Re: Doctor "killing" Ganger AmydavecwJune 1 2011, 20:38:08 UTC
In my view the Doctor did not kill ganger Amy because ganger Amy wasn't alive. Ganger Amy was not an indepently operating duplicate but a duplicate that remotely linked to and being controlled by the original Amy's consciousness.
The only problem with this argument is that this is exactly how Cleaves, Buzzer, Jen et al viewed their own pre-solar storm gangers, as duplcates being controlled by their own consciousness, as channelled by the rigs that they had to climb into. The opening scenes of the story last week make it clear that that Buzzer knew what had happened to his ganger without it having to be reported to him. So there was a functioning link.
Later on it was important for ganger Jen to show Rory the discards, or de-commissioned, or executed, (the term which ganger Jen employed) gangers, just lying in a heap. This was emphasised by the Doctor's semi-ranting comments to Amy that he could feel the way they did when they were de-commissioned, and the aching need to know why.
All of which tends to suggest that the previous gangers were exactly the same as the post-solar storm gangers, with the only exception being that after the solar storm the originals didn't need to be plugged in anymore.
Original Amy didn't even know she was in a duplicate body and her only clue was the occasional flashes of the eye-patch lady.
No. Duplicate Amy believed that she was real Amy. The only idea that she might not be were the occasional flashes of eye-patch lady.
From another perspective, the Doctor's occasional scans of Amy which showed her as being both pregnant and not pregnant implies two distinct entities inhabiting the same body, one of which must have been ganger Amy.
And indeed, from an even further perspective... note Jon's comments on Amy this season from the last review. Even more indicative that ganger Amy was a different person.
I don't believe cutting the signal between the original and the duplicate constitutes killing the duplicate.
Yes, but he had to kill the duplicate to cut the signal, right?
Personally, I think the answer is going to be quite simple: so far as the Doctor is concerned, the rules change when you hurt one of his own. RTD and Tennant are gone, and I really don't believe that eye-patch lady is going to get "one chance to give me Amy back".
Re: Doctor "killing" Ganger Amydaibhid_cJune 2 2011, 14:48:35 UTC
Later on it was important for ganger Jen to show Rory the discards, or de-commissioned, or executed, (the term which ganger Jen employed) gangers, just lying in a heap. This was emphasised by the Doctor's semi-ranting comments to Amy that he could feel the way they did when they were de-commissioned, and the aching need to know why.
All of which tends to suggest that the previous gangers were exactly the same as the post-solar storm gangers, with the only exception being that after the solar storm the originals didn't need to be plugged in anymore.
That's a rather huge difference though; the previous gangers were directly controlled by the minds of the originals, and the post-storm ones ... aren't. They are self-aware. The Flesh is a living thing, and can probably feel pain, and it's good the company is going to treat it humanely, but is it intelligent before it "downloads" the personalities of its users?
I've a horrible feeling we're getting into Cartasean duality here, but lets for the sake of argument, imagine an identical story with robots. The humans control the robots with VR helmets. A million-to-one accident causes the robots' processors to get permenantly imprinted with the humans' minds. Once that happens they start acting autonomously ... and they're horrified at how the humans treat robots that can't act autonomously.
Does that mean the non-autonomous robots are also intelligent, self-aware beings? Well, no. That's why they aren't autonomous.
From another perspective, the Doctor's occasional scans of Amy which showed her as being both pregnant and not pregnant implies two distinct entities inhabiting the same body, one of which must have been ganger Amy.
How d'you get that? The Doctor's scanning her body, not her mind. The positive comes because he's somehow getting a signal from real Amy's body, which we know isn't there.
Yes, but he had to kill the duplicate to cut the signal, right?
Begging the question. Anon is saying cutting the signal didn't kill the duplicate, because the dublicate was never alive, just a conduit. I'm not sure he's right, as I've stated above, but certainly she doesn't appear to be self-aware. She's just a conduit for Amy's personality.
But as Jon says, given the emphasis the Doctor puts on the acid mine Flesh being a "primitive" version of the technology, it's probably a mistake to assume the Amy Ganger works exactly the same way.
Re: Doctor "killing" Ganger AmydavecwJune 2 2011, 22:07:24 UTC
That's a rather huge difference though; the previous gangers were directly controlled by the minds of the originals, and the post-storm ones ... aren't. They are self-aware. The Flesh is a living thing, and can probably feel pain, and it's good the company is going to treat it humanely, but is it intelligent before it "downloads" the personalities of its users?
But surly the true nature of the Flesh, was seen with the Doctor's ganger: self-aware, intelligent, clearly in pain initially and also capable of self-sarifice, and all without the benefit of the intervention of a solar storm. The implication is that the Flesh was being restrained by its treatment by humanity and not that it didn't possess such qualities.
Coming on to the robots analogy: I agree but for it to be a proper analogy - and based on the evidence from the Doctor's ganger, - that the robots would all have their own personality sub-routines, which were being suppressd by the VR helmets.
I see a lot of parallels here with humanity's treatment of the Ood. A constant underplaying of their intelligence to basically justify a slave race, even down to expounding the argument that they enjoy it.
From another perspective, the Doctor's occasional scans of Amy which showed her as being both pregnant and not pregnant implies two distinct entities inhabiting the same body, one of which must have been ganger Amy.
How d'you get that? The Doctor's scanning her body, not her mind. The positive comes because he's somehow getting a signal from real Amy's body, which we know isn't there.
I get that by trying to answer the question, where were the negative scans coming from? So where do you think they were coming from? Not from real Amy, because she is pregnant. Whether ganager Amy was duplicate or a conduit, she should always have registered as being pregnant.
But as Jon says, given the emphasis the Doctor puts on the acid mine Flesh being a "primitive" version of the technology, it's probably a mistake to assume the Amy Ganger works exactly the same way.
We know that for sure because real Amy didn't appear to be outwardly plugged-in to her ganger in the same way that we saw the acid mine folks plugged into their gangers. That process is certainly going on, it just isn't so clunky.
I have to say though, that throughout the history of sci-fi a more advanced, more evolved version of a lifeform (artificial or real) has never been less self-aware, less-sentient, less-intelligent, less-human(?) than its more primitive forbears. Making the Doctor's actions even less justifiable.
In all of this though, we shouldn't forget that while ganger Amy was alive, whoever is holding the real Amy has a window into what the Doctor is doing, where he is going and how close he is to catching up with them. Basically a spy. And removing that advantage may have been one of his motivations in destroying ganger Amy.
Re: Doctor "killing" Ganger Amydaibhid_cJune 3 2011, 12:12:06 UTC
But surly the true nature of the Flesh, was seen with the Doctor's ganger: self-aware, intelligent, clearly in pain initially and also capable of self-sarifice, and all without the benefit of the intervention of a solar storm. The implication is that the Flesh was being restrained by its treatment by humanity and not that it didn't possess such qualities.
If that's the Flesh's real personality, what's with the Doctor constantly insisting that they're the same person, both the Doctor? Certainly, they both act like the Doctor.
Coming on to the robots analogy: I agree but for it to be a proper analogy - and based on the evidence from the Doctor's ganger, - that the robots would all have their own personality sub-routines, which were being suppressd by the VR helmets.
Mmm. And when the VR helmets aren't active but the robots are left running? Because a lot of the abandoned Flesh is still alive (as indeed is the main vat of the stuff), and while its certainly in pain, it shows no signs of personality beyond wanting the pain to stop (and not having any concept of how to achieve this, until bits of it achieve sentience).
I get that by trying to answer the question, where were the negative scans coming from? So where do you think they were coming from? Not from real Amy, because she is pregnant. Whether ganager Amy was duplicate or a conduit, she should always have registered as being pregnant.
The negative scans are coming from the Amy actually being scanned, who registers as not pregnant because she isn't. Two readings from two bodies: the not-pregnant one atually in the TARDIS and the pregnant one it's connected to.
I have to say though, that throughout the history of sci-fi a more advanced, more evolved version of a lifeform (artificial or real) has never been less self-aware, less-sentient, less-intelligent, less-human(?) than its more primitive forbears. Making the Doctor's actions even less justifiable.
But a more advanced technology is generally more reliable.
Re: Doctor "killing" Ganger AmydavecwJune 3 2011, 17:33:06 UTC
If that's the Flesh's real personality, what's with the Doctor constantly insisting that they're the same person, both the Doctor? Certainly, they both act like the Doctor.
I didn't say personality, I said nature. Obviously the person being imitated is going to have some impact on its personality. We saw that, not only with the Doctor, but also Jen, and Jimmy, when the holo-call came through from Adam.
Mmm. And when the VR helmets aren't active but the robots are left running? Because a lot of the abandoned Flesh is still alive (as indeed is the main vat of the stuff), and while its certainly in pain, it shows no signs of personality beyond wanting the pain to stop (and not having any concept of how to achieve this, until bits of it achieve sentience).
It depends on your take on the Flesh. If you believe that it is essentially non-sentient and only gives the appearance of sentience through being controlled by a sentient being, then your argument is correct. If, however, you believe that the Flesh is inherently sentient, which seems to be the direction that the story was moving in, then the answer is "free time!" For an example of the latter, look at how it reached out to scan the Doctor and then produced a ganger of him. It knew exactly what it wanted to do and also how to achieve it.
The negative scans are coming from the Amy actually being scanned, who registers as not pregnant because she isn't. Two readings from two bodies: the not-pregnant one atually in the TARDIS and the pregnant one it's connected to.
But that comes back to whether or not you believe the Amy in the TARDIS was sentient of her own accord, or only sentient through virtue of being linked to a sentient being. I think there was enough evidence from the story to support the former. Let's just say she sounded incredibly sentient towards the end.
I'm assuming though that the real Amy was abducted pre-impregnation, or else the ganger Amy would have shown signs of being pregnant (as hinted in the Cleaves brain clot story-line).
But a more advanced technology is generally more reliable.
Which in this case can only mean that it is more aware that it is a duplicate, which was kinda evidenced by the flashes of Eye-Patch Lady. Even so, if the Doctor was willing for his duplicate to live, then the same rules should have applied to ganger Amy.
Re: Doctor "killing" Ganger Amydaibhid_cJune 3 2011, 22:22:33 UTC
I didn't say personality, I said nature. Obviously the person being imitated is going to have some impact on its personality. We saw that, not only with the Doctor, but also Jen, and Jimmy, when the holo-call came through from Adam.
The person being imitated doesn't have an "impact" on the personality, it is the personality. Ganger Jimmy is Jimmy in every way that matters, that's the whole point.
It depends on your take on the Flesh. If you believe that it is essentially non-sentient and only gives the appearance of sentience through being controlled by a sentient being, then your argument is correct. If, however, you believe that the Flesh is inherently sentient, which seems to be the direction that the story was moving in, then the answer is "free time!"
My point is that the Flesh is left running, and doesn't appear to do much about this until it aquires human (and Time Lord) personalities.
For an example of the latter, look at how it reached out to scan the Doctor and then produced a ganger of him. It knew exactly what it wanted to do and also how to achieve it.
But that comes back to whether or not you believe the Amy in the TARDIS was sentient of her own accord, or only sentient through virtue of being linked to a sentient being. I think there was enough evidence from the story to support the former. Let's just say she sounded incredibly sentient towards the end.
Why does it come back to that? My point is that this has nothing to do with the pregnancy. There are two Amy bodies, one pregnant, one not. Therefore the scan, which is aimed at one of them, and somehow picking up signals from the other, comes across as both pregnant and not-pregnant. Whether or not Ganger Amy is sentient: two bodies, two readings.
And does the Ganger sound incredibly sentient, or is that Amy, unaware of what's going on and convinced this is her real body, sounding incredibly sentient?
I'm assuming though that the real Amy was abducted pre-impregnation, or else the ganger Amy would have shown signs of being pregnant (as hinted in the Cleaves brain clot story-line).
I'm assuming otherwise, since that gets into the question of who impregnated her, which I don't see them addressing in a show for all the family. But I don't see it makes much difference either way.
"But a more advanced technology is generally more reliable."
Which in this case can only mean that it is more aware that it is a duplicate, which was kinda evidenced by the flashes of Eye-Patch Lady. Even so, if the Doctor was willing for his duplicate to live, then the same rules should have applied to ganger Amy.
"You know how we stopped using Gangers because they kept becoming self-aware, not only raising the severe ethical quandries that Cleaves woman kept going on about but also hurting productivity because they went mad and killed the originals?"
"Yep."
"Well, we've fixed that. It won't happen any more."
Re: Doctor "killing" Ganger Amydaibhid_cJune 3 2011, 22:25:33 UTC
Meant to write this in my previous comment:
For an example of the latter, look at how it reached out to scan the Doctor and then produced a ganger of him. It knew exactly what it wanted to do and also how to achieve it.
Or it instinctively recognised a powerful mind and was drawn to duplicate it. A honeybee "knows" how to make honey, but "The Stolen Earth" aside, that doesn't make them intelligent.
Re: Doctor "killing" Ganger Amydaibhid_cJune 3 2011, 22:36:15 UTC
I'm assuming though that the real Amy was abducted pre-impregnation, or else the ganger Amy would have shown signs of being pregnant (as hinted in the Cleaves brain clot story-line).
I'm assuming otherwise, since that gets into the question of who impregnated her, which I don't see them addressing in a show for all the family. But I don't see it makes much difference either way.
Adding for clarity: I think she must have copied pre-impregnation, for the reason you say, but for some reason wasn't actually abducted until later.
The only problem with this argument is that this is exactly how Cleaves, Buzzer, Jen et al viewed their own pre-solar storm gangers, as duplcates being controlled by their own consciousness, as channelled by the rigs that they had to climb into. The opening scenes of the story last week make it clear that that Buzzer knew what had happened to his ganger without it having to be reported to him. So there was a functioning link.
Later on it was important for ganger Jen to show Rory the discards, or de-commissioned, or executed, (the term which ganger Jen employed) gangers, just lying in a heap. This was emphasised by the Doctor's semi-ranting comments to Amy that he could feel the way they did when they were de-commissioned, and the aching need to know why.
All of which tends to suggest that the previous gangers were exactly the same as the post-solar storm gangers, with the only exception being that after the solar storm the originals didn't need to be plugged in anymore.
Original Amy didn't even know she was in a duplicate body and her only clue was the occasional flashes of the eye-patch lady.
No. Duplicate Amy believed that she was real Amy. The only idea that she might not be were the occasional flashes of eye-patch lady.
From another perspective, the Doctor's occasional scans of Amy which showed her as being both pregnant and not pregnant implies two distinct entities inhabiting the same body, one of which must have been ganger Amy.
And indeed, from an even further perspective... note Jon's comments on Amy this season from the last review. Even more indicative that ganger Amy was a different person.
I don't believe cutting the signal between the original and the duplicate constitutes killing the duplicate.
Yes, but he had to kill the duplicate to cut the signal, right?
Personally, I think the answer is going to be quite simple: so far as the Doctor is concerned, the rules change when you hurt one of his own. RTD and Tennant are gone, and I really don't believe that eye-patch lady is going to get "one chance to give me Amy back".
Reply
All of which tends to suggest that the previous gangers were exactly the same as the post-solar storm gangers, with the only exception being that after the solar storm the originals didn't need to be plugged in anymore.
That's a rather huge difference though; the previous gangers were directly controlled by the minds of the originals, and the post-storm ones ... aren't. They are self-aware. The Flesh is a living thing, and can probably feel pain, and it's good the company is going to treat it humanely, but is it intelligent before it "downloads" the personalities of its users?
I've a horrible feeling we're getting into Cartasean duality here, but lets for the sake of argument, imagine an identical story with robots. The humans control the robots with VR helmets. A million-to-one accident causes the robots' processors to get permenantly imprinted with the humans' minds. Once that happens they start acting autonomously ... and they're horrified at how the humans treat robots that can't act autonomously.
Does that mean the non-autonomous robots are also intelligent, self-aware beings? Well, no. That's why they aren't autonomous.
From another perspective, the Doctor's occasional scans of Amy which showed her as being both pregnant and not pregnant implies two distinct entities inhabiting the same body, one of which must have been ganger Amy.
How d'you get that? The Doctor's scanning her body, not her mind. The positive comes because he's somehow getting a signal from real Amy's body, which we know isn't there.
Yes, but he had to kill the duplicate to cut the signal, right?
Begging the question. Anon is saying cutting the signal didn't kill the duplicate, because the dublicate was never alive, just a conduit. I'm not sure he's right, as I've stated above, but certainly she doesn't appear to be self-aware. She's just a conduit for Amy's personality.
But as Jon says, given the emphasis the Doctor puts on the acid mine Flesh being a "primitive" version of the technology, it's probably a mistake to assume the Amy Ganger works exactly the same way.
Reply
But surly the true nature of the Flesh, was seen with the Doctor's ganger: self-aware, intelligent, clearly in pain initially and also capable of self-sarifice, and all without the benefit of the intervention of a solar storm. The implication is that the Flesh was being restrained by its treatment by humanity and not that it didn't possess such qualities.
Coming on to the robots analogy: I agree but for it to be a proper analogy - and based on the evidence from the Doctor's ganger, - that the robots would all have their own personality sub-routines, which were being suppressd by the VR helmets.
I see a lot of parallels here with humanity's treatment of the Ood. A constant underplaying of their intelligence to basically justify a slave race, even down to expounding the argument that they enjoy it.
From another perspective, the Doctor's occasional scans of Amy which showed her as being both pregnant and not pregnant implies two distinct entities inhabiting the same body, one of which must have been ganger Amy.
How d'you get that? The Doctor's scanning her body, not her mind. The positive comes because he's somehow getting a signal from real Amy's body, which we know isn't there.
I get that by trying to answer the question, where were the negative scans coming from? So where do you think they were coming from? Not from real Amy, because she is pregnant. Whether ganager Amy was duplicate or a conduit, she should always have registered as being pregnant.
But as Jon says, given the emphasis the Doctor puts on the acid mine Flesh being a "primitive" version of the technology, it's probably a mistake to assume the Amy Ganger works exactly the same way.
We know that for sure because real Amy didn't appear to be outwardly plugged-in to her ganger in the same way that we saw the acid mine folks plugged into their gangers. That process is certainly going on, it just isn't so clunky.
I have to say though, that throughout the history of sci-fi a more advanced, more evolved version of a lifeform (artificial or real) has never been less self-aware, less-sentient, less-intelligent, less-human(?) than its more primitive forbears. Making the Doctor's actions even less justifiable.
In all of this though, we shouldn't forget that while ganger Amy was alive, whoever is holding the real Amy has a window into what the Doctor is doing, where he is going and how close he is to catching up with them. Basically a spy. And removing that advantage may have been one of his motivations in destroying ganger Amy.
Reply
If that's the Flesh's real personality, what's with the Doctor constantly insisting that they're the same person, both the Doctor? Certainly, they both act like the Doctor.
Coming on to the robots analogy: I agree but for it to be a proper analogy - and based on the evidence from the Doctor's ganger, - that the robots would all have their own personality sub-routines, which were being suppressd by the VR helmets.
Mmm. And when the VR helmets aren't active but the robots are left running? Because a lot of the abandoned Flesh is still alive (as indeed is the main vat of the stuff), and while its certainly in pain, it shows no signs of personality beyond wanting the pain to stop (and not having any concept of how to achieve this, until bits of it achieve sentience).
I get that by trying to answer the question, where were the negative scans coming from? So where do you think they were coming from? Not from real Amy, because she is pregnant. Whether ganager Amy was duplicate or a conduit, she should always have registered as being pregnant.
The negative scans are coming from the Amy actually being scanned, who registers as not pregnant because she isn't. Two readings from two bodies: the not-pregnant one atually in the TARDIS and the pregnant one it's connected to.
I have to say though, that throughout the history of sci-fi a more advanced, more evolved version of a lifeform (artificial or real) has never been less self-aware, less-sentient, less-intelligent, less-human(?) than its more primitive forbears. Making the Doctor's actions even less justifiable.
But a more advanced technology is generally more reliable.
Reply
I didn't say personality, I said nature. Obviously the person being imitated is going to have some impact on its personality. We saw that, not only with the Doctor, but also Jen, and Jimmy, when the holo-call came through from Adam.
Mmm. And when the VR helmets aren't active but the robots are left running? Because a lot of the abandoned Flesh is still alive (as indeed is the main vat of the stuff), and while its certainly in pain, it shows no signs of personality beyond wanting the pain to stop (and not having any concept of how to achieve this, until bits of it achieve sentience).
It depends on your take on the Flesh. If you believe that it is essentially non-sentient and only gives the appearance of sentience through being controlled by a sentient being, then your argument is correct. If, however, you believe that the Flesh is inherently sentient, which seems to be the direction that the story was moving in, then the answer is "free time!" For an example of the latter, look at how it reached out to scan the Doctor and then produced a ganger of him. It knew exactly what it wanted to do and also how to achieve it.
The negative scans are coming from the Amy actually being scanned, who registers as not pregnant because she isn't. Two readings from two bodies: the not-pregnant one atually in the TARDIS and the pregnant one it's connected to.
But that comes back to whether or not you believe the Amy in the TARDIS was sentient of her own accord, or only sentient through virtue of being linked to a sentient being. I think there was enough evidence from the story to support the former. Let's just say she sounded incredibly sentient towards the end.
I'm assuming though that the real Amy was abducted pre-impregnation, or else the ganger Amy would have shown signs of being pregnant (as hinted in the Cleaves brain clot story-line).
But a more advanced technology is generally more reliable.
Which in this case can only mean that it is more aware that it is a duplicate, which was kinda evidenced by the flashes of Eye-Patch Lady. Even so, if the Doctor was willing for his duplicate to live, then the same rules should have applied to ganger Amy.
Reply
The person being imitated doesn't have an "impact" on the personality, it is the personality. Ganger Jimmy is Jimmy in every way that matters, that's the whole point.
It depends on your take on the Flesh. If you believe that it is essentially non-sentient and only gives the appearance of sentience through being controlled by a sentient being, then your argument is correct. If, however, you believe that the Flesh is inherently sentient, which seems to be the direction that the story was moving in, then the answer is "free time!"
My point is that the Flesh is left running, and doesn't appear to do much about this until it aquires human (and Time Lord) personalities.
For an example of the latter, look at how it reached out to scan the Doctor and then produced a ganger of him. It knew exactly what it wanted to do and also how to achieve it.
But that comes back to whether or not you believe the Amy in the TARDIS was sentient of her own accord, or only sentient through virtue of being linked to a sentient being. I think there was enough evidence from the story to support the former. Let's just say she sounded incredibly sentient towards the end.
Why does it come back to that? My point is that this has nothing to do with the pregnancy. There are two Amy bodies, one pregnant, one not. Therefore the scan, which is aimed at one of them, and somehow picking up signals from the other, comes across as both pregnant and not-pregnant. Whether or not Ganger Amy is sentient: two bodies, two readings.
And does the Ganger sound incredibly sentient, or is that Amy, unaware of what's going on and convinced this is her real body, sounding incredibly sentient?
I'm assuming though that the real Amy was abducted pre-impregnation, or else the ganger Amy would have shown signs of being pregnant (as hinted in the Cleaves brain clot story-line).
I'm assuming otherwise, since that gets into the question of who impregnated her, which I don't see them addressing in a show for all the family. But I don't see it makes much difference either way.
"But a more advanced technology is generally more reliable."
Which in this case can only mean that it is more aware that it is a duplicate, which was kinda evidenced by the flashes of Eye-Patch Lady. Even so, if the Doctor was willing for his duplicate to live, then the same rules should have applied to ganger Amy.
"You know how we stopped using Gangers because they kept becoming self-aware, not only raising the severe ethical quandries that Cleaves woman kept going on about but also hurting productivity because they went mad and killed the originals?"
"Yep."
"Well, we've fixed that. It won't happen any more."
Reply
For an example of the latter, look at how it reached out to scan the Doctor and then produced a ganger of him. It knew exactly what it wanted to do and also how to achieve it.
Or it instinctively recognised a powerful mind and was drawn to duplicate it. A honeybee "knows" how to make honey, but "The Stolen Earth" aside, that doesn't make them intelligent.
Reply
I'm assuming otherwise, since that gets into the question of who impregnated her, which I don't see them addressing in a show for all the family. But I don't see it makes much difference either way.
Adding for clarity: I think she must have copied pre-impregnation, for the reason you say, but for some reason wasn't actually abducted until later.
Reply
Leave a comment