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.

Well that made me feel bad about myself so I took the time to go through your posts and found that I had no reason to be. I found one(!) instance of humans taking about droids in a certain manner being used as proof/evidence of droids not being sentient/sapient while it was pretty clear to everyone that humans in the Star Wars world feel that way. It was this quote:

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?

Sure you have some other points that sprung from the movies but they were like I said "interpretation" and nothing more, all other points were to ridicule the possibility of sapient droids by using toasters, Henry the vac and other appliances (including programming to let protocol droids swear (really?))

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!

Actually I was asked to give examples of creativity and gave that as one of many examples and was then berated by someone who felt that swearing wasn't as creative as Leonardo Davinci and therefor my point was invalid, something I resented.

Swearing is a creative process as such and whether you can mimick it by programming is another case entirely, also I am hard pressed to come up with a reason why anyone (and in this case a 9 year old boy that is prone to yell "Yippie" instead of "F*ck") would create a protocol droid (Wookieepedia: a type of droid designed to assist sentients in their relations with one another and were programmed mostly for etiquette, and were often used as translators between sentients or between sentients and computers) that has the ability to insult others or feel the need to do so.

Edit: I would like to add that I in no way, shape or form am trying to be an assh#le and am not trying to insult, bait and or be rude to you. I have seen many posts here deteriorate into full blown arguments (some where I was involved) and no longer want any part of that.

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.

Well that made me feel bad about myself so I took the time to go through your posts and found that I had no reason to be.

You said that proponents of my position were more focused on real world arguments than what we actually see in Star Wars. I pointed out that none of my principle arguments were. Looking through my posts will have shown you that.

I found one(!) instance of humans taking about droids in a certain manner being used as proof/evidence of droids not being sentient/sapient while it was pretty clear to everyone that humans in the Star Wars world feel that way. It was this quote:

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?

I'm not sure you've understood that. That was an instance of evidence I found of droids potentially being viewed as capable of free will. If you had read my posts you would have seen the other two instances I had given of in-universe people thinking the contrary were Obi Wan's comment which is the title of this thread and the comments of the Kaminoans which appeared to be accepted.

Again, neither of these depend on the real world, as you claimed my arguments focused on and the sdtated opinions of people in universe is valid evidence to be considered. Obviously.

Sure you have some other points that sprung from the movies but they were like I said "interpretation" and nothing more,

Observing that droids are activated with their personalities pre-generated is "interpretation"? Then what is not to you?

all other points were to ridicule the possibility of sapient droids by using toasters, Henry the vac and other appliances (including programming to let protocol droids swear (really?))

I haven't ridiculed anything so far as I am aware, Talkie the Toaster was also posted by someone else, not me as you suggest. Henry the vaccuum cleaner was a direct response to a claim that manufacturers would not give personalities to appliances. And I'm not sure where you got the part about "programming to let protocol droids swear" from but it wasn't me and I'm not aware of any instance where C3-P0 (or any other protocol droid does) swear. It sounds very out of character for C3-P0.

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!

Actually I was asked to give examples of creativity and gave that as one of many examples and was then berated by someone who felt that swearing wasn't as creative as Leonardo Davinci and therefor my point was invalid, something I resented.

Actually, you earlier contrasted swearing with "sentience" which I picked up on. But it's trivial to create some sort of insult generator. At least a rudimentary one. I'm sure we have some programmers here who could know an illustrative example up very quickly. After that it's adding more data and in Star Wars, some contextual awareness. Which at the risk of belabouring the point, is entirely possible to do with the technology we see in Star Wars without invoking self-awareness.

Swearing is a creative process as such and whether you can mimick it by programming is another case entirely,

See previous comment. It's not "whether you can mimic". You can. Therefore a robot insulting someone is not evidence of sentience, free will or necessarily creativity. The last is a caveat. The random or even weighted joining of terms to create insults could be considered creative in a sense, but it would also be finite and probably only pseudo-random.

also I am hard pressed to come up with a reason why anyone (and in this case a 9 year old boy that is prone to yell "Yippie" instead of "F*ck") would create a protocol droid (Wookieepedia: a type of droid designed to assist sentients in their relations with one another and were programmed mostly for etiquette, and were often used as translators between sentients or between sentients and computers) that has the ability to insult others or feel the need to do so.

Personally I'm hard pressed to think of a nine-year old boy who WOULDN'T program their droid to insult people. I would! Grab protocol droid parts, wire in brain, tweak personality settings to be as sarcastic and condescending as possible. That is EXACTLY what pre-adolescent boys would do.

Seriously, I do not understand at all this obsession with insults as a point of attack.

Edit: I would like to add that I in no way, shape or form am trying to be an assh#le and am not trying to insult, bait and or be rude to you. I have seen many posts here deteriorate into full blown arguments (some where I was involved) and no longer want any part of that.

That's fine. I'm happy to have as much constructive debate as possible. I only object to mischaracterisations of my arguments such as saying they depend more on looking at the real world than actual Star Wars. None of them do and the only "real world" debate we are having is your one about insults. something which would be even easier to do without sentience / "true" creativity with Star Wars technology, than it is in the current real world anyway! I'm totally happy to have vigorous debate about this all though.

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.

Well that made me feel bad about myself so I took the time to go through your posts and found that I had no reason to be.

You said that proponents of my position were more focused on real world arguments than what we actually see in Star Wars. I pointed out that none of my principle arguments were. Looking through my posts will have shown you that.

It sure didn't. It is funny how I actually went throught them and found none except for the one I quoted later on where you said:

I'm not sure you've understood that. That was an instance of evidence I found of droids potentially being viewed as capable of free will. If you had read my posts you would have seen the other two instances I had given of in-universe people thinking the contrary were Obi Wan's comment which is the title of this thread and the comments of the Kaminoans which appeared to be accepted.

Again, neither of these depend on the real world, as you claimed my arguments focused on and the sdtated opinions of people in universe is valid evidence to be considered. Obviously.

So of your 3 in-movie references one was intended as an examples of the point that droids might be/are sapient and 2 of people not seeing it. Do you know how many people in the 30's argued the same about people of a different race? This is not evidence of anything besides short sightedness of those characters.

And by the way, I totally understood you, it wasn't so hard. However I wouldn't put it in the pro-sentient corner seeing how it somehow refers to R2 is the only droid ever to have shown that type of behaviour.

Observing that droids are activated with their personalities pre-generated is "interpretation"? Then what is not to you?

How is it an observation? It isn't. We see no proof of this in the movies. In fact we hear the exact opposite spoken when it is refered to that should Droids go too long without a memory wipe they start getting all these personality quirks.

all other points were to ridicule the possibility of sapient droids by using toasters, Henry the vac and other appliances (including programming to let protocol droids swear (really?))

I haven't ridiculed anything so far as I am aware, Talkie the Toaster was also posted by someone else, not me as you suggest. Henry the vaccuum cleaner was a direct response to a claim that manufacturers would not give personalities to appliances.

Attaching a sticker to a vacuum cleaner is not a valid argument for manufacturers giving personality to appliances. It is a sticker attached to a vacuum cleaner.

And a real world argument if ever I saw one.

And I'm not sure where you got the part about "programming to let protocol droids swear" from but it wasn't me and I'm not aware of any instance where C3-P0 (or any other protocol droid does) swear. It sounds very out of character for C3-P0.

So this wasn't you?:

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.

Well in that case I am really sorry... I see your name and an explanation of Star Wars droids probably being expected to have an insult generator, but I guess I was wrong there too.

also I am hard pressed to come up with a reason why anyone (and in this case a 9 year old boy that is prone to yell "Yippie" instead of "F*ck") would create a protocol droid (Wookieepedia: a type of droid designed to assist sentients in their relations with one another and were programmed mostly for etiquette, and were often used as translators between sentients or between sentients and computers) that has the ability to insult others or feel the need to do so.

Personally I'm hard pressed to think of a nine-year old boy who WOULDN'T program their droid to insult people. I would! Grab protocol droid parts, wire in brain, tweak personality settings to be as sarcastic and condescending as possible. That is EXACTLY what pre-adolescent boys would do.

Seriously, I do not understand at all this obsession with insults as a point of attack.

Actually it is not an obsession, it is part of the debate and I resent you calling it an attack.

If you think it is reasonable for a droid that is build to maintain and establish relationships which are based on etiquette has a build-in swear generator by a 9 year old kid who build it to help his mother then sure go ahead and think that.

That's fine. I'm happy to have as much constructive debate as possible. I only object to mischaracterisations of my arguments such as saying they depend more on looking at the real world than actual Star Wars. None of them do and the only "real world" debate we are having is your one about insults. something which would be even easier to do without sentience / "true" creativity with Star Wars technology, than it is in the current real world anyway! I'm totally happy to have vigorous debate about this all though.

There seems to be a blind spot when it comes to your own posts in this discussion knasserll. I am not misrepresenting anything you wrote and have named numerous things in your own words to underline what it is I meant.

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.

Well that made me feel bad about myself so I took the time to go through your posts and found that I had no reason to be.

You said that proponents of my position were more focused on real world arguments than what we actually see in Star Wars. I pointed out that none of my principle arguments were. Looking through my posts will have shown you that.

It sure didn't. It is funny how I actually went throught them and found none except for the one I quoted later on where you said:

I listed my principal arguments, summarized since you do not seem to agree that I wrote what I wrote previously. (Easy for anyone to check). They're in the quote a few above right here - now tell me how each of them relates more to the real world than to the Star Wars universe. You can't. All you're doing is saying that they do, but they're right above in this very post for everyone to check!

I'm not sure you've understood that. That was an instance of evidence I found of droids potentially being viewed as capable of free will. If you had read my posts you would have seen the other two instances I had given of in-universe people thinking the contrary were Obi Wan's comment which is the title of this thread and the comments of the Kaminoans which appeared to be accepted.

Again, neither of these depend on the real world, as you claimed my arguments focused on and the sdtated opinions of people in universe is valid evidence to be considered. Obviously.

So of your 3 in-movie references one was intended as an examples of the point that droids might be/are sapient and 2 of people not seeing it.

Re-phrased and no longer matches what I meant, slightly, but correct that I have identified two in-universe view points against and one for. You've also introduced "not seeing it" as an a priori assumption that you are correct. In fact, all we have are some viewpoints, mostly against, one ambiguous but possibly for.

Contention: what people say is the case in universe is valid to consider how things are in universe unless there's some good reason to presume they are misinformed or lying. You cannot simply dismiss as incorrect the statements of people in universe just because they do not match one's preferences. One needs to come up with actual reasons to dismiss.

For example, one could try to dismiss Obi Wan's statement as misinformed. But one would need to construct reasons why someone who has been around droids their whole life misses something so fundamental about them, and why another accepts the statement without any reaction so indicating this is a common and uncontroversial belief. One would need reasons to show why this common belief of people in universe is wrong and I don't see such reasons. Similarly, one could say the Kaminoan's statements are biased because they are in a competing business to droid manufacturers. That would be an example of attacking this evidence. But one would need to argue why this could be used as marketing if it had no basis. And the point in both cases is that we should be looking at the evidence in universe from a neutral point of view, not deciding what we want to prove and then looking for reasons to dismiss in-universe dialogue as not valid evidence.

Do you know how many people in the 30's argued the same about people of a different race?

What, that people of other races weren't sentient or self-aware? Not many, I should think! Also, you need to show why droids should be considered a parallel situation. Simply arguing that something could be the case, does nothing to show that it is. It's entirely possible that Obi Wan is unaware of something. The problem is that you are arguing that because something is possible that it is. Could droids be a parallel to race in the 1930's in some given country? Yes. Does that mean that they are? Obviously not. Analogies are good for explaining things to people who are not familiar with a subject matter. Using them for argument is usually done when one cannot prove what one wants with the actual subject matter so finds a different situation where one can prove what one wants and attempts to pass the two situations off as the same.

This is not evidence of anything besides short sightedness of those characters.

It's only evidence that the characters are short-sighted if we know that they are wrong, not right. This is the problem - you are assuming they are wrong and therefore making conclusions that the beliefs of characters in the movie should be dismissed as evidence. That's not how it works.

And by the way, I totally understood you, it wasn't so hard. However I wouldn't put it in the pro-sentient corner seeing how it somehow refers to R2 is the only droid ever to have shown that type of behaviour.

It is true that it notes R2-D2 as being exceptional, but it is an indicator of free will at least being possible if it were true.

Observing that droids are activated with their personalities pre-generated is "interpretation"? Then what is not to you?

How is it an observation? It isn't. We see no proof of this in the movies.

We see droids on an assembly line being activated for the first time and their personalities are in place. We see C3-P0 turned on with a personality in place. Amusingly you've actually argued against your own contention as well, earlier explaining how a "wipe" resets a droid. Ergo droids are activated with personalities pre-genererated. That is not interpretation, it is what we see. Trying to dismiss all of my arguments as "just interpretation" along with several other people's, doesn't stand up. Because such things are demonstrably not. When I say Obi Wan is of the opinion that droids cannot "think", we can debate what he means, but it's not "interpretation" that he says it and any reasonable interpretation of his meaning puts it as evidence against self-awareness / creativity.

In fact we hear the exact opposite spoken when it is refered to that should Droids go too long without a memory wipe they start getting all these personality quirks.

Can you remind me where that's said? I recall it but not from where. TCW?

all other points were to ridicule the possibility of sapient droids by using toasters, Henry the vac and other appliances (including programming to let protocol droids swear (really?))

I haven't ridiculed anything so far as I am aware, Talkie the Toaster was also posted by someone else, not me as you suggest. Henry the vaccuum cleaner was a direct response to a claim that manufacturers would not give personalities to appliances.

Attaching a sticker to a vacuum cleaner is not a valid argument for manufacturers giving personality to appliances.

You suggested there was no reason anyone would give personalities to astromech droids. I just put it in there as a quick and pithy illustration of human's liking for giving personality traits to appliances. There are plenty of others - human's desire to anthropomorphize is well known. I note you also skipped entirely my very solid objective reason why an astromech drone is perhaps even more likely to have a personality than say a family's domestic robot.

And a real world argument if ever I saw one.

Not really. Unless one is positing that humans in the Star Wars universe are significantly psychologically different to us in the real world (you're not, I hope, or this is just getting even sillier), then an observation that humans like to attribute personality to non-people is not a "real world" argument, it's a "human nature" argument, which is common to both. And as an important point, this wasn't one of my arguments, btw. It was just a response to your saying that people wouldn't give personalities to things with a quick example that people in fact, do.

And I'm not sure where you got the part about "programming to let protocol droids swear" from but it wasn't me and I'm not aware of any instance where C3-P0 (or any other protocol droid does) swear. It sounds very out of character for C3-P0.

So this wasn't you?:

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.

Well in that case I am really sorry... I see your name and an explanation of Star Wars droids probably being expected to have an insult generator, but I guess I was wrong there too.

The quote is from me. It doesn't say what you said it does. Nowhere did I write about C3-P0 swearing. The quote you've found just says that generation of insults is entirely possible programatically and does not require self-awareness or even, necessarily, actual creativity, only the appearance of same.

Again, I cannot fathom why you are hung up on the use of insults as an argument for either droid sentience or creativity when it's so easily accomplished without either.

Seriously, I do not understand at all this obsession with insults as a point of attack.

Actually it is not an obsession, it is part of the debate and I resent you calling it an attack.

Just to clear this up, when I wrote "a point of attack" I meant that you were using it as means of attacking the argument. I wasn't suggesting you were engaging in personal attacks, if that's how it was taken. "Attacking the argument" is just terminology I'm used to.

Sorry, I am extremely busy now. I'll revert later! No worries about the "attack" thing!

I listed my principal arguments, summarized since you do not seem to agree that I wrote what I wrote previously. (Easy for anyone to check). They're in the quote a few above right here - now tell me how each of them relates more to the real world than to the Star Wars universe. You can't. All you're doing is saying that they do, but they're right above in this very post for everyone to check!

Re-phrased and no longer matches what I meant, slightly, but correct that I have identified two in-universe view points against and one for. You've also introduced "not seeing it" as an a priori assumption that you are correct. In fact, all we have are some viewpoints, mostly against, one ambiguous but possibly for.

Contention: what people say is the case in universe is valid to consider how things are in universe unless there's some good reason to presume they are misinformed or lying. You cannot simply dismiss as incorrect the statements of people in universe just because they do not match one's preferences. One needs to come up with actual reasons to dismiss.

For example, one could try to dismiss Obi Wan's statement as misinformed. But one would need to construct reasons why someone who has been around droids their whole life misses something so fundamental about them, and why another accepts the statement without any reaction so indicating this is a common and uncontroversial belief. One would need reasons to show why this common belief of people in universe is wrong and I don't see such reasons. Similarly, one could say the Kaminoan's statements are biased because they are in a competing business to droid manufacturers. That would be an example of attacking this evidence. But one would need to argue why this could be used as marketing if it had no basis. And the point in both cases is that we should be looking at the evidence in universe from a neutral point of view, not deciding what we want to prove and then looking for reasons to dismiss in-universe dialogue as not valid evidence.

What, that people of other races weren't sentient or self-aware? Not many, I should think! Also, you need to show why droids should be considered a parallel situation. Simply arguing that something could be the case, does nothing to show that it is. It's entirely possible that Obi Wan is unaware of something. The problem is that you are arguing that because something is possible that it is. Could droids be a parallel to race in the 1930's in some given country? Yes. Does that mean that they are? Obviously not. Analogies are good for explaining things to people who are not familiar with a subject matter. Using them for argument is usually done when one cannot prove what one wants with the actual subject matter so finds a different situation where one can prove what one wants and attempts to pass the two situations off as the same.

It's only evidence that the characters are short-sighted if we know that they are wrong, not right. This is the problem - you are assuming they are wrong and therefore making conclusions that the beliefs of characters in the movie should be dismissed as evidence. That's not how it works.

It is true that it notes R2-D2 as being exceptional, but it is an indicator of free will at least being possible if it were true.

I think it is a good time to stop the 20 quotes replies you and I have given since for me it all boils down to one thing; your „evidence” is nothing more than hearsay.

It is 2 people talking about droids in a certain way that would make it seem as if they believe them to be non-sapient and non-sentient, but this can never be evidence, heck it is even impossible for both of the people to be objective in the matter. Obi-Wan is lying at the moment he utters the words, he knows R2 but ignores this fact (I am sure this was never the original intention of Lucas but the canon makes it so) and feigns to have no knowledge of the droid and the Kaminoans have an interest i putting down droids in order to further their own merchandise.

And I'm not sure where you got the part about "programming to let protocol droids swear" from but it wasn't me and I'm not aware of any instance where C3-P0 (or any other protocol droid does) swear. It sounds very out of character for C3-P0.

So this wasn't you?:

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.

Well in that case I am really sorry... I see your name and an explanation of Star Wars droids probably being expected to have an insult generator, but I guess I was wrong there too.

The quote is from me. It doesn't say what you said it does. Nowhere did I write about C3-P0 swearing. The quote you've found just says that generation of insults is entirely possible programatically and does not require self-awareness or even, necessarily, actual creativity, only the appearance of same.

Again, I cannot fathom why you are hung up on the use of insults as an argument for either droid sentience or creativity when it's so easily accomplished without either.

So you add to a discussion without really being a part of the discussion? Not weird that I am hung up on this then is it?

I’ll quote the only person relevant then, Walter Sobchak; "So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know…"

I think it is a good time to stop the 20 quotes replies you and I have given since for me it all boils down to one thing; your „evidence” is nothing more than hearsay.

It is 2 people talking about droids in a certain way that would make it seem as if they believe them to be non-sapient and non-sentient, but this can never be evidence, heck it is even impossible for both of the people to be objective in the matter. Obi-Wan is lying at the moment he utters the words, he knows R2 but ignores this fact (I am sure this was never the original intention of Lucas but the canon makes it so) and feigns to have no knowledge of the droid and the Kaminoans have an interest i putting down droids in order to further their own merchandise.

Firstly, I think you are confused as to the difference between evidence and proof. Someone finding a murder weapon with my finger prints on it is evidence. When it is shown that they couldn't have got there other than at the time of the murder, then it becomes proof. I think that illustrates the difference. I've repeatedly said that statements by characters in-universe that droids do not "think" is evidence that they don't. The problem is that you then invent reasons why this doesn't work to justify your position. Obi Wan is "lying" according to you. That would be valid if there were reasons to think he would be lying, but the reason you give above is that we know he is lying because droids are sentient. That sort of circular logic doesn't work. You cannot conclude Obi Wan is lying because his lying is important to your desired conclusion. You need to show evidence that he is lying from in-universe, why the person he is talking to accepts Obi Wan's comments as normal and uncontroversial or why two characters who have been around droids their whole lives would not be aware of such fundamental things as droids thinking creatively or being self-aware. And to re-iterate this point, it is not sufficient to make-up reasons why this may be so. They need to be reasons found from within the actual material we have to work with. Otherwise we just get back to Russell's Tea Pot and your desire to prove what you want to prove, rather than see what is there.

You repeatedly tried to dismiss what I wrote as "interpretation". It is not interpretation that characters in the films state droids do not "think". It is not "interpretation" that droids are created with personalities in place. Little of what I have been arguing is "just interpretation".

I'm also not convinced you understand what "hearsay" means when you say my argumentsd about to little more than that. When I base an argument on droid personalities being designed by their creators, that is not "hearsay". I'm not saying "this is so because someone told me it is".

Finally, are you going to actually admit that you were continuously wrong in saying those against droid sentience were grounding their arguments in the Real World less than referencing the Star Wars universe? Because you repeatedly accused me of that and made it part of your argument ignored my pointing out that it wasn't so. I ask because you have dropped it entirely from your posts now. I would like you to actually admit you were making false accusations or show me how my principle arguments (listed several times now) match what you've been dismissing them as.

Yeah, you are right 2P51 and I'll leave it after this final post.

I never said Obi Wan lied about him thinking that droids aren't sentient. I said he was lying at the time he said it. He was. He was lying about not knowing the droids. I think we can safely say that one covered the first 14(!) lines of your post.

I perfectly understand the difference between evidence and proof, your posts are neither.

I think that you stating droids get actived with a personality in place says nothing about them growing evermore sentient/sapient. Also it is indeed then an interpretation to state from there that "therefor droids are not sentient"

So far for paragraph two.

Now for the final paragraph, you repeatedly asked me, I repeatedly answered it was dismissed rightout the gate or you asked me why I was obsessed with that particular thing.

I am done arguing with you.

I'm only poking fun. You guys aren't being nasty but you clearly both deserve some kind of honorary forum stamina medal or something......

I'm only poking fun. You guys aren't being nasty but you clearly both deserve some kind of honorary forum stamina medal or something......

Nah, I think I crossed the line into nasty (I get that when people start demanding things unjustly) and bowed out... Give the other guy the medal.

Observing that droids are activated with their personalities pre-generated is "interpretation"? Then what is not to you?

How is it an observation? It isn't. We see no proof of this in the movies.

We see droids on an assembly line being activated for the first time and their personalities are in place. We see C3-P0 turned on with a personality in place. Amusingly you've actually argued against your own contention as well, earlier explaining how a "wipe" resets a droid. Ergo droids are activated with personalities pre-genererated. That is not interpretation, it is what we see. Trying to dismiss all of my arguments as "just interpretation" along with several other people's, doesn't stand up. Because such things are demonstrably not. When I say Obi Wan is of the opinion that droids cannot "think", we can debate what he means, but it's not "interpretation" that he says it and any reasonable interpretation of his meaning puts it as evidence against self-awareness / creativity.

Actually it stands up perfectly, I don’t think Obi-Wan was being truthful when he spoke those words. Simple.

Firstly, we need actual evidence that suggests Obi Wan is lying, not just Obi Wan is lying because that would support what I want to believe, "simple".

Also we never see a memory wipe onscreen. We see Han turn him off and that’s all, no wipe or anything.

None of my argument depends on seeing a memory wipe.

The battle droids are a different beast all together though since they appear to behave in a hive mind like way that needs an uplink to a computer in order to function.

Since when? Evidence?

Which could mean their memories, personality, etc. are not in the droid but in the computer they are linked to.

Again - what you're doing is inventing reasons that make your conclusion work, not looking at what is in the film.

Not really. Unless one is positing that humans in the Star Wars universe are significantly psychologically different to us in the real world (you're not, I hope, or this is just getting even sillier), then an observation that humans like to attribute personality to non-people is not a "real world" argument, it's a "human nature" argument, which is common to both. And as an important point, this wasn't one of my arguments, btw. It was just a response to your saying that people wouldn't give personalities to things with a quick example that people in fact, do.

It would only be silly if I agreed with your insertion and examples in the first place. I don’t.

No, basing arguments on humans in Star Wars being fundamentally psychologically different to our understanding of actual human nature would remain silly whether you agree with my examples or not. In SStar Wars, even the aliens think like humans! There's never been any sign that humans are radically different to us. And lest this be taken as a "real world" argument, I'll highlight that this was never one of my principle arguments. It's just a response to your saying that people wouldn't want to add a personality to an astromech (assertion) by showing that people love adding personalities to things.

Of course there are toys and robotics that do impersonate humans but I am pretty sure that any military appliance would ever be fitted with a grumpy personality or a protocol droid would never have a cowardice mode. There how is that for Real World examples?

I'm really only interested in basing this on what we see within Star Wars. The thing is that we DO see military droids with personalities. You're arguing that because there is no need for a personality on a military droid that the personalities are evidence that droids are sentient. There are two things wrong with this. Firstly that there actually is a good reason for adding personalities to military robots. It makes interacting with them much easier. Secondly, as the personalities are in place at activation then either a creator put those personalities or you're positing some sort of divine spark suddenly gifting droids with them. I think a machine designed without any personality turning on and suddenly having one would rather startle people, no? Certainly the droids never have the opportunity to grow a personality before they're activated.

As to grumpy protocol droid, I repeat: nine year old boy. But to be fair, in TCW we see C3-P0 is actually very happy in his correct environment (e.g. when planning a diplomatic function for Padme). It's when he's in the middle of a battle or hanging upside down in an Ewok net that he expresses alarm and I would say that's entirely appropriate thing for him to communicate to his masters in such circumstances.

The quote is from me. It doesn't say what you said it does. Nowhere did I write about C3-P0 swearing. The quote you've found just says that generation of insults is entirely possible programatically and does not require self-awareness or even, necessarily, actual creativity, only the appearance of same.

Again, I cannot fathom why you are hung up on the use of insults as an argument for either droid sentience or creativity when it's so easily accomplished without either.

So you add to a discussion without really being a part of the discussion? Not weird that I am hung up on this then is it?

I don't understand what you mean here. I say it's odd your repeated holding onto insults as evidence of droid creativity or sentience and I stand by that. It's a fairly flawed argument because neither is necessary to make a machine that insults people.

I’ll quote the only person relevant then, Walter Sobchak; "So you have no frame of reference here, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know…"

I don't know what you're referencing but I think it unfair to imply that I'm like a child wandering in in the middle of a movie.

Yeah, you are right 2P51 and I'll leave it after this final post.

I never said Obi Wan lied about him thinking that droids aren't sentient. I said he was lying at the time he said it. He was. He was lying about not knowing the droids. I think we can safely say that one covered the first 14(!) lines of your post.

Are you now talking about the start of Ep IV? You had replied to where I was talking about the conversation in the diner in Ep II so I assumed you were referencing that. If you're talking about him lying about knowing C3-P0 and R2-D2 in Ep IV, he may have been or he may have simply been forgetful but he didn't make comments about droid sentience or creativity at the time. It was Luke who commented about never seeing such dedication in a droid before. I'm also unclear as to why you are trying again to shoot down one of the pieces of evidence I found that droids do have free will.

I perfectly understand the difference between evidence and proof, your posts are neither.

See that's my problem. You frequently make statments like your posts are grounded more in the real world than the Star Wars universe, or that my posts are neither evidence nor proof. But don't actually show anything wrong with what I wrote or that they are grounded more in the real world (I've shown they are not). Instead you have mostly responded along the lines of "but I think Obi Wan is lying" or "battle droids could be hooked up to a hive mind that holds their personalities".

I think that you stating droids get actived with a personality in place says nothing about them growing evermore sentient/sapient.

I haven't argued that though. What I've said is that it shows personalities are not evidence of free will or creativity.

Also it is indeed then an interpretation to state from there that "therefor droids are not sentient"

So far for paragraph two.

You use quote marks in the above, but I have never said: "therefore droids are not sentient". Nor is that a fair representation of my argument. I haven't said that it is evidence that they aren't, I've said that it is not evidence that they are. That's a very big difference.

I am done arguing with you.

Okay. If it's not enjoyable for you, then stop. The only reasons for this debate are entertainment or to learn something. If this is providing neither for you, then let's call it a day.

So, wait now we go back all the way to the top again and start with the same arguments you have made over and over again?

I'm no longer investing my energy into this. I find that your way of arguing/reasoning/etc. is so far removed from mine (and from the level you seem to think you are on) that I am unwilling to delve into it further.

I'll do one thing though, I'll answer your direct question and be done with it.

Since when? Evidence?

P.s. Sorry for my grumpiness. I had a bad day...

P.s. Sorry for my grumpiness. I had a bad day...

Sorry to hear it. Arguing with someone who is very focused on formal argument is probably not helping. I apologise for that. Perhaps we'd better leave it for now. I'll check out the part of Ep I you mention - it's a while since I have seen it.

Peace.