From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies,alt.cult-movies
Subject: Re: Computers or physical? (was Re: Is not! Is too! Is not! Is too!)
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:46:34 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <5998@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>, mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>From article <1992Oct6.220652.11274@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, by dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892):
>> Well, perhaps what we really disagree on is the definition of 'traditional'.
>> In the all the literature I read prior to the Old Star Trek, 'android' meant
>> a flesh and blood, or biological, but synthetic or manufactured human.  For 
>> that matter, I haven't read anything since in which androids were electro-
>> mechanical. 

Unusual as it is, I found Star Trek's "androids" to follow virtually all
prior art I was aware of.  This made them what Asimov later referred to
as "humaniform robots".  Only one story I can recall (but whose title I
cannot) implied that "android" meant anything else, and that _did_ refer
to genetically engineered humans as "androids".  One other story had
similar artificial beings, they were refered to as "humanoids".

>The oldest reference to androids I remember is from the sixties.  The
>story was translated into German and as far as I recall, originally
>published in F&SF in the early sixties or earlier.  Anyway, it
>explicitly dealt with electronic androids.  Could have been by
>Clifford D. Simak, but I'm not sure.  I'll see if I can still find it.

>>>                 The androids in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep are
>>>mechanical/electronic. 
>> Absolutely not true.

>I agree.  I stand corrected.

Don't stand so quickly.  Nowhere is it implied that the replicants are not
mechanical.  In fact, it is explicitly stated, and demonstrated, that the
replicant animals _are_ robotic internally.  They have control panels,
hidden switches, breakdown mechanically and are serviced mechanically,
though some were designed to emulate biological malfunction in order to
avoid letting neighbors know you had an electric pet.  We are not given
to know that Dick's androids are any different internally from their
brethren emulating the lower orders, only that it was becoming more and
more difficult to acertain the machine's non-humanity by verbal or external
tests.  I believe this was done deliberately, to imply the themes of the
book with two "life" forms so dissimilar inwardly yet so alike outwardly
that not even they could tell themselves apart (cf: the android cop).

The problem with all these different words is that they were coined by
people who thought one thing and had different meanings attached by people
who did not take the time to learn just what the coiner meant - or were
lead into a specifically ambiguous definition, as in Dick's work.

In my own writing and in gaming, I try to stick to as "standard" a definition
as I can, where "standard" is a synthesis from my own impressions of what
_most_ people mean when they use the words.  From this admittedly elastic
yardstick comes these:

remote:   a mechanical/electronic device mobile but without self-will. Example:
          firefighting "robots" of today, target drones, most or all space
          probes to date (depending on your definition of "self-willed").
robot:    a mechanical/electronic device, self-willed and mobile, may or may
          not emulate the physical appearance of some life form.
android:  a robot that emulates the physical appearance of some life form.
          Examples: most androids of SF, R. Daneel Olivaw, the "Eagle" from
          Gardens of Rama, etc.
cyborg:   a being whose physical embodiment is composed of both living and
          mechanical/electronic componentry.  Example: CSM-100 T800 series
          Terminator, Steve Austin.

"Replicant" is pretty much defined in Blade Runner as a biological construct,
genetically engineered from living Earth creatures, probably humans.

Star Trek handles Cmdr. Data very erratically.  In the Naked Now they had
him get drunk along with everyone else on the mutated water, but in Datalore,
Lore kicks him in the head, popping open a little panel in his skull with
blinkenlights in it, and no blood.  Were he a cellular device, like Bishop
in Aliens, I might buy the drunk routine, but if he's got liddle wires and
cogs, as implied in Datalore, I don't.

The artificial people from Alien are an interesting counterpoint.  Obviously
cellular, they have internal organs and bleed when damaged.  Yet the internal
neural system, as witnessed when they took Ash apart, is fiber-optic.  This
implies the being is non-biological _and_ non-mechanical/electronic, possibly
fabricated by some chemical process using some type of synthetic cell, maybe
with the distant future scientists own version of DNA.

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
How about we all do something reasonable?  I bet that'll confuse 'em!