User talk:Lundse/Dune quotes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Non-Dune quotes

What we have paused to discuss right now is probably the single most important barrier to the widespread useful development of individual computers. It involves a lot of people blathering about their "computer intelligence." According to this scare story, "computer intelligence will win out someday over human intelligence and then we're all going to be in deep trouble."

Frank Herbert - Without Me You're Nothing. P. 33

We definitly do not want to call them [computers] electronic brains That is the most misleading name to come along.

Frank Herbert - Without Me You're Nothing. P. 44

We are saying that it is not our tools that are at fault, it's how we use those tools and the beliefs we invest in them.

Frank Herbert - Without Me You're Nothing. P. 73

We are questioning more than the philosophy behind our dependence upon limited and limiting systems. We question the power structures that have grown up around such systems.

Frank Herbert - Without Me You're Nothing. P. 73

[edit] Quotes from Dune and sequels

The Reverend Mother closed her eyes to hide his face. Damnation! To cast the genetic dice in such a way! Loathing boiled in her breast. The teaching of the Bene Gesserit, the lessons of the Butlerian Jihad -- all proscribed such an act. One did not demean the highest aspirations of humankind. No machine could function in the way of a human mind. No word or deed could imply that men might be bred on the level of animals.

Note that the "act", going against the "lessons of the Butlerian Jihad" is "demean[ing] the highest aspirations of humankind". The lesson of the Jihad was that man should not be demeaned (not that he should not get killed by a rogue AI).

The Butlerian Jihad tried to rid our universe of machines which simulate the mind of man.

Not machines which killed men, which would be the more relevant point if that was what they did.

One moment he felt himself setting forth on the Butlerian Jihad, eager to destroy any machine which simulated human awareness. That had to be the past -- over and done with. Yet his senses hurtled through the experience, absorbing the most minute details. He heard a minister-companion speaking from a pulpit: "We must negate the machines-that-think. Humans must set their own guidelines. This is not something machines can do. Reasoning depends upon programming, not on hardware, and we are the ultimate program!" He heard the voice clearly, knew his surroundings -- a vast wooden hall with dark windows. Light came from sputtering flames. And his minister-companion said: "Our Jihad is a 'dump program.' We dump the things which destroy us as humans!"

Leto II remebering genetically.

"Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them."

Then came the Butlerian Jihad -- two generations of chaos. The god of machine-logic was overthrown among the masses and a new concept was raised: "Man may not be replaced."

JIHAD, BUTLERIAN: (see also Great Revolt) -- the crusade against computers, thinking machines, and conscious robots begun in 201 B.G. and concluded in 108 B.G. Its chief commandment remains in the O.C. Bible as "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind."

Its possession was the shibboleth of this age, but it carried also the taint of old immorality. Once, they'd been guided by an artificial intelligence, computer brains. The Butlerian Jihad had ended that, but it hadn't ended the aura of aristocratic vice which enclosed such things.

About a fencing machine - which is the closest thing to a robot in the Dune universe.

The human-computer replaced the mechanical devices destroyed by the Butlerian Jihad. Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind! But Alia longed now for a compliant machine. They could not have suffered from Idaho's limitations. You could never distrust a machine.

So trusting the machine was never the problem.

They [Ixians] made their devices in the image of the mind the very thing which had ignited the Jihad's destruction and slaughter.

So the Jihad is started because of this 'image of the mind', not because of what that image then did.

"The target of the Jihad was a machine-attitude as much as the machines," Leto said. "Humans had set those machines to usurp our sense of beauty, our necessary selfdom out of which we make living judgments. Naturally, the machines were destroyed."

Leto II again.

Odrade was suddenly aware she had touched on the force that had powered the Butlerian Jihad - mob motivation.

People do not need motivation for survival, they need it to start a bloody, ideological revolt.

[edit] Argument archive (private)

From a forum, raw, POV and everything, just a place to keep it for later mining of points.

And hi Zeus. Wrong as ever, I see...

The two quotes you add still only talk about a possible future, and one that is dealing with an entirely new threat (the Arafel, prescient machines you send to kill people) never seen before. Thus, it is hard for me to see how it bolsters your view of the Jihad...

The DE is not canon, quoting it is irrelevant. What we are trying to establish is how FH viewed the Jihad. And if you read the wikipedia discussions, you will all see how many times I have explained this to Zeus and how many times he has retreated into quoting the new books - I do not fully understand how he thinks B&K's writing can tell us how FH thought about these matters...

Now, about this: >In addition, I don't see how any human being would want to give up machines just because it makes their lives easier. I can only say: I know. You cannot see it. Sad for you, and you will never really read and understand Dune and its sequels because of it. It is really quote clear if you read the book and the quotes I gave you, though, so you can still give it a try. [b]Everything[/b] in Dune et al. points to [i]humans[/i] rising against [i]machines[/i] (ie. against the usage of machines, machines themselves and the proponents of their use, leading to a war, possible machine vs. human fights etc.) [b]Nothing [/b] supports some cyborgs trying to grab control, and AI running amok and the Jihad being a "counterattack" of sorts.

You give a summary of the Jihad as written by K&B - I do not understand why. Could it be you still do not understand that we need to establish what FH wrote and thought before we can compare?

Another quote: >I'm pretty sure that Frank suggests that the great threat from the future is also from the past but I'm not 100% sure about that... This is interesting, because FH never mentions this "ancient enemy" thing. And the great threat from the future is the Ixian "Arafel" (in GEoD), the Honored Matres and/or "the ones with many faces" (in HoD and CHD). None of them are Omnius or the thinking machines of the Jihad (the Arafel is, I point out again, something quite new and shocking). But there is a sort of thematic loop involved with the Arafel and the Jihad, and I am certain FH put it there for a reason...

Oh, and consider (and answer, if you can do it lucidly) this: Leto II knew about Omnius et al and the entire B&K version of the Jihad (we assume here you are right), he spends a whole lot of GEoD thinking about this new threat which is (according to you) really the same old thing (a rogue machine) but with prescience - why does he never comment on this, never compare it to the old machines run amok? Weird, it is almost as if he lived in an alternative universe, one in which (gasp) humanity was never attempted extinct by rogue cyborgs and a megalomanical AI!

You also drag out the pictures from the movie. In the movie, it rained on Arrakis because Paul said so - which is really all there has to be said about the movie. BTW, I have a very important question for you (and I'd like answers from others, too) - do you see Paul as a hero, as an honest-to-god good-guy who tried his best but was foiled because of evil schemes and bad circumstances?

The "Brian knew Frank" argument is a good one - and along with the possibilities that the notes do exist and contain references to the Jihad it does place the burden of proof on me and those thinking like me. I have showed you quotes from FH's work showing how he envisioned it, you just have not read them properly. And the FH version of the Jihad (according to me) is not good stuff to write three novels about. It is a good backstory, which is why FH created it. B&K could not have written about evil robots, insane AIs, space-battles and invisible women if they had followed FH's lead - so they wrote their own story. This is fine, as long as they do not call it Dune - it is utter crap, but OK with me.

>Anyone with any logical skills can see that this is how Frank intended it to be... Great, then you can point out how "We must negate the machines-that-think. Humans must set their own guidelines." is a call to arms against an already attacking enemy and not a rallying cry to destroy machines which are controlling humanity's destiny.

Or how "Humans had set those machines to usurp our sense of beauty, our necessary selfdom out of which we make living judgments. Naturally, the machines were destroyed." Does not imply that the machines "usurp[ed] our sense of beauty" but rather that they "killed us in bunches". Or how it does not imply that they "usurp[ed] our necessary selfdom out of which we make living judgments" but attacked and tortured. I have an idea you may want to use and expand upon: maybe Leto was a really softspoken person, and he was speaking in metaphors, not wanting to upset Moneo - when he said " necessary selfdom out of which we make living judgments" it was a euphemism so the old majordomo would not feel bad about the real truth about all the torture and stuff...

And since you are so logical, explain how: "They [Ixians] made their devices in the image of the mind the very thing which had ignited the Jihad's destruction and slaughter." does not mean that the making of the devices led to the Jihad but rather means that the making of devices (and their subsequent killing and enslaving of humanity" led to the destruction. And why the Jihad is described by words such as "destruction and slaughter" if it was a righteous war against an aggresor who wanted to kill humanity off. It couldn't be because it was itself a war of aggresion could it? (heavens no, that would go against what B&K wrote, must be something else, surely it must).

And you can explain to us all how "Man may not be replaced." and "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind!" Are not to be taken to mean that replacing humans and their thought is inherently evil (and dangerous in the long run as it takes human control over human destiny away) but rather that "machines will kill us all if we make them" since all such machines necesarrily leads to the slaughter of humanity. And why the prohibition was not "don't make machines which can kill you all off", or "design all AIs with a shotgun to their forehead" (my thanks to William Gibson).

And how "You could never distrust a machine." means that machines can, however, turn on their masters as Omnius did.

I am looking forward to someone actually taking up these quotes and arguments - although I know that Zeus will only quote some more B&K (somehow thinking they can explain that FH did not mean what he wrote and that we should interpret all his writing through their eyes because they hold the Holy Copyright). I also feel quite sure he will call me 3-5 nasty names (his usual quota) and say my points are not logical. He would never debase himself to actually responding or giving an alternative reading - maybe a quick comment along the lines of "you're wrong", "that's not what he meant" or "it was a metaphor" but never a full explanation.

Sorry for being longwinded - but I do like a good argument and I would really like for people to see what can be accomplished when one tries to [i]argue ones point[/i] as opposed to just assuming that B&K (or another authority) is right and defending it vehemently.

Cheers,

  Lundse