{"id":2068,"date":"2022-02-13T11:19:40","date_gmt":"2022-02-13T19:19:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lewczyk.net\/tomswritings\/?p=2068"},"modified":"2025-02-10T11:23:24","modified_gmt":"2025-02-10T19:23:24","slug":"guardian-of-ambiguity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/lewczyk.net\/tomswritings\/?p=2068","title":{"rendered":"Guardian of Ambiguity [Classic]"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

I’ve created a new category for this, since it’s essentially an essay. I wrote this in college (I can tell by my reference to Dungeons and Dragons). Pencil on notebook paper. There were multiple misspellings — ‘categories’ (beginning with ‘ch’) and ‘sentient’ (misspelled as ‘sentinent’ multiple times) \ud83d\ude41 I will always be grateful for modern computer-based spell check.<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/font><\/mark><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

I remember one Star Trek episode titled \u2018City on the Edge of Forever’ in which William Shatner’s character Captain Kirk had a memorable but brief exchange of words with an entity known as the Guardian. \u201cWhat are you,\u201d Kirk had asked, \u201cbeing or machine?”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI am both,\u201d the Guardian had replied, \u201cand neither.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the time that I first saw this show, I merely accepted the Guardian\u2019s reply as being cryptic, and what I would then have termed as \u2018cool\u2019 \u2013 meaning that it demonstrated an undeniable and enviable class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps because of that episode. I began to notice over the years that the \u2018both and neither\u2019 explanation had become a sort of science fiction cliche \u2013 Are you alive or dead? I  am both, and neither. \u2013 I have even used it at times when I DM for D&D.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recently though, I’ve begun to wonder at the logistics of the statement. Can something truly be said to belong to two exclusive categories, and also be said to belong to neither of them? I think the key to this question is the word \u2018exclusive\u2019<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the case of the Guardian’s conversation with Captain Kirk, the implication is that the categories \u2018being\u2019 and \u2018machine\u2019 are not<\/span> mutually exclusive. If it is possible for a machine to be so complicated as to also be considered a \u2018being\u2019, then the Guardian\u2019s statement is true in sentiment, but perhaps not in wording. (Incidentally, when I speak of a \u2018being\u2019, I mean an intelligent, free-willed type of being and not simply something that exists.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When the Guardian says it is both a \u2018being\u2019 and a \u2018machine\u2019, it is using both terms in the broadest sense. Yes, it says, I am a construct of inanimate parts (a machine) and, yes, I am also sentient. When it says it is neither a \u2018being\u2019 nor a \u2018machine\u2019, it is using them in a sort of exclusive sense. It reasons: I am undeniably a construct, so by the strictest definition of a \u2018being\u2019, I am not one. I am undeniably \u2018sentient\u2019, so by the strictest definition of a \u2018machine\u2019, I am not one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The accuracy of the statement lies in the ambiguity of the terms \u2018being\u2019 and \u2018machine\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An analogous situation would be if someone were to ask me if a bacterium were a plant or an animal. \u201cIt is both,\u201d I could respond, “and neither.\u201d It is thought today that bacteria have characteristics of both plants and animals \u2013 meaning that they could be thought of as degenerate cases of either category. However, there are certain traditional characteristics an organism must have to be considered a plant or an animal, and bacteria lack some of these. Again, the ambiguity of the terms allow the seemingly contradictory response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(As an aside — I studied Spanish in high school, and was slightly annoyed by the fact that there are two different verbs for \u2018to be.\u2019 One is a sort of permanent \u2018to be\u2019 \u2013 \u201cHe is my father\u201d \u2013 the \u2018is\u2019 denoting a sort of permanent condition that can’t be changed. But, if I were to say \u201cthe sky is blue,\u201d I’m not stating anything permanent \u2013 because the sky is not always blue. Since English lacks this distinction, another factor could<\/em> be ambiguity in the verb.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As another example: if someone showed me a rubber horseshoe and asked, \u201cIs this a chunk of rubber, or the horseshoe?” I could again say \u201cIt is both, and neither.\u201d \u2018Both\u2019 in the sense that it was once, and could still be considered, a chunk of rubber; and it is shaped like a horseshoe. \u2018Neither\u2019 in that it is no longer strictly a chunk of rubber since it has been processed into a complex shape; and it is not strictly a horseshoe since it is not made of metal, and will never be used on a horse. In other words, there is a was\/is\u2013is\/was dilemma because the object used to be one thing, but now is something else.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The entire point I\u2019m making  is that with ambiguous words \u2013 categorias (nouns) and verbs \u2013 the Guardian’s statement is not necessarily wrong. A statement like that cannot be used however with words that are antonyms. Nothing can be both \u2018sane\u2019 and insane, \u2018black\u2019 and \u2018white\u2019.  (Is a rock sane? insane?)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My conclusion is this: though the Guardian was not wrong in what he said, he should not have said it in that way. A better phrasing would be: \u201cI am a sentient construct \u2013 though not necessarily a \u2018being\u2019 or \u2018machine\u2019 in the traditional sense.\u201d The only problem is \u2013 this reword loses some of the dramatic effect.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I’ve created a new category for this, since it’s essentially an essay. I wrote this in college (I can tell by my reference to Dungeons and Dragons). Pencil on notebook paper. There were multiple misspellings — ‘categories’ (beginning with ‘ch’) and ‘sentient’ (misspelled as ‘sentinent’ multiple times) \ud83d\ude41 I will always be grateful for modern … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Guardian of Ambiguity [Classic]”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[18],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/lewczyk.net\/tomswritings\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2068"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/lewczyk.net\/tomswritings\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/lewczyk.net\/tomswritings\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/lewczyk.net\/tomswritings\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/lewczyk.net\/tomswritings\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2068"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"http:\/\/lewczyk.net\/tomswritings\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2068\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3082,"href":"http:\/\/lewczyk.net\/tomswritings\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2068\/revisions\/3082"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/lewczyk.net\/tomswritings\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2068"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/lewczyk.net\/tomswritings\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2068"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/lewczyk.net\/tomswritings\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2068"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}