Daneel | Video

[thezerothlaw]

I must say that I have found the process of dreaming to be an interesting experience. I did not think that once I had returned to my normal state after having been human I would be able to experience it again, though other people's dreams was not something I anticipated.

[Daneel's manner is, as always, solemn, but he seems to have a certain extra weight to his words today. He has a serious matter to address.]

To anyone whose dreams I may have intruded upon, I beg your pardon.

[With that out of the way, he straightens.]

I have always considered humanity to be something other than myself, and something greater. There are a number of traits I have thought myself incapable of, but now I am not certain of that. A redefinition is necessary. I have an important question, and if anyone can spare the time to answer it, I would greatly appreciate it.

Namely, how would you define a sentient being that could be referred to as a person?

Comments

Re: [all replies audio]

[unsanguine]

[ With conviction: ]

To do no harm. A great simplification, of course, but otherwise I might keep you for a fortnight.

Re: [all replies audio]

[thezerothlaw]

I see.

[Daneel considers this momentarily.]

I am already intended to do no harm. I strive to never to do harm. The First Law of Robotics is that a robot must not harm a human being, nor through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

[all replies audio]

[unsanguine]

[ Ah. That explains the uh, lack of life pulse. ]

I suppose it's rather a different kettle of fish when you've no impulses to the contrary.

[ He sounds a little envious. Not maliciously, just wistful. ]

Re: [all replies audio]

[thezerothlaw]

Perhaps it is. If I cannot, by my nature, knowingly do no harm, then how should I define personhood beyond that?