- but all the sentience lies with
the programmer and we don't think of the computer or the program
as sentient. Howe points out that the Ring's actions could be
explained by the program "slip on or off a finger at any time it
will place an enemy in peril, and abandon an owner who possesses
the Ring too long without using it." Such a program would have
the effect of making the Ring turn up eventually if it were ever
separated from Sauron -- and as an immortal he could afford to
wait.

But even though one can give explanations that don't require the
Ring to be sentient, it seems likely that Tolkien intended it to
be so. This "pathetic fallacy", though a logical error in the
real world, is a standard part of many myths, and would therefore
quite likely be a standard part of Tolkien's myth as well.

It is one thing to state that the Ring was sentient and made

choices. Though that is not the only possible interpretation,
most opinions on r.a.b.t seem to go that way. Whether the Ring
spoke to Gollum on Mount Doom. (VI 3 979) is a much more

controversial issue, for which you are referred to the Tolkien
Newsgroups FAQ entry "Did the Ring itself speak to Gollum on Mt.
Doom?" at <http://tolkien.slimy.com/faq/Internal.html#RingSpeak>.

Stan Brown

unread,

May 17, 2002, 8:07:15 PM5/17/02

to

As promised, here are the diffs between versions 0.1 and 0.2. ">"
marks lines added, and "<" marks lines removed. (The program, by the
way, is a DOS command-line shareware program that I wrote. If
interested, have a look at
<http://oakroadsystems.com/sharware/cmp.htm>.)

** comparing ring sentient? 0.1 and ring sentient? 0.2
3a4,7

> (This FAQ entry is based in part on the May 2002 thread "Was the One
> Ring sentient?" in r.a.b.t. You can retrieve the entire thread at
> http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=MPG.17497a976...@news.odyssey.net .)
>

9c13,14

< and act on a definite purpose.

---

> and act on a definite purpose. But we shall see evidence that the
> Ring is sentient under both parts of the definition.

13c18,24
< independently.
---

> independently. This is also consistent with the traditions of
> myth, where objects do think and feel. We see another example in
> Turin's talking sword in /The Silmarillion/ ("Of Turin Turambar"
> 225)
>
> What in the story suggests that the Ring could sense its
> surroundings and make decisions?

36a48,56

> The Ring certainly seems to choose to accept a master or abandon
> one. Recall its betrayal of Isildur in the River near the Gladden
> Fields. The Ring not only seems to make choices, it must be able
> to sense its surroundings. When it grows smaller to stay on a
> finger (remember that Bilbo's was less than half the diameter of
> Sauron's or Isildur's) or larger again to slip off a finger, the
> Ring must be able to sense the size of the finger that is wearing
> it.
>

59,65c79,111
< On the other hand, it is certainly possible to argue that the

< Ring didn't make choices any more than an ant does: that in
< effect it operated out of instinct, a sort of Sauron-tropism.
< Tolkien's word "trying" is not conclusive: we often speak of a
< lower animal "trying" to do something where we don't imply
< conscious thought. We can even say that ivy "tries" to get better
< sunlight when it grows up the side of a house.

---

68,73c114,120
< choices; though that is not the only possible interpretation. It
< goes much further to say that the Ring spoke to Gollum on Mount
< Doom. (VI 3 979) That is a much more controversial issue, for

< which you are referred to the Tolkien Newsgroups FAQ entry "Did
< the Ring itself speak to Gollum on Mt. Doom?" at
< <http://tolkien.slimy.com/faq/Internal.html#RingSpeak>.

---

> choices. Though that is not the only possible interpretation,
> most opinions on r.a.b.t seem to go that way. Whether the Ring
> spoke to Gollum on Mount Doom. (VI 3 979) is a much more
> controversial issue, for which you are referred to the Tolkien
> Newsgroups FAQ entry "Did the Ring itself speak to Gollum on Mt.
> Doom?" at <http://tolkien.slimy.com/faq/Internal.html#RingSpeak>.
>

** Time: 0.0 s Lines in file 1: 73 file 2: 120
** The files are significantly different (15+62 lines in 6 blocks)

Russ

unread,

May 17, 2002, 10:42:12 PM5/17/02

to

In article <GDfF8.21830$D41.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Conrad
Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> writes:

>"Stan Brown" <qx1...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.174a3d4ff...@news.odyssey.net...
>
>> As for the Silmaril being sentient, we do read that before Morgoth's
>> throne "the jewel suffered [Beren's] touch and hurt him not." That
>> sounds a bit like the Silmaril making a decision.
>
>I'd call that more a use of figurative language.

Well, I assume he's citing in opposition to Varda's hallowing against impure
and mortal touch. I simply put this in the same category as Beren being able
to pass the Girdle of Melian because his Doom was stronger. Beren's doom was
stronger than even Varda's hallowing. In short, Beren had a pretty strong
backer.

Russ

Trevor Barrie

unread,

May 18, 2002, 3:44:17 AM5/18/02

to

In article <MPG.174f64a1b...@news.odyssey.net>,

Stan Brown <qx1...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>The /American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language/ (Third
>Edition, 1992) defines "sentient" as "1. Having some perception;
>conscious. ... 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling." When people
>ask whether the Ring was sentient, typically they aren't
>wondering whether it could feel but whether it could make choices
>and act on a definite purpose. But we shall see evidence that the
>Ring is sentient under both parts of the definition.

But the ability to make choices and act on a definite purpose isn't
_any_ part of the definition of "sentient".

Stan Brown

unread,

May 18, 2002, 9:49:00 AM5/18/02

to

[cc'd to previous poster; please follow up in newsgroup]

Trevor Barrie <tba...@cs.toronto.edu> wrote in
rec.arts.books.tolkien:

I saw your earlier comment just after I posted version 0.2.

How would you (and others) suggest fixing the FAQ entry? What
exactly _is_ the question? Should I change it to "Was the Ring
alive?" or "Could the Ring think?" or just what? Should I keep the
question but then in an introductory paragraph explain that that
really opens up a whole cluster of questions beyond mere sentience?

Morgoth's Curse

unread,

May 18, 2002, 1:52:16 PM5/18/02

to

On Fri, 17 May 2002 20:04:41 -0400, qx1...@bigfoot.com (Stan Brown)
wrote:

>

>There's much more agreement on the main points than I had expected.
>Here's a revised version, based on helpful comments from a number of
>people. Unless somebody comes up with a real show-stopper, this
>entry or something close to it will be added to the FAQ of the Rings
>in a few days.

I was planning to write a much longer treatise on this point, but I
see that I don't have much time so I will advance my theory now: What
if the Ring was not sentient, but (whether by design or by accident)
exploited the sentience of whomever wore it?

The issue of exactly WHY the Ring should be sentient has bugged me for
years. Sauron could not conceive of anyone willingly destroying the
Ring and it seems to me equally unlikely that he ever thought that he
would lose it or have it taken it from him. (Let's not forget that
Sauron was never known for his foresight.) Why then would he
"program" the Ring to return to him?

Gandalf & Galadriel both stressed that the Ring gave power according
to the stature of the bearer. Might this statement be taken to mean
that the Ring depended upon the intellect and character of its bearer
to "make" decisions? It would certainly be oriented towards evil
since it was created by Sauron, but it could act on ALL of the
bearer's conscious or unconscious desires. Ergo, Gollum had
unconsciously grown to hate the Ring and the effect that it had on his
existence, therefore it "abandoned" him by slipping off his finger at
the first opportune moment. Bilbo was unconsciously wary of using a
magical ring with largely unknown powers and the Ring "betrayed" him
at a singularly inconvenient moment. Both the LoTR and UT acknowledge
that Isildur's affection for the Ring waned just before it betrayed
him. I also find it striking that all three examples of how the Ring
tempted its bearer were also examples of their unconscious desires:
Gollum desired revenge and fish, Boromir wanted the power to govern
other men and prevail in battle and Sam's love of gardening was the
most significant component in his temptation. This also explains (at
least in part) why the Ring had no effect upon Tom Bombadil: He was
free of evil and had no ambition or desire to govern others and
therefore there was nothing the Ring could act upon.

In sum, the Ring was indeed somewhat like a computer: It had the
hardware, but lacked the software which only the bearer could provide.

Morgoth's Curse

Stan Brown

unread,

May 19, 2002, 7:47:17 AM5/19/02

to

Morgoth's Curse <mnk...@att.net> wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:

>The issue of exactly WHY the Ring should be sentient has bugged me for
>years. Sauron could not conceive of anyone willingly destroying the
>Ring and it seems to me equally unlikely that he ever thought that he
>would lose it or have it taken it from him. (Let's not forget that
>Sauron was never known for his foresight.) Why then would he
>"program" the Ring to return to him?

This is an interesting point. You are right about Sauron being
short-sighted; I think we see one of Tolkien's themes in that.

I think you raise a strong argument against Sauron building
decision-making power or even programming into the Ring. But then,
the same argument would say that the Ring doesn't make a mortal
invisible because Sauron had no need for invisibility and never
thought that a mortal would ever wear the Ring.

Can you distinguish between those to conclusions from similar
premises?

Troels Forchhammer

unread,

May 19, 2002, 11:53:27 AM5/19/02

to

Stan Brown wrote:

> Trevor Barrie <tba...@cs.toronto.edu> wrote in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >In article <MPG.174f64a1b...@news.odyssey.net>,
> >Stan Brown <qx1...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >>The /American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language/ (Third
> >>Edition, 1992) defines "sentient" as "1. Having some perception;
> >>conscious. ... 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling." When people
> >>ask whether the Ring was sentient, typically they aren't
> >>wondering whether it could feel but whether it could make choices
> >>and act on a definite purpose. But we shall see evidence that the
> >>Ring is sentient under both parts of the definition.
> >
> >But the ability to make choices and act on a definite purpose isn't
> >_any_ part of the definition of "sentient".
>
> I saw your earlier comment just after I posted version 0.2.
>
> How would you (and others) suggest fixing the FAQ entry? What
> exactly _is_ the question? Should I change it to "Was the Ring
> alive?" or "Could the Ring think?" or just what? Should I keep the
> question but then in an introductory paragraph explain that that
> really opens up a whole cluster of questions beyond mere sentience?

I'd suggest that the question is "what was the One Ring's level of
consciousness?"

This would allow the treatment of sentience in the primitive meaning
given in Online Plain Text English Dictionary:
http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~ralph/OPTED/v003/wb1913_s.html
"Sentient (a.) Having a faculty, or faculties, of sensation and
perception.
Specif. (Physiol.), especially sensitive; as, the sentient extremities
of
nerves, which terminate in the various organs or tissues."
- and continue by discussing higher levels of conscience - from the
question of ability of making choices through the question of (free?)
will to the ultimate question of human-like intelligence/personality
Again from Online Plain Text:
"Conscious (a.) Possessing knowledge, whether by internal, conscious
experience or by external observation; cognizant; aware; sensible."
and
"Consciousness (n.) The state of being conscious; knowledge of one's
own existence, condition, sensations, mental operations, acts, etc"

I think that there can be no question that the One Ring is sentient
in the sense cited above - the One Ring is undoubtedly capable
of perceiving its surroundings - whether only the wearer or in a
more generalized sense.
Whether this sentience is any more than what we'd see in e.g. a
computer or industrial robot acting on 'sensations' from a CCD
camera is (I guess) anybody's guess.

I don't believe that there is any way of distinguishing - within the
context of the story - between full human-like consciousness and
a sufficiently advanced "programming" - sort of like a special case
of Clarke's oft cited statement about the indistinguishability of
advanced technology and magic. Another point might be made by
referring to Asimov's "Caves of Steel".

We tend to accept consciousness in Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves, Men,
Ents, Eagles and other races, but we hesitate to accept the same
in a Ring (or rather - some people hesitate ;-).

If we could reach a consensus that the "acts" of the One Ring are
insufficient to distinguish them as being results of a conscious
mind or a very advanced "programming" (for lack of a better
word), I think much would be achieved.

For the record I do believe that the One Ring was conscious in a
limited way. It was capable of working towards the goals of
Sauron even when not in contact with him - and even when he
was seriously weakened and disembodied after the Last Alliance.
It was also capable of formulating strategies (or at the very least
choosing between them) towards achieving these goals.

I also think that the Ring's consciousness was severely limited -
thus I think that it was self-aware only to the extend that it was
aware of itself as an extension of Sauron.
I further do believe that the Ring didn't have a free will - Sauron
would forever have formulated the end motives of the Ring - the
final causes if you want.

I believe I've seen somewhere that Tolkien stated that if someone
other than Sauron mastered the One Ring it would be to him as
if it was destroyed - yet we still see Gandalf reluctant of taking
the Ring though he could no doubt master it - he was still scared
of the power the _Ring_ would then gain, even though Sauron
himself would be pretty powerless (as we saw when it was
destroyed). The consciousness (my word here - you need not
agree ;-) of the Ring was therefore not dependent on Sauron,
but I still believe that it would not be capable of formulating
new goals - it would still be an instrument of evil, not capable
of e.g. redemption as it didn't have the necessary attributes
for redemption - e.g. a soul.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Please reply to (t.f...@mail.dk)

The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of
thinking with which we created them.
Albert Einstein

ssmmbfcs

unread,

May 19, 2002, 4:03:42 PM5/19/02

to

> In article <MPG.174f64a1b...@news.odyssey.net>,
> Stan Brown <qx1...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >The /American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language/ (Third
> >Edition, 1992) defines "sentient" as "1. Having some perception;
> >conscious. ... 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling." When people
> >ask whether the Ring was sentient, typically they aren't
> >wondering whether it could feel but whether it could make choices
> >and act on a definite purpose. But we shall see evidence that the
> >Ring is sentient under both parts of the definition.

We never heard the ring talking, at least not in an explicit way. But
why Gollum continiously uses "we" while talking to the ring?, needed
it to be taken in account?, was it the perception by Gollum of the
consciousness of the ring?

When Sauron made the ring he needed to put part of he in the ring (his
power equals his ownself?), like spliting in two. May be that was the
consciousness we are talking about, it was a complemnet of Sauron owns
but while it was broken could it not been in auto-pilot looking to bee
compleat again?

Joust thinking,
ssmmbfcs

Javier Caselli

unread,

May 19, 2002, 5:07:42 PM5/19/02

to

"Morgoth's Curse" <mnk...@att.net> escribió en el mensaje
news:g53deus1akbvpcqeg...@4ax.com...

> In sum, the Ring was indeed somewhat like a computer: It had the
> hardware, but lacked the software which only the bearer could provide.
>
> Morgoth's Curse

How very interesting, I see this matter the oposite way, the ring was the
software, and the bearer the hardware, that should explain the differences
in the time that the ring takes to corrupt its bearer and the way in wich it
is done, also it would determine the powers that the ring could give to its
bearer, someone like Galadriel, Gandalf, or Saruman could dominate ME with
it, while a mere mortal like Frodo would end more or less the same as
Gollum.

I mean, the Ring could be more or less like a PC application that is capable
of running in almost any PC-compatible platform, but would act somewhat
differently depending on the hardware installed in the system (i.e. imagine
a video-game that can be played with or without graphics accelerator card,
or that can be viewed in different graphical modes depending on the quality
of the graphics adaptor, CPU, amount of memory, etc. Also it would play
differently if the system has a joystick installed or not, etc...). Thus,
Sauron the most powerful system in ME would take the most of the Ring, while
the second in line (Gandalf, Saruman, Galadriel...) would take a lot out of
it, and finally, the less equiped systems (Frodo, Gollum, Bilbo...) could
only have a glimpse of the full capabilities of the "software".

Still, I consider this a too scientific explanation to a fantastic artifact
like the Ring, though I consider the behaviour of the Ring could be
esentially like I wrote before, I also think that it has very limited
sentienty, or even intelligence of its own, but the effectiveness of it is
subject to the "quality of the hardware"

--
"Legolas Greenleaf long under tree
In joy thou hast lived. Beware of the Sea!
If thou hearest the cry of the gull on the shore,
Thy heart shall then rest in the forest no more."

Greetings from Malaga(Spain)
remove _NOSPAM from my address to reach me. :-)

Trevor Barrie

unread,

May 20, 2002, 12:04:52 AM5/20/02

to

In article <MPG.175025d87...@news.odyssey.net>,

Stan Brown <qx1...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>But the ability to make choices and act on a definite purpose isn't
>>_any_ part of the definition of "sentient".
>
>I saw your earlier comment just after I posted version 0.2.
>
>How would you (and others) suggest fixing the FAQ entry? What
>exactly _is_ the question? Should I change it to "Was the Ring
>alive?" or "Could the Ring think?" or just what?

Hey, didn't you see the "<grump>" tag in my earlier comment? I'm here
to complain, not suggest solutions!:)

But if I must, "Did the Ring have a will of its own?" sums up the
question nicely and accurately to my mind.

>Should I keep the question but then in an introductory paragraph explain
>that that really opens up a whole cluster of questions beyond mere
>sentience?

That would work too.

Trevor Barrie

unread,

May 20, 2002, 12:07:46 AM5/20/02

to

In article <3CE7CA77...@thisisfake.dk>,

Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
>I don't believe that there is any way of distinguishing - within the
>context of the story - between full human-like consciousness and
>a sufficiently advanced "programming"

As a Strong AI guy, I have to interject here that it's not clear that
there _is_ any distinction between full human-like consciousness and a
sufficiently advanced programming.

(And no, that's not particularly relevant to the discussion at hand.)

Stan Brown

unread,

May 20, 2002, 8:57:29 AM5/20/02

to

Trevor Barrie <tba...@cs.toronto.edu> wrote in
rec.arts.books.tolkien:

>In article <3CE7CA77...@thisisfake.dk>,
>Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
>>I don't believe that there is any way of distinguishing - within the
>>context of the story - between full human-like consciousness and
>>a sufficiently advanced "programming"
>
>As a Strong AI guy, I have to interject here that it's not clear that
>there _is_ any distinction between full human-like consciousness and a
>sufficiently advanced programming.

*cough* Turing's Test *cough*

I agree, your point is well taken (and my knowledge of AI is very
slight). Just to be clear: No one is suggesting that the Ring's
consciousness was anything like as fully developed as a human's,
right?

Troels Forchhammer

unread,

May 20, 2002, 12:15:57 PM5/20/02

to

Stan Brown wrote:

> Trevor Barrie <tba...@cs.toronto.edu> wrote:
> >Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
> >>I don't believe that there is any way of distinguishing - within the
> >>context of the story - between full human-like consciousness and
> >>a sufficiently advanced "programming"
> >
> >As a Strong AI guy, I have to interject here that it's not clear that
> >there _is_ any distinction between full human-like consciousness and a
> >sufficiently advanced programming.

I was actually thinking along the lines of Asimov's robots, which are
IIRC distinguishable from humans, but I'll agree with you anytime -
any distinction must be built into the programming.

> I agree, your point is well taken (and my knowledge of AI is very
> slight). Just to be clear: No one is suggesting that the Ring's
> consciousness was anything like as fully developed as a human's,
> right?

I certainly don't, and from what I've seen I am one of those advocating
the most developed - or highest level of - consciousness for the One
Ring...

--
Troels Forchhammer
Please reply to (t.f...@mail.dk)

Elan síla lúmenn' omentielvo

Troels Forchhammer

unread,

May 20, 2002, 1:22:22 PM5/20/02

to

Conrad Dunkerson wrote:

> "Stan Brown" <qx1...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.174a3d4ff...@news.odyssey.net...
>
> > As for the Silmaril being sentient, we do read that before Morgoth's
> > throne "the jewel suffered [Beren's] touch and hurt him not." That
> > sounds a bit like the Silmaril making a decision.
>
> I'd call that more a use of figurative language. Similar to saying
> that 'my car suffered my insistence that we drive to work again'.
> I do not think it is indicative of sentience in the jewels - it can
> be read that way, but I don't think that was Tolkien's intent.

"...; and yet, as were they indeed living things, they rejoiced in light
and received it and gave it back in hues more marvellous than before."
The Sil - Ch. 7 "Of the Silmarils and the Unrest of the Noldor"

I haven't actually thought deeply about the Silmarils, but the
statement above must be seen in the light of "And Varda
hallowed the Silmarils, so that thereafter no mortal flesh, nor
hands unclean, nor anything of evil will might touch them, but it
was scorched and withered;" That Beren was not harmed
contradicts the hallowing and that must have a cause.

Hmm - I'm pretty sure you are perfectly aware of this, and I
don't really know where I'm heading. As I said I haven't given
much thought to the Silmarils being sentient - I just won't
rule it out at this point.

> As to the Ring. It shows some 'tendencies' which can be
> ascribed to sentience but could also be put down to 'fate' or
> 'programming'. It is possible that the Ring did not so much
> act voluntarily as inherently influence events to bring suffering
> on any bearer other than Sauron... like a traditional 'cursed
> object'. Alternatively, it could have some simple defined
> parameters that it would follow without having any understanding
> of self. Either of these can explain any of the 'actions' of the
> Ring (short of speaking if we were to accept that reading).

I got no problems with that - you can explain it in many ways and
sentience is just one of them.

> Against the idea of true sentience and self-motivation are the
> various times that the Ring was used in actions against Sauron's
> best interests. If the Ring was aware and had a choice it should
> not under any circumstances have made Sam seem menacing to
> the Orcs at the tower of Cirith Ungol.

I don't think anyone has argued that the One Ring should have a
full human like consciousness. To be able to act in these cases
the Ring should have a level of analytical intelligence that I have
seen no-one advocate.
To be able to recognize that the situation in the Tower of Cirith
Ungol was such that it would be in the best interest of Sauron
to actively lower the menacing of his servants would require
the Ring to apply abstract analysis of a pretty high level -
remember it didn't know Sam very well at that point.

> Ideologically speaking it should have been impossible for Sauron to
> 'create' a sentience... and since there is no mention of a spirit
> being bound into the Ring the usual side-step around that problem does
> not seem to apply. If the Ring were sentient - how?

That is what I'd like to know as well ;)
Indeed the case of Aulė and the Dwarves seems to indicate that
it should be impossible for anyone but Eru to create anything above
the level of simple automaton "..., moving when thou thinkest to
move them, and if thy thought be elsewhere, standing idle."

The only explanations I've seen are connected to the transferral
of power from Sauron to the Ring. The only way I am able to
reconcile that idea with the above statement from the Sil is if
Sauron was willing to lessen himself by dividing his being (assuming
of course that he was able to do that at all) and placing some
of his being in the Ring. What Aulė wanted was specifically
_not_ just an extension of himself, which was basically what
Sauron wanted.

> That said, I believe the intent likely WAS for something like an
> awareness/sentience, but limited in scope. Think of Sam's elven rope
> which held perfectly for a long climb down the cliff and then came
> loose with a half-hearted tug... this appears to be a clear case of
> 'decision making', but do we consider the rope sentient? I think it
> is more likely that the rope (and the Ring) had a 'greater degree of
> functional applicability'... they could be relied on to be more
> useful/attuned to the owner's purposes than a regular item, but they
> would still only act within a limited range defined by their natures.

I'll agree to the last that they "would still only act within a limited
range defined by their natures", but I think that the awareness
or sentience of the One Ring was intended to be far greater than
that of the Elven rope (I am here allowing the word sentience to
mean the broadest range possible - from calling a computer
running some visual recognition software sentient to the full
human consciousness).

--
Troels Forchhammer
Please reply to (t.f...@mail.dk)

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the
opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.
Niels Bohr

Stan Brown

unread,

May 20, 2002, 10:33:42 PM5/20/02

to

Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote in
rec.arts.books.tolkien:

>I'd suggest that the question is "what was the One Ring's level of
>consciousness?"

I see some merit in your suggestion, but I also see merit in a
series of shorter questions with active verbs: "Was the Ring alive?
Could it think? Could it speak?"

Kind of surprising that in this thread there's almost as much
discussion about what is the proper question as about what is the
proper answer!

Stan Brown

unread,

May 20, 2002, 10:38:34 PM5/20/02

to

Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote in
rec.arts.books.tolkien:

>Stan Brown wrote:
>
>> Trevor Barrie <tba...@cs.toronto.edu> wrote:
>> >Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
>> >>I don't believe that there is any way of distinguishing - within the
>> >>context of the story - between full human-like consciousness and
>> >>a sufficiently advanced "programming"
>> >
>> >As a Strong AI guy, I have to interject here that it's not clear that
>> >there _is_ any distinction between full human-like consciousness and a
>> >sufficiently advanced programming.
>
>I was actually thinking along the lines of Asimov's robots, which are
>IIRC distinguishable from humans, but I'll agree with you anytime -
>any distinction must be built into the programming.

Some off Asimov's robots passed as human -- I think the character's
name was Stephen Byerly. He was in a couple of stories in either /I,
Robot/ or /The Rest of the Robots/.

Returning to Tolkien, I think curses and much Elvish "magic" work
like real-world programming: when these circumstances arise, perform
this action. The difference is that the "circumstances" are far more
complex than our present computers can recognize. For instance,
blades out of Gondolin glow when enemies are near. How do they
"know"?(*) The Ring terrifies Orcs but doesn't terrify Frodo or Sam
or any of the "good guys"; how does it know?

(*) An Elf might well ask how a thermos knows which things to keep
hot and which to keep cold. Or he might take it as automatic, just
like Galadriel's rope that came when called.

Donald Shepherd

unread,

May 21, 2002, 1:06:34 AM5/21/02

to

In article <MPG.17537d366...@news.odyssey.net>, Stan Brown
(qx1...@bigfoot.com) says...

> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >Stan Brown wrote:
> >
> >> Trevor Barrie <tba...@cs.toronto.edu> wrote:
> >> >Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.dk> wrote:
> >> >>I don't believe that there is any way of distinguishing - within the
> >> >>context of the story - between full human-like consciousness and
> >> >>a sufficiently advanced "programming"
> >> >
> >> >As a Strong AI guy, I have to interject here that it's not clear that
> >> >there _is_ any distinction between full human-like consciousness and a
> >> >sufficiently advanced programming.
> >
> >I was actually thinking along the lines of Asimov's robots, which are
> >IIRC distinguishable from humans, but I'll agree with you anytime -
> >any distinction must be built into the programming.
>
> Some off Asimov's robots passed as human -- I think the character's
> name was Stephen Byerly. He was in a couple of stories in either /I,
> Robot/ or /The Rest of the Robots/.

Daneel Olivaw (sp?) in the Caves of Steel and its sequels. Stephen
Byerly and his attacker also works, as does, IIRC, the one from
Bicentennial Man.

OTOH, is it possible for robotics in RL to become advanced enough to
imitate a human being's physical presence, and is it even advisable?
--
Donald Shepherd
<donald_...@hotmail.com>

unread,

May 21, 2002, 9:09:34 AM5/21/02

to

"Donald Shepherd" <donald_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1754b292a...@mail.uq.edu.au...

> In article <accrer$1jm0$1...@pingwin.acn.pl>, Pradera
> (pra...@pradera.prv.pl) says...
> >
> > Użytkownik Donald Shepherd <donald_...@hotmail.com> w wiadomości do
> > grup dyskusyjnych napisał:MPG.175472d64...@mail.uq.edu.au...
> > > In article <MPG.17537d366...@news.odyssey.net>, Stan Brown
> > > (qx1...@bigfoot.com) says...

> > > > Some off Asimov's robots passed as human -- I think the character's
> > > > name was Stephen Byerly. He was in a couple of stories in either /I,
> > > > Robot/ or /The Rest of the Robots/.
> > >
> > > Daneel Olivaw (sp?) in the Caves of Steel and its sequels.
> > And *Foundation spoiler ;)* in later parts of Foundation series.

<snip>
Whether Stephen Byerly or Daneel Olivaw it would be possible for a
sufficiently trained roboticist to determine the nature human or robotic
by a complex process - at least that's what is said in Caves of Steel.

> > > OTOH, is it possible for robotics in RL to become advanced enough to
> > > imitate a human being's physical presence, and is it even advisable?
> > > --
> > Well, the japanese are on their way, with their speaking, seeing,
hearing,
> > walking-up-stairs, recognizing people, artificial-skin,
> > grass-eating-for-fuel robot.
> > (hmm wasn't that just a definition of human being? ;)
>
> Well, there are a few more complications with being a human... though my
> dictionary lists 'human being' as "Any living or extinct member of the
> family Hominidae", which I guess a robot can never fulfil.
>
> /me goes looking for a better dictionary...
>
> I like how every time a computer gets to the currently acceptable level
> of reasoning to have intelligence (ie. beating a grandmaster at chess
> would have been enough ten years ago), the goal posts are shifted again.
> :)

I guess this comes very close to the issue here - the on-topic discussion of
the sentience of the One Ring.
Can we at all make a distinction between a 'consciousness' based on a very
advanced 'programming' and a consciousness of a more traditional biological
type? Is it meaningful at all to try?

To me it seems that the true distinction is the possession of a soul, though
I
recognize that this require that we can agree that humans do indeed posses
a soul (though they undoubtedly do that in Tolkien's Middle-earth).

In other words I don't think that it is really meaningful to discuss whether
the ring was 'conscious' in the traditional sense or whether it had a very
advanced programming. If there is truly no way to distinguish these two
'sources of consciousness' the true issue becomes the level of consciousness
- whatever its source.
I realize that I've used 'consciousness' in a somewhat broader sense than
is normal - I couldn't find a better word so I just have to hope that my
meaning remains (relatively ;) clear.

--
Troels Forchhammer

Stan Brown

unread,

May 21, 2002, 10:02:09 AM5/21/02

to

Donald Shepherd <donald_...@hotmail.com> wrote in

rec.arts.books.tolkien:

>OTOH, is it possible for robotics in RL to become advanced enough to
>imitate a human being's physical presence, and is it even advisable?

Depends what you mean by a "robot". Alan Turing, half a century ago,
said that the test was whether a person in one room could tell for
certain whether messages from another room were written by a person
or a machine.

By that criterion, we're awfully close. The ELIZA program (like its
descendant MegaHAL, if I understand correctly) can fool the person
at the other end into responding as though it were human.

But "robot" in reality is a special-purpose machine that no one
would ever mistake for human, unlike the "robot" of sf which is
basically a thinking mechanical man.

Did Tolkien ever have anything to say about robots, in a Letter
perhaps?

Stan Brown

unread,

May 21, 2002, 10:03:41 AM5/21/02

to

Donald Shepherd <donald_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
rec.arts.books.tolkien:

>Well, there are a few more complications with being a human... though my
>dictionary lists 'human being' as "Any living or extinct member of the
>family Hominidae", which I guess a robot can never fulfil.

I find that definition _awfully_ hard to accept. I don't see
Australopithecus or homo erectus as human beings, any more than I
think eohippus is a horse.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://oakroadsystems.com

"Boy Critical After Rescue From River"
-- headline in the /Cortland Standard/ 16 April 2002
Gosh, there's just no pleasing some people.

Donald Shepherd

unread,

May 21, 2002, 10:03:08 AM5/21/02

to

In article <3cea470e$1...@news.wineasy.se>, Troels Forchhammer
(Tro...@ThisIsFake.Fk) says...

AFAIK (and that's very little at the moment, despite my aspirations
towards involvement in AI) and IMHO (OK, acronym overload soon... not to
mention parantheses overlaod...), no and no.

What a long sentence for two words. Anyway...

> To me it seems that the true distinction is the possession of a soul, though
> I
> recognize that this require that we can agree that humans do indeed posses
> a soul (though they undoubtedly do that in Tolkien's Middle-earth).

This is the bit that people seem to dance around. We would like to
believe that people are superior to computers, and cannot be recreated as
such, so there has to be something to explain this superiority. For
those with religious beliefs, that could be a soul, or whatever other
terms it comes under. For others, it is undefined, so in order to
explain our superiority, they resort to changing what is required of the
computer.

OTOH, I doubt that a robot confusable with humans will ever be built for
the above reason, and what Asimov dubs, IIRC, the Frankenstein fear.
Namely that if we create robots too much like us, then they could replace
us.

> In other words I don't think that it is really meaningful to discuss whether
> the ring was 'conscious' in the traditional sense or whether it had a very
> advanced programming. If there is truly no way to distinguish these two
> 'sources of consciousness' the true issue becomes the level of consciousness
> - whatever its source.

I would definitely agree with that. The Ring was conscious of its
surroundings, and could react to the nature of its bearer and other
stimuli. This would make the Ring sentient ("Consciously perceiving")
IMO.

> I realize that I've used 'consciousness' in a somewhat broader sense than
> is normal - I couldn't find a better word so I just have to hope that my
> meaning remains (relatively ;) clear.

It was clear to me, but between the ridiculous numbers of acronyms, long
sentences and vague statements in my reply, I wonder if my post is so
easily understood. :)
--
Donald Shepherd
<donald_...@hotmail.com>

Ah, it's good to be on-topic for a change.

Stan Brown

unread,

May 21, 2002, 10:18:23 AM5/21/02

to

Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.Fk> wrote in
rec.arts.books.tolkien:

>I guess this comes very close to the issue here - the on-topic discussion of
>the sentience of the One Ring.
>Can we at all make a distinction between a 'consciousness' based on a very
>advanced 'programming' and a consciousness of a more traditional biological
>type? Is it meaningful at all to try?

I think the answer is that we cannot, and it is not.

An analogy: Clarke's law was "a sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic" -- thus it is ultimately meaningless
to argue whether the Elves' cloaks that could not be seen by enemies
and ropes that came when called were technology or magic. The
blurring is even more obvious when we compare Galadriel's mirror to
the Palantíri. Are there any grounds for calling one magic and the
other technology? Well, perhaps, but the distinction is awfully thin
and I think either decision could go either way.

Similarly, if something _acts_ alive and intelligent, then can we
truly say that it is not alive and intelligent? If you at your
computer are instant-messaging with two screen names A and B, but
one is a human and the other a computer, if you can't tell which is
which then I do not understand how we can say the computer is not
intelligent.

>To me it seems that the true distinction is the possession of a soul, though
>I recognize that this require that we can agree that humans do indeed posses
>a soul (though they undoubtedly do that in Tolkien's Middle-earth).

I agree that in Tolkien's world they do possess souls. I do not
agree that we do in Real Life. But even if we do, I think it is
logically wrong(*) to say "computers aren't alive because they don't
have souls." It's circular reasoning, because what is a soul? the
thing that makes you alive. So to say that computers aren't alive
because they don't have souls is to say that they aren't alive
because they aren't alive, and that's not logic.

(*)Please note that I am not saying computers _are_ alive, just that
a logical distinction cannot depend on the unseeable unmeasurable
"soul". Computers today are not yet as intelligent (adaptable) as
humans. I don't know whether or when they will be, but if and when
that day comes, I think we will be hard pressed to explain why they
should not have the same rights as "meat" humans.

>In other words I don't think that it is really meaningful to discuss whether
>the ring was 'conscious' in the traditional sense or whether it had a very
>advanced programming. If there is truly no way to distinguish these two
>'sources of consciousness' the true issue becomes the level of consciousness
>- whatever its source.

I think there is much merit in this position.

Do you know about with E-prime? The creators of E-prime wanted to
make a dialect of English without any form of the verb "to be",
because most uses of "to be" make false statements. So for instance,
if we ask "_is_ the Ring conscious?" we can't really answer very
well because we get hung up on definitions, but if we ask "does the
Ring _act_ like a conscious being?" we can discuss how conscious
beings act and more easily reach a conclusion (maybe).

I wrote the preceding paragraph in E-prime, and if I had written the
one before in E-prime it would have said "I like this position quite
a lot."

Aris Katsaris

unread,

May 21, 2002, 10:25:47 AM5/21/02

to

"Donald Shepherd" <donald_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1754b292a...@mail.uq.edu.au...
>

> I like how every time a computer gets to the currently acceptable level
> of reasoning to have intelligence (ie. beating a grandmaster at chess
> would have been enough ten years ago), the goal posts are shifted again.

The problem is not in the position of the goal post, but in its kind...
What does "reasoning" have to do with self-awareness?

I have consciousness - that's the one thing I know for certain. Through
extrapolation I can believe that all the other human beings are likewise
conscious.

But until we figure out *what* creates this consciousness, we are
incapable of deciding what a machine must possess to likewise become
conscious, not simply to *appear* so...

A "soul", the idea of an immortal part of ourselves, has nothing or very little
to do with this - the existence of a soul is after all debatable, but
consciousness isn't, though it's quite difficult or impossible to prove to
another. By definition each one's self-awareness is evident only to their
own selves.

Aris Katsaris

unread,

May 21, 2002, 10:27:58 AM5/21/02

to

"Stan Brown" <qx1...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message

news:MPG.17541dcbc...@news.odyssey.net...

> Donald Shepherd <donald_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >Well, there are a few more complications with being a human... though my
> >dictionary lists 'human being' as "Any living or extinct member of the
> >family Hominidae", which I guess a robot can never fulfil.
>
> I find that definition _awfully_ hard to accept. I don't see
> Australopithecus or homo erectus as human beings,

Then perhaps you see "human" as any living or extinct member of the species
"Homo Sapiens"? Or is that only "homo sapiens sapiens" and you are excluding
Neanderthals?

Is there a difference in kind here? Some people may call homo erectus
also human... what's the reason to be bothered by this?

Aris Katsaris

Pradera

unread,

May 21, 2002, 10:27:14 AM5/21/02

to

Użytkownik Stan Brown <qx1...@bigfoot.com> w wiadomości do grup dyskusyjnych
napisał:MPG.17541d6e1...@news.odyssey.net...

> Donald Shepherd <donald_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>

> But "robot" in reality is a special-purpose machine that no one
> would ever mistake for human, unlike the "robot" of sf which is
> basically a thinking mechanical man.
>
> Did Tolkien ever have anything to say about robots, in a Letter
> perhaps?
>

Well, some of the things Melko built in BoLT (the parts where he sends
mechanical dragons etc. on Gondolin) AFAICR look like robotics... but I yet
have to check it.

Aris Katsaris

unread,

May 21, 2002, 10:33:49 AM5/21/02

to

"Troels Forchhammer" <Tro...@ThisIsFake.Fk> wrote in message
news:3cea470e$1...@news.wineasy.se...

>
> To me it seems that the true distinction is the possession of a soul, though
> I
> recognize that this require that we can agree that humans do indeed posses
> a soul (though they undoubtedly do that in Tolkien's Middle-earth).

The problem is that you aren't defining "soul", here. If the question is only
consciousness, then "soul" needn't be immortal, it needn't have any
connection to memory or personality... It need only have a connection to
consciousness.

The problem is that such a "soul" wouldn't be meaningfully identified as
one by most religions, who do believe that the soul is immortal.

Human beings needn't possess a soul, as if it was an object, any more
than a burning log need possess "fire"... Consciousness may be a
phenomenon, still measurable, but non-objectifiable... But it does exist.

Aris Katsaris

Donald Shepherd

unread,

May 21, 2002, 11:11:09 AM5/21/02

to

In article <MPG.17541dcbc...@news.odyssey.net>, Stan Brown
(qx1...@bigfoot.com) says...

> Donald Shepherd <donald_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >Well, there are a few more complications with being a human... though my
> >dictionary lists 'human being' as "Any living or extinct member of the
> >family Hominidae", which I guess a robot can never fulfil.
>
> I find that definition _awfully_ hard to accept. I don't see
> Australopithecus or homo erectus as human beings, any more than I
> think eohippus is a horse.

I agree, as I wasn't sure whether the above definition included our
ancestors.

OTOH, my putting it into the original post was rather irrelevant as the
subject is robots being mistaken for human, rather than robots being
human.

Donald Shepherd

unread,

May 21, 2002, 11:18:43 AM5/21/02

to

In article <acdlgo$70t$1...@usenet.otenet.gr>, Aris Katsaris
(kats...@otenet.gr) says...

>
> "Donald Shepherd" <donald_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1754b292a...@mail.uq.edu.au...
> >
> > I like how every time a computer gets to the currently acceptable level
> > of reasoning to have intelligence (ie. beating a grandmaster at chess
> > would have been enough ten years ago), the goal posts are shifted again.
>
> The problem is not in the position of the goal post, but in its kind...
> What does "reasoning" have to do with self-awareness?
>
> I have consciousness - that's the one thing I know for certain. Through
> extrapolation I can believe that all the other human beings are likewise
> conscious.
>
> But until we figure out *what* creates this consciousness, we are
> incapable of deciding what a machine must possess to likewise become
> conscious, not simply to *appear* so...

So, in your opinion, if we don't know what creates our consciousness, if
something has the semblence of consciousness, should we believe that it
does have consciousness?

<snip>
--
Donald Shepherd
<donald_...@hotmail.com>

I'm way out of my depth here, but am trying to keep the subthread going
because it's just so interesting.

Donald Shepherd

unread,

May 21, 2002, 11:28:56 AM5/21/02

to

In article <MPG.17541d6e1...@news.odyssey.net>, Stan Brown
(qx1...@bigfoot.com) says...

> Donald Shepherd <donald_...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >OTOH, is it possible for robotics in RL to become advanced enough to
> >imitate a human being's physical presence, and is it even advisable?
>
> Depends what you mean by a "robot". Alan Turing, half a century ago,
> said that the test was whether a person in one room could tell for
> certain whether messages from another room were written by a person
> or a machine.
>
> By that criterion, we're awfully close. The ELIZA program (like its
> descendant MegaHAL, if I understand correctly) can fool the person
> at the other end into responding as though it were human.

There is a difference between responding as though something is human and
fooling a person into believing it is human. The Turing test still has a
complete failure rate, with the only confusion coming by testers
mistaking humans for computers.

> But "robot" in reality is a special-purpose machine that no one
> would ever mistake for human, unlike the "robot" of sf which is
> basically a thinking mechanical man.

In theory, what is stopping the creation of a thinking mechanical man? I
might be stretching a bit, but is it even theoretically possible?

> Did Tolkien ever have anything to say about robots, in a Letter
> perhaps?

The initial dragons were mechanical beings that could be described as
robots, IIRC. The Nazgul could be robots, with basic instructions
hardwired in, with the possibility to be overruled by Sauron's direct
interfacing with them. However they did show a unlikely degree of
autonomy...

Aris Katsaris

unread,

May 21, 2002, 11:39:17 AM5/21/02

to

"Donald Shepherd" <donald_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:MPG.1755024fe...@mail.uq.edu.au...

> In article <acdlgo$70t$1...@usenet.otenet.gr>, Aris Katsaris
> (kats...@otenet.gr) says...
> >

> > The problem is not in the position of the goal post, but in its kind...
> > What does "reasoning" have to do with self-awareness?
> >
> > I have consciousness - that's the one thing I know for certain. Through
> > extrapolation I can believe that all the other human beings are likewise
> > conscious.
> >
> > But until we figure out *what* creates this consciousness, we are
> > incapable of deciding what a machine must possess to likewise become
> > conscious, not simply to *appear* so...
>
> So, in your opinion, if we don't know what creates our consciousness, if
> something has the semblence of consciousness, should we believe that it
> does have consciousness?

Hmm... For starters I never addressed that issue at all, what we "should"
believe, aka how this should influence our relationship to said object/being.

It's a rather difficult question, possibly the most difficult question that will
*ever* be asked... For starters I'm not certain that consciousness is a binary
attribute, rather than a spectrum...

Secondly in the clear cause-and-effect nature of all parts of our constructed
electronic machines, even the most elaborate ones, I'm having difficulty viewing
them as any more conscious than your average pebble. Could we say
that a pebble is sentient because it "perceives" gravity, or acts according to
it? Probably not.

So perhaps the "semblance" is still the only thing we have, for the biological
machines in our midst. Perhaps because of said "semblance"
of consciousness/behaviour we should treat apes and dolphins as more "sentient"
than, say, wolves, and wolves as more sentient than insects, who are probably
again little more sentient than your average pebble...

But that distinction between biology and machinery that I seem to be suggesting
is only because we know (or think we know) that there's a continuity between
humans (whom we know to be conscious) and lesser animals, therefore it may
be reasonable to believe in a continuity of consciousness from more to less
conscious... But there's no such continuity between humans and computer.

In a similar way, intelligent aliens we ought to assume to be fully conscious
IMO, if they exhibit the kind of traits we consider evidence of such... But an
alien computer, in strict cause-and-effect continuity from our kind of
computers...
again it's difficult for me to believe it as more conscious than your average
pebble.

Yes, the above post is confused and confusing. Not sure how I can make
it clearer though...

Aris Katsaris

Jay Random

unread,

May 21, 2002, 3:29:35 PM5/21/02

to

Stan Brown wrote:

>
> Returning to Tolkien, I think curses and much Elvish "magic" work
> like real-world programming: when these circumstances arise, perform
> this action. The difference is that the "circumstances" are far more
> complex than our present computers can recognize.

That may be a helpful analogy, but you must keep in mind that it is
certainly _not_ what Tolkien intended. There were no computers in 1937,
when he began writing LOTR, & Tolkien never used a computer in his life.
Any resemblance between computer programming & anything in Tolkien's
work is purely coincidental & should not be taken as proof of _anything_.

Jay Random

unread,

May 21, 2002, 3:31:06 PM5/21/02

to

Donald Shepherd wrote:

>
> I like how every time a computer gets to the currently acceptable level
> of reasoning to have intelligence (ie. beating a grandmaster at chess
> would have been enough ten years ago), the goal posts are shifted again.

Chiefly because it becomes blatantly obvious that a computer can achieve
that goal without even remotely approaching the level of _general_
intelligence shown by humans.

Taemon

unread,

May 21, 2002, 6:15:12 PM5/21/02

to

Donald Shepherd wrote:

> In theory, what is stopping the creation of a thinking mechanical
man? I
> might be stretching a bit, but is it even theoretically possible?

Why is that stretching? I see no reason why not. Of course, I'm not
religious.

Greetings, T.

Taemon

unread,

May 21, 2002, 6:12:36 PM5/21/02

to

Donald Shepherd wrote:

> OTOH, is it possible for robotics in RL to become advanced enough to
> imitate a human being's physical presence, and is it even advisable?

I see no principle reason as to why it couldn't be done, eventually.
But I (who knows not much about robotics but a thing or two about
evolution) wouldn't advice it. Bipedalism! Shameful! I'd (have) built
with four walking limbs and two manipulative limbs, making it easier
not to fall down and to run, but with the power of hands. I'd also
give it the much more effective heat-controlling system of fur instead
of subcutaneous fat (providing we're building an android system rather
than a metal one). Oh, and wings! Wait, I'm getting carried away :-)

Greetings, T.

Stan Brown

unread,

May 21, 2002, 6:55:38 PM5/21/02

to

Jay Random <jra...@bondwine.ca> wrote in rec.arts.books.tolkien:

While I agree with you in substance, I think you overstate your
case. The first (known) programmer was Augusta, Countess of Lovelace
(1815-1852). She wrote a program for Charles Babbage's Analytical
Engine almost 100 years before the date you mention.

So it is not true that computers came only after 1937. It is true
that commercially practical computers came later.

source: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1999 CD-ROM, "Lovelace" and
"Babbage"

Troels Forchhammer

unread,

May 22, 2002, 5:48:26 AM5/22/02

to

"Stan Brown" <qx1...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.Fk> wrote in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >I guess this comes very close to the issue here - the on-topic discussion
of
> >the sentience of the One Ring.
> >Can we at all make a distinction between a 'consciousness' based on a
very
> >advanced 'programming' and a consciousness of a more traditional
biological
> >type? Is it meaningful at all to try?
>
> I think the answer is that we cannot, and it is not.
>
> An analogy: Clarke's law was "a sufficiently advanced technology is
> indistinguishable from magic" -- thus it is ultimately meaningless
> to argue whether the Elves' cloaks that could not be seen by enemies
> and ropes that came when called were technology or magic. The
> blurring is even more obvious when we compare Galadriel's mirror to
> the Palantíri. Are there any grounds for calling one magic and the
> other technology? Well, perhaps, but the distinction is awfully thin
> and I think either decision could go either way.

Much Elven magic in Tolkien's world is presented as the result of
a craft. Fëanor didn't create the Silmarils by muttering incantations,
but by his superior craftsmanship. Would that make the Silmarils
the result of technology or magic? Again the distinction becomes
meaningless IMO.

I was thinking of Clarke's law also; speculating that the analogy
to the sentience question was so obvious that Clarke should be
applicable here as well.

> Similarly, if something _acts_ alive and intelligent, then can we
> truly say that it is not alive and intelligent? If you at your
> computer are instant-messaging with two screen names A and B, but
> one is a human and the other a computer, if you can't tell which is
> which then I do not understand how we can say the computer is not
> intelligent.

Actually I think that the only reason for denying the computer its
intelligence is what Asimov names the Frankenstein fear.

> >To me it seems that the true distinction is the possession of a soul,
though
> >I recognize that this require that we can agree that humans do indeed
posses
> >a soul (though they undoubtedly do that in Tolkien's Middle-earth).
>
> I agree that in Tolkien's world they do possess souls. I do not
> agree that we do in Real Life. But even if we do, I think it is
> logically wrong(*) to say "computers aren't alive because they don't
> have souls." It's circular reasoning, because what is a soul? the
> thing that makes you alive. So to say that computers aren't alive
> because they don't have souls is to say that they aren't alive
> because they aren't alive, and that's not logic.

I did mention the souls specifically because there can be no doubt
that in Middle-earth humans, elves etc. _do_ posess a soul - the
possibility of applying it to real life should be regarded more as a
speculative introduction to the Middle-earth situation.
On the other hand I do believe that some aspect of our personality
is capable of carrying on after our death, outside the memory of
the relatives, friends and acqaintances we leave behind, but this
may be just wishful thinking ;-)
I wholeheartedly agree that possession of a soul is not a usable
distinction between artificial and natural intelligence unless we
can detect that soul.

> (*)Please note that I am not saying computers _are_ alive, just that
> a logical distinction cannot depend on the unseeable unmeasurable
> "soul". Computers today are not yet as intelligent (adaptable) as
> humans. I don't know whether or when they will be, but if and when
> that day comes, I think we will be hard pressed to explain why they
> should not have the same rights as "meat" humans.

This is one of the major underlying themes of Asimov's Robot stories,
and though I personally agree that a human-level intelligence should
recieve the same rights as humans, I think the issues Asimov raises
are valid.

> >In other words I don't think that it is really meaningful to discuss
whether
> >the ring was 'conscious' in the traditional sense or whether it had a
very
> >advanced programming. If there is truly no way to distinguish these two
> >'sources of consciousness' the true issue becomes the level of
consciousness
> >- whatever its source.
>
> I think there is much merit in this position.

Thanks ;-)

> Do you know about with E-prime? The creators of E-prime wanted to
> make a dialect of English without any form of the verb "to be",
> because most uses of "to be" make false statements. So for instance,
> if we ask "_is_ the Ring conscious?" we can't really answer very
> well because we get hung up on definitions, but if we ask "does the
> Ring _act_ like a conscious being?" we can discuss how conscious
> beings act and more easily reach a conclusion (maybe).

I didn't know about E-prime (I'll try to look it up, when I get the time),
but I think that you are suggesting a road for our discussions which
will prove far more profitable than discussing 'consciousness vs.
programming'.

> I wrote the preceding paragraph in E-prime, and if I had written the
> one before in E-prime it would have said "I like this position quite
> a lot."

;-)

Troels Forchhammer

unread,

May 22, 2002, 6:05:35 AM5/22/02

to

"Donald Shepherd" <donald_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Troels Forchhammer says...

> > "Donald Shepherd" <donald_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I like how every time a computer gets to the currently acceptable
level
> > > of reasoning to have intelligence (ie. beating a grandmaster at chess
> > > would have been enough ten years ago), the goal posts are shifted
again.
> > > :)
> >
> > I guess this comes very close to the issue here - the on-topic
discussion of
> > the sentience of the One Ring.
> > Can we at all make a distinction between a 'consciousness' based on a
very
> > advanced 'programming' and a consciousness of a more traditional
biological
> > type? Is it meaningful at all to try?
>
> AFAIK (and that's very little at the moment, despite my aspirations
> towards involvement in AI) and IMHO (OK, acronym overload soon... not to
> mention parantheses overlaod...), no and no.

Talking of acronym overload I couldn't help remembering the sig of one of my
friends, which I'll immediately share with you ;-)
"WYGIWYGAINGW - What You Get Is What You're Given And It's No Good
whining"
- Terry Pratchett et al. (The Science of Discworld)

On the on-topic issue, we're completely in agreement.

> What a long sentence for two words. Anyway...
>
> > To me it seems that the true distinction is the possession of a soul,
though
> > I
> > recognize that this require that we can agree that humans do indeed
posses
> > a soul (though they undoubtedly do that in Tolkien's Middle-earth).
>
> This is the bit that people seem to dance around. We would like to
> believe that people are superior to computers, and cannot be recreated as
> such, so there has to be something to explain this superiority. For
> those with religious beliefs, that could be a soul, or whatever other
> terms it comes under. For others, it is undefined, so in order to
> explain our superiority, they resort to changing what is required of the
> computer.

Well, as Stan pointed out a soul is somewhat difficult to use as we cannot
really detect it.
In the real world we would need some sort of detectable distinction to
be able to have a rationale for claiming the superiority of the biological
intelligence.

> OTOH, I doubt that a robot confusable with humans will ever be built for
> the above reason, and what Asimov dubs, IIRC, the Frankenstein fear.
> Namely that if we create robots too much like us, then they could replace
> us.

That is probably also a major underlying motive for pushing the limits
for when we'll call a computer intelligent - the good doctor has IMO
hit the nail squarely.

> > In other words I don't think that it is really meaningful to discuss
whether
> > the ring was 'conscious' in the traditional sense or whether it had a
very
> > advanced programming. If there is truly no way to distinguish these two
> > 'sources of consciousness' the true issue becomes the level of
consciousness
> > - whatever its source.
>
> I would definitely agree with that. The Ring was conscious of its
> surroundings, and could react to the nature of its bearer and other
> stimuli. This would make the Ring sentient ("Consciously perceiving")
> IMO.

Let's shake hands!

unread,

May 22, 2002, 9:24:09 AM5/22/02

to

Stan Brown wrote:

>>
>
> While I agree with you in substance, I think you overstate your
> case. The first (known) programmer was Augusta, Countess of Lovelace
> (1815-1852). She wrote a program for Charles Babbage's Analytical
> Engine almost 100 years before the date you mention.

Babbage was virtually unknown even in his own time, & I have seen no
evidence that Tolkien had ever heard of him or his work. Furthermore,
Lady Lovelace's `programs' were fundamentally unlike the programs for
modern (Turing/von Neumann) computers, in that there was a sharp
fundamental distinction between instructions & data. There really was
nothing in existence in the 1930s sufficiently like modern programming
technique to give Tolkien the idea that such things were possible --
even if he had been aware of technical developments in the fields of
electronics & automation, which he most emphatically was not.

> So it is not true that computers came only after 1937. It is true
> that commercially practical computers came later.

Never mind `commercially practical'; _working_ computers did not appear
till the 1940s. The Analytic Engine was never completed & never actually
executed a single program. It is not altogether certain that it _would_
have worked if Babbage had finished building it.

Jay Random

unread,

May 22, 2002, 9:25:50 AM5/22/02

to

Stan Brown wrote:

>
> Right -- otherwise it just becomes a vehicle for base prejudice,
> like people (in the old days, I hope) saying that blacks had no
> souls and therefore must be under the tutelage of whites.

I don't recall anyone `in the old days' saying that blacks had no souls.
Funny business converting so many of them to Christianity if they didn't.

BlackJedi

unread,

May 22, 2002, 9:33:31 AM5/22/02

to

On Wed, 22 May 2002 08:10:25 -0400, qx1...@bigfoot.com (Stan Brown)
wrote:

>Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.Fk> wrote in
>rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>>A Thaum is the basic unit of magical strength. It has been
>>universally established as the amount of magic needed to
>>create one small white pigeon or three normal sized billiard
>>balls.
>>-- (Terry Pratchett, The Light Fantastic)
>
>So it is impossible to create just one or just two billiard balls
>magically? That hardly makes sense.

Nope, you'd just need 0.33333Th or 0.66666Th to create one or two
billiard balls. Just because it's the basic unit doesn't mean it's the
indivisible quantum of magical strength. A joule is the basic unit of
energy; it doesn't mean you can't get millijoules.

>Pratchett seems like C.S. Lewis in this regard: a master of
>beautifully-crafted phrases, as long as you don't try to make
>logical sense of them.

Unless you try harder to rationalise the throw-away jokes.

BJ

--
Blac...@hot-underpants-mail.com
Remove -underpants- to reply.
http://www.geocities.com/~no-quarter/potter/

Troels Forchhammer

unread,

May 22, 2002, 10:08:30 AM5/22/02

to

"Jay Random" <jra...@bondwine.ca> wrote:

<snip>

> There were no computers in 1937,
> when he began writing LOTR, & Tolkien never used a computer in his life.
> Any resemblance between computer programming & anything in Tolkien's
> work is purely coincidental & should not be taken as proof of _anything_.

That is of course true.
Computer programming can - IMO - be used as a reference level of
'sentience' or 'consciousness' with which most of the participants here
will be acquainted.

Tolkien may, however, have imagined e.g. the One Ring to have been
operating by a set of rules in some ways resembling what we know
today in high level computer languages, though I personally believe
that he intended a consciousness for the Ring which was more
human like than that.

It is - IMO - when we get to discuss the _level_ of intelligence/
consciousness/awareness/sentience/whatever that the computer
programming becomes profitable as a common reference, though
of course this is not entirely unambiguous.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Please reply to t.f...@mail.dk

A Thaum is the basic unit of magical strength. It has been

Donald Shepherd

unread,

May 22, 2002, 10:25:48 AM5/22/02

to

In article <acdpqh$c6t$1...@usenet.otenet.gr>, Aris Katsaris
(kats...@otenet.gr) says...
<Snip>

> Yes, the above post is confused and confusing. Not sure how I can make
> it clearer though...

Well I understood it, and thank you, it was a thoroughly interesting
read.

Donald Shepherd

unread,

May 22, 2002, 10:29:59 AM5/22/02

to

In article <acegvm$ob477$4...@ID-135975.news.dfncis.de>, Taemon
(Tae...@zonnet.nl) says...

Mainly because we're nowhere near that point at the moment. I was more
asking if there were any solid reasons why such a being could not or
would not be made.

Pradera

unread,

May 22, 2002, 11:24:06 AM5/22/02

to

Użytkownik Donald Shepherd <donald_...@hotmail.com> w wiadomości do
grup dyskusyjnych napisał:MPG.1756485db...@mail.uq.edu.au...

> In article <acegvm$ob477$4...@ID-135975.news.dfncis.de>, Taemon
> (Tae...@zonnet.nl) says...
> > Donald Shepherd wrote:
> Mainly because we're nowhere near that point at the moment. I was more
> asking if there were any solid reasons why such a being could not or
> would not be made.
> --

Well, the neural nets, although they seemed pretty close to AI, have failed,
I heard. They still can do amazing things, but they are not able to do
something they were made to do...(I don't know the technicals, my friends
from technical university told me that). So right now - I guess we have no
idea how to do that, but who knows what the future brings...
If one believes that what makes us human is more than just a 1,2 kg mass of
neurons transmitting data to each other, well, then we must find what it is
and how to produce it artificially.
If, however, one believes otherwise, I see no reason why we couldn't copy
that thing in our skulls. Then it's just a matter of mechanics.

the softrat

unread,

May 22, 2002, 4:09:29 PM5/22/02

to

On Tue, 21 May 2002 10:03:41 -0400, qx1...@bigfoot.com (Stan Brown)
wrote:

>Donald Shepherd <donald_...@hotmail.com> wrote in

>rec.arts.books.tolkien:
>>Well, there are a few more complications with being a human... though my
>>dictionary lists 'human being' as "Any living or extinct member of the
>>family Hominidae", which I guess a robot can never fulfil.
>
>I find that definition _awfully_ hard to accept. I don't see
>Australopithecus or homo erectus as human beings, any more than I
>think eohippus is a horse.

Well, eohippus sure aint no palm tree!

the softrat "He who rubs owls"
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
A conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking.
(Arthur Bloch)

Taemon

unread,

May 22, 2002, 4:54:03 PM5/22/02

to

Donald Shepherd wrote:

> > > In theory, what is stopping the creation of a thinking
mechanical
> > > man? I might be stretching a bit, but is it even theoretically
possible?
> > Why is that stretching? I see no reason why not. Of course, I'm
not
> > religious.
> Mainly because we're nowhere near that point at the moment. I was
more
> asking if there were any solid reasons why such a being could not or
> would not be made.

Well, I can't think of why it couldn't be done. Eventually. The human
body is of an unbelievable complexity.

Even seemingly simple motorical problems are almost impossible to
solve mechanically. Early robots made in our liking suffered problems
like going into a tremor when picking something up or simply keeling
over because they didn't compensate for the shifting of their
(considerable) weight. Correcting such things by calculating movement
angles and such quickly run completely out of hand - there are too
many variables involved. The way we do it is quite different.

As I said before, bipedalism is usually not a good idea. Even we
ourselves need years learning simply to stand erect (once that is
achieved, walking is simple. Walking means losing your balance without
falling down). A couple of years ago I saw a movie of a robot
standing, walking and even bowing down to pick something up so,
clearly, matters are proceeding (my jaw was hanging on my knees).

And this is only motorics. Metabolism, perception, heat reduction and
all the other things that make a human a living, breathing organism
are problems as big or even bigger. Actually, I think that stuff like
thinking and awareness will be the least of it. The temptation to
bypass evolution is so great that the possibility not to is usually
not even taken into account. But I don't think one can built an animal
by starting at the top.

Greetings, T.

Pradera

unread,

May 22, 2002, 4:59:59 PM5/22/02

to

Użytkownik Taemon <Tae...@zonnet.nl> w wiadomości do grup dyskusyjnych
napisał:ach0f6$l2clg$1...@ID-135975.news.dfncis.de...

> Donald Shepherd wrote:
>
> And this is only motorics. Metabolism, perception, heat reduction and
> all the other things that make a human a living, breathing organism
> are problems as big or even bigger. Actually, I think that stuff like
> thinking and awareness will be the least of it. The temptation to
> bypass evolution is so great that the possibility not to is usually
> not even taken into account. But I don't think one can built an animal
> by starting at the top.
>

And why even bother, when you can make a cyborg?
(BTW and OT: have you noticed that C3PO is 'human-cyborg relations' droid?
Does this mean droids in Star Wars are actually cyborgs?)

A Tsar Is Born

unread,

May 22, 2002, 6:38:10 PM5/22/02

to

qx1...@bigfoot.com (Stan Brown) wrote in message news:<MPG.175554b83...@news.odyssey.net>...

> Troels Forchhammer <Tro...@ThisIsFake.Fk> wrote in
> rec.arts.books.tolkien:
> >A Thaum is the basic unit of magical strength. It has been
> >universally established as the amount of magic needed to
> >create one small white pigeon or three normal sized billiard
> >balls.
> >-- (Terry Pratchett, The Light Fantastic)
>
> So it is impossible to create just one or just two billiard balls
> magically? That hardly makes sense.
>
> Pratchett seems like C.S. Lewis in this regard: a master of
> beautifully-crafted phrases, as long as you don't try to make
> logical sense of them.

An aslan is a degree of symbolism from any already known system that
can be added to a whimsiscal fantasy to tie it, a bit too heavily, to
the non-whimsical scheme of the fantasist. The number of aslans that
any whimsy can endure before crumbling to didactic dust will naturally
vary from acolyte to acolyte. Thus, for me, three or four alsans will
ruin the pleasure I take in the entertainment, if the fantasist's
scheme tends towards dogmatic monotheistic religion. Six or seven and,
unless the fantasist is VERY good at the sheer craft (narrative,
writing), I'm yawning. Ten or twelve, however, and the symbolism is so
over-the-top preposterous that it becomes campily funny -- kind of
like Vincent Price in "The Ten Commandments."

Exemplary readings follow:

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe -- five aslans
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader -- two aslans until the conclusion,
when it burps to eight
A Horse and His Boy -- three aslans
Out of the Silent Planet -- three aslans
Perelandra -- six aslans
That Hideous Strength -- ten aslans
The Pilgrim's Regress (yeah, I actually read it) -- eight aslans
Till We Have Faces -- one aslan (most beautiful fiction he ever wrote)

The Hobbit -- half of an aslan
The Lord of the Rings -- three aslans, and you may not even notice the
first time through
The Silmarillion -- five aslans

All Hallows Eve -- four aslans
War in Heaven -- six aslans
Heaven and Hell -- four aslans (but read it anyway)
The Place of the Lion -- eight aslans
The Greater Trumps -- five aslans

The Colour of Magick -- two aslans, but I can't stand Rincewind
The Light Fantastick -- two aslans, but I still can't stand Rincewind
Weird Sisters -- half an aslan
Witches Abroad -- half an aslan

Alice in Wonderland -- no aslans
Through the Looking-Glass -- ditto

I, Claudius -- two aslans
Hercules, My Shipmate -- five aslans, but who cares? GET IT
Seven Days in New Crete -- eight aslans
King Jesus -- six aslans
Homer's Daughter -- two aslans

The King Must Die -- two aslans
The Last of the Wine -- four aslans
The Mask of Apollo -- six aslans

She -- three aslans

Parmathule
atsar...@hotmail.com

A Tsar Is Born

unread,

May 22, 2002, 6:45:55 PM5/22/02

to

Oh, yeah, I forgot:

Der fliegende Hollander -- four aslans
Tannhaueser -- four aslans
Lohengrin -- six aslans
Tristan und Isolde -- three aslans
Die Meistersinger -- seven aslans
Das Rheingold -- six aslans
Die Walkuere -- six aslans
Siegfried -- nine aslans
Gotterdamerung -- ten aslans
Parsifal -- nineteen aslans

But that's the librettos only. For the music one forgives him everything.

Tsar Parmathule
atsar...@hotmail.com

Jay Random

unread,

May 22, 2002, 8:29:56 PM5/22/02

to

Troels Forchhammer wrote:

>
> That is of course true.
> Computer programming can - IMO - be used as a reference level of
> 'sentience' or 'consciousness' with which most of the participants here
> will be acquainted.
>
> Tolkien may, however, have imagined e.g. the One Ring to have been
> operating by a set of rules in some ways resembling what we know
> today in high level computer languages, though I personally believe
> that he intended a consciousness for the Ring which was more
> human like than that.
>
> It is - IMO - when we get to discuss the _level_ of intelligence/
> consciousness/awareness/sentience/whatever that the computer
> programming becomes profitable as a common reference, though
> of course this is not entirely unambiguous.

unread,

May 23, 2002, 2:10:13 PM5/23/02

to

Pradera wrote:

> > And this is only motorics. Metabolism, perception, heat reduction
and
> > all the other things that make a human a living, breathing
organism
> > are problems as big or even bigger. Actually, I think that stuff
like
> > thinking and awareness will be the least of it. The temptation to
> > bypass evolution is so great that the possibility not to is
usually
> > not even taken into account. But I don't think one can built an
animal
> > by starting at the top.
> And why even bother, when you can make a cyborg?

You just proved my point! Thank you! :-) The point being that it's
probably so hard to built a cyborg or a robot that is functioning as a
human, that it's maybe a better route to built a human as humans are
built, using the evolutionary solutions. Or build a robot but leave
out the idea of recreating some kind of artificial human (as in my
proposition to build a six-limbed robot).

Greetings, T.

Troels Forchhammer

unread,

May 23, 2002, 4:20:20 PM5/23/02

to

Stan Brown wrote:

> Donald Shepherd <donald_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Well, there are a few more complications with being a human... though my
> >dictionary lists 'human being' as "Any living or extinct member of the
> >family Hominidae", which I guess a robot can never fulfil.
>
> I find that definition _awfully_ hard to accept. I don't see
> Australopithecus or homo erectus as human beings, any more than I
> think eohippus is a horse.

I got curious because of this and other threads so I took an online
search for a definition of the word "human".
Most dictionaries define it as "a human being" or "a person", which
doesn't really get me any further.
A member of mankind is also often used so I tried to look for that
as well, and ended up with mankind being the human race - homo
sapiens sapiens, which seems to be in accordance with your
understanding of the word.
I got a few definitions of "human" that tried for a bit more clarity:

WordNet 1.7 at
http://poets.notredame.ac.jp/cgi-bin/wn?cmd=wn&word=human#Overview of noun
human
"2. (5) homo, man, human being, human --
(any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae) "

Dictionary.com at
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=human
"1.A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species
H. sapiens."

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary at
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=human
"Main Entry: 2human
Function: noun
Date: circa 1533
: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any
living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate
belongs"

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Ed.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/78/H0317800.html
"1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species
H. sapiens."

The Encyclopædia Britannica gives only a human being at
http://search.britannica.com/search?miid=1171502&query=human
"human being
(species Homo sapiens), a bipedal primate mammal that is anatomically
related to the great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed
brain, with a resultant capacity for articulate speech ... "

I won't say it made me much wiser other than I realized that
human according to the dictionaries can refer to several
subsets of the Homo genus - as well as the whole lot of
more informal definitions.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Please reply to t.f...@mail.dk

"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."
Wolfgang Pauli, on a paper submitted by a physicist colleague

Jonathan Stone

unread,

May 23, 2002, 11:40:51 PM5/23/02

to

In article <3CEAA07A...@bondwine.ca>,
Jay Random <jra...@bondwine.ca> wrote:

>
>
>Donald Shepherd wrote:
>
>>
>> I like how every time a computer gets to the currently acceptable level
>> of reasoning to have intelligence (ie. beating a grandmaster at chess
>> would have been enough ten years ago), the goal posts are shifted again.

This is simply not true. The principles behind computer chess --
gametree search and alpha-beta pruning, augmented with opening books,
&c... were well understood. It was also relatively well understood
that this was not how humans play chess. The challenge to beating
grandmasters was simply making hte hardware and software go faster,
fast enough that deep gametree searches could do better than humans.

>Chiefly because it becomes blatantly obvious that a computer can achieve
>that goal without even remotely approaching the level of _general_
>intelligence shown by humans.

Yep. But the basic problem is that AI research is the art of trying
to get computers to do things requiring "intelligence" which they
currently don't do well. As soon as computers can do it well, it stops
being AI. :)