Answer 2 of the following...
1. In explaining the “error” that
causes Hal to murder the entire crew of the Discovery (save Bowman), Clarke
writes, “For like his makers, Hal had been created innocent; but, all too soon,
a snake had entered his electronic Eden ” (Ch.27). What does this
metaphor explain about his behavior, or the very “human” causes of his
mutiny?
2. Does Clarke argue that Hal is a
“human” throughout these chapters? On
the one hand, he has little understanding of death or murder, merely commenting
“Too bad about Frank, isn’t it?” after he’s killed him (Ch.26). Yet on the other he exhibits guile,
desperation, pride, and fear when Bowman decides to disconnect him. Discuss a passage that seems to point in
favor of his humanity—or lack thereof.
3. Discuss how Clarke uses
metaphors of the past to anchor his science fiction “odyssey” for his
readers. In many ways, this is a work of
fantasy transported to the future.
Clarke makes this clear in how he tells his story, which is
arguably just as important as what actually occurs. Where do images and metaphors knock us back
not only to our own Earth, but our collective past as human beings?
4. Much of the blame for the
failure of the Discovery mission can be laid at the feet of human beings,
particularly the ones that designed the mission in the first place. Why did they refuse to tell Bowman and Poole the
truth about the mission? Why is so much
of our world cordoned off on a “need to know” basis? What might this say about the nature of
man—and how unprepared we are to advance boldly into the future?
2. I am under the impression Hal is very much human-like. When Hal commented "Too bad about Frank, isn't it?" this action, for me at least, shows Hal is displaying emotion. Though Hal's words are cold they still are emotionally driven. When Hal is begging Bowman for his electronic life, this action displays Hal has a drive to survive. I began to see Hal as more human-like then a super computer. It was unethical for Hal to kill Frank and also unethical to try and kill Bowman, but then is Hals electronic death by Bowman justified? I think is it because it became a game of survival of the fittest. This really kind of blows my mind. Though Hal was a super computer with unlimited amounts of knowledge, yet the super computer was no match to the physicality of mankind.
ReplyDelete4. I think they didn't tell Bowman and Poole because the danger of the unknown might be enough to keep them from doing the mission. If I were in there shoes it would be incredibly difficult for me to accept a mission that has a high chance of leading to my death. I don't understand why our world is restricted by a "need to know" basis. It could be because if we knew the realities that surround us daily, we might not ever want to leave our homes. This fear of the unknown or the inability to accept the horrible facts of this world make it very difficult for the bold advance into the future. I could only imagine the uproar that would take place if the discovery of aliens ever were to occur. The world could easily erupt in mass chaos, but on the other hand much like the outcome in The Watchmen, we could see the world powers unite.
Ashley Bean
ReplyDelete2. Bowman certainly makes a case for Hal being human, and I believe that Clarke uses Bowman to speak himself sometimes. Bowman figures and reasons until he satisfies himself with an answer for Hal's behavior; that he felt bad about lying and hiding the meaning of the mission from them, that guilt had overtaken him. Such a human worry, why would a computer feel guilty about its programming? I wonder if the other Hals would have done the same thing if they had been on Discovery instead. If so, I think that makes Hal more computer, because he's simply acting according to his surroundings. If every other Hal would have reacted the same way, then it's something in their programming and not a true personality or decision making.
4. They wanted Poole and Bowman to remain as optimistic as possible, since they were the ones addressing the public. The less they knew, the less they had to worry about, and in turn, the less the people would worry about. They were the faces of the mission and any slight look of doubt would shatter the world. Like Mark said, it would definitely create mass chaos if everyone knew what was actually going on. In my opinion, they will find out eventually, why not keep everyone on the same page? I just don't know, it's bad either way honestly.
Rocky Moore
ReplyDelete1. I think Clarke uses this metaphor to explain what happens to humans in the course of our lives. When things go haywire and people do very evil things like murder and act out irrationally, it displays the flaws we have as humans. The same can be said for Hal and the 'malfunction' he has. The metaphor bridges the gap between humans and technology giving Hal the negative characteristics of humans using the snake as the symbol for connecting the two. We all start off as 'innocent' but over time the choices we make determine how we end up, unfortunately evil can play a part in determining the path we choose like that of Hal. It is almost as if Hal is choosing his free will, which happens to be down the evil path instead of the good one.
4. The blame can most definitely be put on the humans who designed this mission in the first place. Just like in the movie Interstellar, the older man who designs the mission fails to tell Matthew McConaughey that the probability of them succeeding in their journey was pretty much impossible, the creators of the Discovery mission do the same with Poole and Bowman. I think they do this because that natural reaction to doing something amazing in space is much different than that if they were to know the truth. Both McConaughey and Bowman may have never gone on the expedition in the first place. Sometimes I think we want to know too much and then at other times I think we would know what we need to know if people were just honest in the first place. Some say that life isn't fair but it definitely wasn't fair for Bowman. I mean had he known what he should have known, things may have gone in a different manner.
Sarah Bolitho
ReplyDelete2. Hal imitates an advanced but emotionally childish human brain. He has no pity and a poor imitation of a conscience. His only conflict is the seemingly at-odds directives of his mission. His primary motive is to stay “alive”, or operational. He has a difficult time responding to Dave’s emotional reaction to Frank’s death. Only after calculating the correct answer for a long time, Hal says, “He was an excellent crew member”.
4. The secrecy of the Discovery mission highlights how short-sighted the humans are. Bowman muses about the political implications of the deception, and, millions of miles from Earth, thinks of it as “ludicrously parochial”. The goings-on of Earth seems trivial from his position far away from the planet exploring the possibility of an advanced race millions of years old. Humans will never “advance boldly into the future” if they insert geopolitical motivations into space exploration missions. They are too grounded to Earth.
1. Hal was overtaken by pride and arrogance. From the first mention of the AE-35’s expected failure, Hal reassured the crew that he was not capable of mistakes, creating a false sense of hope in a mimic who had taken on too many character traits of the kind he was likening himself to. Because Hal was trying to be something he was not, he took on the worst qualities associated with his “hoped” state of being wholly man. Clarke writes of how Hal was programmed to only win 50% of games with the crew, but even having this assured success rate, which no other man is guaranteed was not enough for Hal. When he became more realized, he took advantage of the programmers generosity of information and logic.
ReplyDelete4. They refused to tell Bowman and Poole the truth about the mission because as Clarke writes, “It was a secret that, with the greatest determination, was very hard to conceal—for it affected one’s attitude, one’s voice, one’s total outlook on the universe” (92). In the same passage, Clarke points out the fact that the real masterminds of the mission wanted the mission to appear as simplistic and exploratory as possible, and Bowman and Poole seemed to be the best tools to sell this type of mission to the media. This dichotomy of insider/outsider knowledge mirrors the pride of man and the need for man to rule other men. While the masterminds of the mission very well could have been trying to “protect” the general public and Bowman and Poole, the probability that they were also receiving some sense of pride and elevated self-worth is high. While most people agree that we need to come together to explore and learn to the largest capacity possible about the outside world, the innate selfishness of man repels these desires and champions the individual above all else, even if it means the demise of a people group, or in the case, potentially an entire planet or collection of intelligence.
1. It is a metaphor for human lives. Like Hal, humans are also born innocent. It is the experiences in our lices that take place that changes us. We too have to keep secrets and learn more about things then we want to know. This flaw, or evil that has developed in Hal makes it all too clear that he has become more tyan just a computer. He now has a very human like mind that is open to corruption and misdeeds.
ReplyDelete4. Bowman and Poole did not get to hibernate like the other three members of the crew. They were to remain awake, alert, and optimistic throughout the entire journey. These were the two members of the crew who had to get everyone to their goal. If these two had known the entire mission the whole time it probably would habe been a little harder for them to keep a positive outlook since they would be awake the whole time. This isnprobably what everyone assumed anyways. I think that this means that humans simply are not capable of trusting each other enough. They didn't trust Bowman and Poole with an entire mission.
Cora-lee Snow