No one wants to make a toaster that: says that it doesn't feel like it, sexually harasses its co-workers, needs sick days, wants vacation, wants you to pay for it when it gets old, needs time off because it got drunk, etc.

Any company that made such a toaster would be out of business shortly.

Did someone want some toast?

I would imagine droids would be just like people and there are probably any number of droid underground/terror organizations employing a number of different tactics. Just as zealous and committed to their cause as any organic and probably just as divided as their organic counterparts. Similar to the internal struggle of the Cylons in BSG.

I have to disagree here. What you are proposing denigrates the intelligence of everyone in the Star Wars universe.

If droids were prone to acting out or disagreeing, then no one would make them. In Battle Star Galactica the Cylons are a mistake that humans deeply regret. That's not how Star Wars work. Sure there are droid rebellions, but they are rare and often due to a fault in the system somewhere.

No one wants to make a toaster that: says that it doesn't feel like it, sexually harasses its co-workers, needs sick days, wants vacation, wants you to pay for it when it gets old, needs time off because it got drunk, etc.

Any company that made such a toaster would be out of business shortly.

This hardly seems like a fair representation of what people have said here.

Isn't it? "I would imagine droids would be just like people" is the first line. People do all of the things I posted. A droid is a super-dooper-digital toaster. A cook droid is exactly that. A machine to make you meals, it's a Sci-Fi kitchen appliance. Every Real Housewife of Coruscant wants one.

If it gets hit with a bolt of lightning, it might gain a soul, and start to disagree with your need to eat bacon at every meal. It probably won't, however.

My take on this issue is this:

When you get right down to it, Star Wars (the movie) is a pretty simple setting. It's Flash Gordon fluffy, mustache twirling bad guys with big black cowboy hats. It's world war II fighters in space, and people Errol Flynning off really tall things to save damsels in distress. To that end, droids are just metal people, just with oddly shaped shiny heads. Droids are as sentient as the story needs them to be.

Are there droid rebellions and other social factors? Depends - does it serve the story? Do I need to have a game where sentient rights are brought to the fore? Then yes there are.

Since these droids can think, would Descartes believe their souls go to heaven?

What about Grevious? He started as a living being and became (mostly) a droid, correct? I'm trying to think of examples of droids demonstrating actual creativity.

- R2D2 fighting the battle droids in Revenge of the Sith

- R2D2 pushing C3PO from Jawa's barge when he is experiencing fear o f Heights (another dead give-away they are sentient)

- C3PO's "I say, were you looking for me?" *Waves*

- C3PO being extremely happy to see R2 again

- C3PO going against his programming and impersonating a god (him jammering while flying around on the throne is also not something I think a programmer (Anakin in this case) would have added)

- C3PO cursing (creative language) at Chewie

- C3PO and r2 cursing at each other

- The head droid in Jawa's Palace stating they will eventually "break" R2D2's fiestiness

Man, there are dozens of examples...

Ah, the last one is good. That's an actual example of an in-Universe viewpoint of droids as self-aware / free willed. I don't think any of the others are evidence of free will or sentience however. Even calling Chewbacca a "flea-bitten mop-head" is well within the bounds of the sort of programming level we see evidenced by droids in Star Wars. If their AI can account for all the complexity of battle or navigating an unfamiliar environment and setting priorities (Padme is in a giant pot about to be filled with molten metal, Padme is valued life, environment is about to become non-suitable for life, rescue Padme), then it should certainly be able to do some word associations based on physical characteristics.

But it does appear that there are many cases where emotion appears to be real. Free Will and creativity is another issue though.

I'm still a bit confused about droids. I strongly believe in the VI/AI theory, because most droids just seems "walking machines" that just follow orders, but some of them seems to have "human" emotions like, fear, happiness, compassion, friendly-sense (that expression exist? XD)

Here is another sample with "human emotions". Fear in this case http://starwars.com/explore/encyclopedia/characters/battledroid513/

Ah, that's a very good example. That looks like free will on R2-D2's part. I had forgotten that episode. So how is it that R2-D2 is exhibiting Free Will here? Is it because she is still owned by the Republic and doing what would be appropriate to get back to them? I remember in Ep IV where R2 sets off to find Obi Wan which is regarded as unusual with Luke's "I think he's trying to get back to his master" and Obi Wan's "I've never seen such dedication in a droid, before". When can a droid go against it's programming?

R2 appears to be a massive exception. He alone of the droids in the movies displays creativity. Sorry Dante but I don't consider most of your examples to be creative in any form (Swearing is creative?! Really? Then every sailor I ever served with is a friggin' Leonardo Da Vinci). The ones I agree with are all R2.

Adhering a high quality to the creativeness is of course not the issue. If Leonardo Da Vinci is the benchmark for creativity then none of us are creative.

And swearing is indeed a sign of creativity, do you know how many of the 8.000 words invinted by Shakespeare were curses, insults and put-downs?

I imagine creating an insult generator wouldn't be that hard. If you had the level of awareness and context that a Star Wars droid can have, then making a GOOD insult generator would not only be easy, but probably expected.

We've already had the Great Droid Revolution (see http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Great_Droid_Revolution). I think almost everyone would want to avoid a repeat of that situation. Of those who might want a repeat of the GDR, I think most are likely to want to see that just to stir up trouble, and not for legitimate concerns over "Droid Rights".

So, it makes sense that certain types of droid behaviours would be something you would try to avoid, and that this would probably be a part of the basic programming for almost all higher-functioning units. But, as we have observed, droids can overcome their original programming, and they can even overcome the use of a restraining bolt to attempt to force certain types of behaviours -- or avoidance thereof.

So, in my mind, droids kind of are the new slaves. And you can expect most people in the universe to treat them that way.

However, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, at least from the Narrative perspective. Han was a Rogue, and he shot Greedo before Greedo could shoot him. But he was redeemed.

Likewise, given that the flaw of droid slavery is common throughout the Star Wars universe, this allows for the Narrative possibility that the entire universe can be redeemed.

This isn't real life. We're not actually enslaving anyone. We're just telling stories. And in stories, it can be okay for someone to be a slave, if that gives the storytellers the opportunity to allow those slaves to become something more, and the opportunity to redeem some of the people who might previously have been slave owners.

We have to start from somewhere less than perfect, if we're going to be able to create a story of how someone can rise above their circumstances and become something more than they were. If everyone and everything was perfect, there wouldn't be any more stories to tell.

R2 appears to be a massive exception. He alone of the droids in the movies displays creativity. Sorry Dante but I don't consider most of your examples to be creative in any form (Swearing is creative?! Really? Then every sailor I ever served with is a friggin' Leonardo Da Vinci). The ones I agree with are all R2.

Adhering a high quality to the creativeness is of course not the issue. If Leonardo Da Vinci is the benchmark for creativity then none of us are creative.And swearing is indeed a sign of creativity, do you know how many of the 8.000 words invinted by Shakespeare were curses, insults and put-downs?

I imagine creating an insult generator wouldn't be that hard. If you had the level of awareness and context that a Star Wars droid can have, then making a GOOD insult generator would not only be easy, but probably expected.

Really? An "insult generator" is a plausible bit of programming and trumps sentience in droids in a fantasy setting?

This is off-topic and on-topic all at the same time. Has anyone here read Tik-Tok by John Sladek. It is set in a world where most work is done by robots and the title character (a household robot called Tik-Tok) believes that his Asimov circuits which govern his behaviour have ceased to work. Later, he begins to question whether they (or any other robot's) ever worked and that perhaps no other robot has ever questioned whether or not they have free will, simply thinking that they don't. In points in the book he becomes incredibly frustrated with the inability of other robots to ever think of doing something for themselves. In particular, one robot he hires is perfectly happy to rob and kill for him, but whatever he does, ever, cannot be convinced that Tik-Tok is not actually employing him on behalf of a human somewhere. This absolutely maddens Tik-Tok at points.

It's an indescribably cynical book and charts Tik-Tok's natural progression from murder to organized crime to health care to politics. Very funny, too. This entire thread relates very closely to the narrative of that book.

R2 appears to be a massive exception. He alone of the droids in the movies displays creativity. Sorry Dante but I don't consider most of your examples to be creative in any form (Swearing is creative?! Really? Then every sailor I ever served with is a friggin' Leonardo Da Vinci). The ones I agree with are all R2.

Adhering a high quality to the creativeness is of course not the issue. If Leonardo Da Vinci is the benchmark for creativity then none of us are creative.And swearing is indeed a sign of creativity, do you know how many of the 8.000 words invinted by Shakespeare were curses, insults and put-downs?

I imagine creating an insult generator wouldn't be that hard. If you had the level of awareness and context that a Star Wars droid can have, then making a GOOD insult generator would not only be easy, but probably expected.

Really? An "insult generator" is a plausible bit of programming and trumps sentience in droids in a fantasy setting?

It's entirely plausible. I imagine someone could write one now, let alone with the contextual awareness Star Wars droids have. Nor did I say that it trumps sentience as an explanation. What it does is show that the generation of insults is not evidence of sentience. Whereas we have a number of things that are evidence against.

I never said it wasn't possible, I asked whether you found it more plausible then the other option. ( and I mean in the fantasy setting and not in the real world...)

Also, you speak of evidence which I have yet to see.

I never said it wasn't possible, I asked whether you found it more plausible then the other option. ( and I mean in the fantasy setting and not in the real world...)

My point doesn't matter if you said that or not. It's a simple one: you gave the creation of insults as evidence for sentience and I pointed out that this is well within the bounds of programming capabilities and therefore is not evidence.

As to whether I find the cause of insult creation being more likely programming or more likely sentience, I would lean toward the former because there's lots of circumstantial evidence that they're not sentient therefore this is less likely as a cause. Besides there's nothing inherent in "sentience" that leads to being able to craft insults.

If someone has a knack for insults, or is prone to insulting people, then that is a personality trait. Given that droids are activated with their personality already created for them (they have no chance to develop it themselves, it's already there) then their capacity to make insults must be an artefact imparted by their creators.

Personality in a droid is not evidence of sentience. It is not even, without a lot of investigation which we cannot do on fictional things, necessarily evidence of creativity. You can build an insult generator right now in the real world and it will appear creative but is actually predictable and finite.

What would be circumstantial evidence for sentience and creativity in personality, would be if those personalities changed over time. Do we have any instances where Droids in Star Wars have altered in their basic values, attitudes or beliefs? Humans alter and develop all the time. But we see C3-P0's personality the first time he is activated no different to when we see him in Ep IV some forty years later. R2-D2 never seemed to find its courage and become a brave robot. That personality seems to have been hard-wired from the start. And these are the MOST independent droids we see. Does that droid waitress in Ep II pick up a novel when she's finished work? Does she scive off round the back when she's supposed to be waiting tables? There's plenty of evidence of droids learning information. But is there any evidence of them developing?

Also, you speak of evidence which I have yet to see.

I'm not going to repeat my posts or summarize them so that they say less than I originally meant. My arguments are all through this thread.

An insult generator would be pretty easy if you do it as is most often done in Star Wars. You have two lists: adjective list, and noun list. Randomly generate one of each. Use basic grammar to connect them.

Simple to code. Getting a good list for adjectives and nouns might be a little tricky. Once you have the lists though, replicating the code across all your droids is trivial.

Really isn't this what a lot of people do? Randomly stick words together to generate a new insult? If that's your threshold for sentients...

The code in Star Wars is a bit more advanced, but not complex. Droids have dictionaries, and words are probably ranked by social acceptability. To insult find words of low acceptable value. Thus flea-bitten mop-head.

At some point the droid defenders are correct, at what point is it code pretending to be alive and when have they become people? Does it matter? Humans have long known to fake it until you make it. Why can't droids do the same?

My take is that they don't for some reason. Those who become truly self aware are special.

At some point we draw lines between right and wrong. All the passionate prose in the universe won't change the fact that those lines are arbitrary.

An insult generator would be pretty easy if you do it as is most often done in Star Wars. You have two lists: adjective list, and noun list. Randomly generate one of each. Use basic grammar to connect them.

Simple to code. Getting a good list for adjectives and nouns might be a little tricky. Once you have the lists though, replicating the code across all your droids is trivial.

Really isn't this what a lot of people do? Randomly stick words together to generate a new insult? If that's your threshold for sentients...

The code in Star Wars is a bit more advanced, but not complex. Droids have dictionaries, and words are probably ranked by social acceptability. To insult find words of low acceptable value. Thus flea-bitten mop-head.

I agree with what you say. I'd imagine that a small refinement to the insult generator would be to add some basic associations. "Flea-bitten" could have links to hairy, dirty and poor. C3-P0 looks at Chewbacca and pulls out insults appropriate to a wookie, for example.

My take is that they don't for some reason. Those who become truly self aware are special.

At some point we draw lines between right and wrong. All the passionate prose in the universe won't change the fact that those lines are arbitrary.

I like this and I like the idea that it's a gradual scale. Those droids being used by the Mandalorians for target practice and that R2-D2 took charge of - an interesting and possible grey area, for example.

I also quite like the idea that R2-D2 is aware and trying to "awaken" C3-P0 throughout the series. Though that idea is simultaneously both very hopeful and uplifting and bleak in its implications all at the same time.

I also quite like the idea that R2-D2 is aware and trying to "awaken" C3-P0 throughout the series. Though that idea is simultaneously both very hopeful and uplifting and bleak in its implications all at the same time.

I don't think it's bleak at all. R2-D2 is the Buddha of droids, trying to awaken 3PO's consciousness and pierce the bubble of sapience.

That's one way to look at it.

Yesh, I saw no "evidence" in your posts but only interpretation (same as the rest of us).

I also quite like the idea that R2-D2 is aware and trying to "awaken" C3-P0 throughout the series. Though that idea is simultaneously both very hopeful and uplifting and bleak in its implications all at the same time.

I don't think it's bleak at all. R2-D2 is the Buddha of droids, trying to awaken 3PO's consciousness and pierce the bubble of sapience.

That's one way to look at it.

Yeah, that's why I wrote it as both very hopeful and uplifting at the same time. Hopeful and uplifting that R2-D2 is kindling the light of self-awareness in simple matter. And bleak in that so much of what we see in his golden companion is a hollow idol struggling to self-awareness through the pasted on simulacra of life.

Yesh, I saw no "evidence" in your posts but only interpretation (same as the rest of us).

Which is pretty much what I read your post to mean - that you had actually read what I wrote but were just writing it off by going "what evidence". Hence my reluctance to spend time simply re-writing what I'd already written for your sake. And no, not everything is "interpretation" unless you're going to take a meaning for that word so broad as to class pretty much anything and everything as "interpretation". Several of the arguments people have put forward (for and against) are not interpretation, but evidence.

It is pretty hard to have conclusive evidence both for and against in this case. The against camp seem to be looking at the real world for arguments more so then the for camp seem to look at the movies and EU.

Wookiepedia actually defines it perfectly;

Depending on the model and its corresponding purpose, droids were totally obedient, rugged, expendable, capable of vast memory recall, and mathematically precise. These characteristics made them well suited for many jobs, though the lack of independent thought in the cheaper, less advanced models limited their capability. This lack of autonomy was simultaneously a vast asset and a glaring weakness—an asset in terms of obedience and control but a massive drawback in terms of effectiveness. Designers faced a fundamental paradox—make the droids overly intelligent, and they might rebel; yet make the droids not intelligent enough and they would be ineffectual.

The question of droid sapience (the ability to reason) or sentience (the ability to feel) is ultimately a matter of philosophy, since we cannot experience what a droid is experiencing (and neither can other sapients in the Star Wars universe). So existentially speaking, it's a moot point.

However, you guys do seem to be largely ignoring a very easy explanation for the multitude of hard-to-explain quirks in droid personality: namely, the difference between QUIRKS and PROGRAMMING.

Programming is what tells a battle droid to fight "to the death" in an alarmingly high number of scenarios. They don't usually surrender because it's against their programming. Similarly, protocol droids will usually not impersonate a deity because it is, again, against their programming.

Personality quirks are what happens when a droid goes for a long time without a memory wipe, and develops certain traits (like sadistic tendencies, irrational self-confidence, "blinking" photoreceptors, a lisp, the compulsory desire to perform a full recharge every 374 minutes, or homicidal behavior in non-4th-degree droids). Quirks can also allow a droid to ignore certain parts (or all parts) of its programming, or even to reprogram itself.

Personality quirks can easily explain anything that a droid does that doesn't make sense. Otherwise, if you can find a reasonable explanation for it, it's likely simply the droid's programming.

It is pretty hard to have conclusive evidence both for and against in this case. The against camp seem to be looking at the real world for arguments more so then the for camp seem to look at the movies and EU.

My arguments as I recall them: several in-film references to droids' inability to think creatively by characters; the evidence of lack of free will in the numerous instances where droids have seemingly gone against their own desires (expressed personality is secondary to actual action, rather than being the cause as in sentient beings); that a droid's personality is not developed but present on activation before they have any ability to effect change themselves, therefore presumably is in accordance with the wishes of their creators; that we have never seen a droid develop in its personality, attitude or principles - something that self-aware creatures do almost as an inherent property of self-awareness.

None of those arguments, which are my principle arguments, are "looking at the real world" rather than the movie. I find it a little annoying when people make obviously wrong charges towards what another has said as an attempt to dismiss.

The main "real world" argument has resulted from yourself suggesting the creation of insults indicates sentience or creativity. The counter-argument is not about the real world just because it is valid in both the real world and in the setting. As I wrote in my original response it is more true in the setting than in the real world because the capabilities of Star Wars technology make factoring context into any insult generation even easier!

Now all that dealt with, I can see some evidence for independent thought and free will. Notably C3-P0 looking like he's actually going to abandon what he's supposed to be doing at the door to Jabba's Palace where he looks ready to turn around and actually leave if the door hadn't opened. Would he really have walked away and abandoned his mission though? We may never know.

EDIT: Random thought - I much prefer how C3-P0 is handled in the OT and TCW than in the prequels. In the PT, he's comic relief to the point it makes him barely a character (for certain values of "comic" and "relief", anyway). In the OT and TCW you can actually empathise with him and in Ep. VI he gets the scene with the Ewoks in their hut where he is telling them the story so far complete with sound effects. He gets an actual moment of respect and you can also see some respect on the faces of Han, Leia, Luke as C3-P0 shows off that he's actually good at something, even if it's something as modest as telling a story. I really like that. If R2-D2 is awakening the "mindless philosopher" (which I think is exactly what an intelligent mechanic might call a protocol droid), then I think it's by this point that C3-P0 becomes a real person.

My point doesn't matter if you said that or not. It's a simple one: you gave the creation of insults as evidence for sentience and I pointed out that this is well within the bounds of programming capabilities and therefore is not evidence.

There are some pretty good insult generators that already exist -- the web is full of them. What's hard about these things is applying them in intelligent ways, so that you don't use the C-3PO insult generator when you're talking to Chewbacca, and vice-versa.

The next thing that's hard about these is believing that someone would choose to incorporate them in something like an Astromech droid. These droids have one purpose, which is to work on starships. There's no valid reason why any programmer would intentionally include an "insult generator" mode on this kind of a droid. Likewise, droids like this wouldn't choose to idly whistle to themselves, unless they had developed a personality over time that caused them to do so.

If someone has a knack for insults, or is prone to insulting people, then that is a personality trait. Given that droids are activated with their personality already created for them (they have no chance to develop it themselves, it's already there) then their capacity to make insults must be an artefact imparted by their creators.

At least most of their personality comes from their programmers, but not necessarily all of it. As you said, if there are changes over time.

What would be circumstantial evidence for sentience and creativity in personality, would be if those personalities changed over time. Do we have any instances where Droids in Star Wars have altered in their basic values, attitudes or beliefs? Humans alter and develop all the time. But we see C3-P0's personality the first time he is activated no different to when we see him in Ep IV some forty years later.

We don't know how many times Anakin turned on his Verbobrain circuits, tweaked them, wiped them, and then turned them off again.

In the latter circumstance, 3PO was relatively fresh from a wipe, so of course his personality would be largely the same as it was at the beginning -- that's the point of doing a wipe.

R2-D2 never seemed to find its courage and become a brave robot. That personality seems to have been hard-wired from the start. And these are the MOST independent droids we see. Does that droid waitress in Ep II pick up a novel when she's finished work? Does she scive off round the back when she's supposed to be waiting tables? There's plenty of evidence of droids learning information. But is there any evidence of them developing?

Courage is not the lack of fear. Courage is having fear, being fully aware of what might happen to you, and still going forward anyway. And R2 demonstrated that in spades, on multiple occasions.

There are lots of unsupported assertions in there:

My point doesn't matter if you said that or not. It's a simple one: you gave the creation of insults as evidence for sentience and I pointed out that this is well within the bounds of programming capabilities and therefore is not evidence.

There are some pretty good insult generators that already exist -- the web is full of them. What's hard about these things is applying them in intelligent ways, so that you don't use the C-3PO insult generator when you're talking to Chewbacca, and vice-versa.

As I wrote, we're talking droids that are at the level of being able to situationally determine priorities based on their aims and adapt to new environments and catalogue new information without that information having to be put into some special format for them. That's a very high level of capability and determining whether or not to make an insult is a task far below those which we already see droids capable of. R2-D2's insult generator seems to kick off on a fairly basic principle, btw: is entity doing something other than what I approve, if yes -> call them a mindless philosopher.

The problem with your objection above is that you're trying to use it to invoke sentience when it's already less complex than several other things we see droids do which are not evidence of sentience. Why the two of you are getting so hung up on the generation of insults I have no idea.

Insult Person X -> Y/N

* Person is droid or other non-organic: +10%

* Person is not current master: +12%

* Person is impeding attainment of current goals: +20%

* Person is potentially dangerous: -30%

Check chance of insult, roll digital d100 in head.

The next thing that's hard about these is believing that someone would choose to incorporate them in something like an Astromech droid. These droids have one purpose, which is to work on starships. There's no valid reason why any programmer would intentionally include an "insult generator" mode on this kind of a droid.

This notion is refuted by the fact that tens of millions of people have found R2-D2 more entertaining than if he had no personality. We slap smiley faces on vacuum cleaners. Why wouldn't we slap a funny personality on a droid if we could?

As to getting hung up on R2-D2 being an astromech and therefore having no need of a personality that doesn't seem true to me. You're sitting in your X-Wing on your own on a two-day journey to the Dagobah system. I think there's a lot more need of someone to talk at during space travel than with some domestic cooking robot at home with the family. Even if you know it's just an advanced program it at least listens, acknowledges and asks occasional questions for clarity.

You also underestimate the power of market differentiation. I don't really need a dual-core processor in my television. But one manufacturer adds it and now they all do (and some now have quad-core). Who cares but it's there.

There's another issue here as well - making humans feel comfortable. In the novel I mentioned earlier, Tik-Tok, robots are given daffy personalities because a quiet, superior person in your home all day made people uncomfortable, made them feel inadequate or unnecessary. But a doofy personality let people feel superior again. Any personality can help humans relate, ultimately.

Likewise, droids like this wouldn't choose to idly whistle to themselves, unless they had developed a personality over time that caused them to do so.

That's a weak argument. Appliances often give off signals and status indicators whether there's anyone there or not. It's just simpler that way than determining if anyone is present who needs to be informed.

If someone has a knack for insults, or is prone to insulting people, then that is a personality trait. Given that droids are activated with their personality already created for them (they have no chance to develop it themselves, it's already there) then their capacity to make insults must be an artefact imparted by their creators.

At least most of their personality comes from their programmers, but not necessarily all of it. As you said, if there are changes over time.

Yes, IF. My point was that I've never seen evidence of a droids personality, values or attitudes changing over time in the movies or TCW. And we should have. We have seen droids exist over long periods of time without any change.

What would be circumstantial evidence for sentience and creativity in personality, would be if those personalities changed over time. Do we have any instances where Droids in Star Wars have altered in their basic values, attitudes or beliefs? Humans alter and develop all the time. But we see C3-P0's personality the first time he is activated no different to when we see him in Ep IV some forty years later.

We don't know how many times Anakin turned on his Verbobrain circuits, tweaked them, wiped them, and then turned them off again.

We also don't know that jawas didn't replace C3-P0 with an exact copy in between each film or that Russel doesn't have a tea-pot orbiting Jupiter. It's an obvious logical fallacy to start invoking things we have no evidence of to justify one's point of view. C3-P0 recognized Anakin after the years spent away when he returned with Padme much later so hadn't been "wiped" routinely by the Lars family. What about R2-D2? We never see evidence she is wiped either, and some evidence that she is not. And yet the same no alteration in goals, personality or other traits.

R2-D2 never seemed to find its courage and become a brave robot. That personality seems to have been hard-wired from the start. And these are the MOST independent droids we see. Does that droid waitress in Ep II pick up a novel when she's finished work? Does she scive off round the back when she's supposed to be waiting tables? There's plenty of evidence of droids learning information. But is there any evidence of them developing?

Courage is not the lack of fear. Courage is having fear, being fully aware of what might happen to you, and still going forward anyway. And R2 demonstrated that in spades, on multiple occasions.

Who said "courage is lack of fear" that you feel the need to "correct" me. The meaning in this context is irrelevant. R2-D2 was always the same, is the point that was made. He never chose to become courageous that we can tell. It's part of the personality that was placed him in from the start. Or to put it in programmer's terms: a high tolerance for risk of self and low tolerance of risk for others.

Some more Red Dwarf that relates to this:

Sorry for the off-topic, but I suggest this movie to everyone http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2209764/ Transcendence. A really good one