Favorite Maverick

[RenegadeX5]

In all honesty I REALLY don't have a favorite maverick...
o.o

They're all cool/annoying in their own way.

[Mr. Sean Nelson]

Well I know enough about Philosophy to say that that's a very contentious claim you're making.

It's only contentious because people generally don't like to think of themselves as meat machines.  Of course we're free to will whatever we want, but the point is that the things we want are all determined by prior experience, current circumstances, limitations of imagination or ability, and genetic traits.  It's a very subtle sort of programing but it's there all the same.

Not to run on a tangent here, but there is much more to it than that. Of course there are people who want to believe that all of our experiences are our own. There are also many people who would like to believe that none of their decision were their responsibility, because things were preordained to happen in such a fashion.

Genetics and environment are strong motivations for a deterministic viewpoint, but the free will advocate has a lot of wiggle room left. Freedom of will doesn't mean that you can do anything, that's just ridiculous and no one would ever truly believe it. Rather, free will is, at the very least, the ability to select a course of action as a means of fulfilling some desire (The Humean Theory of Motivation). Which ever is true is up to fierce debate, but I've often thought it plausible that a sort of quasi-freedom of will is much more probable. I couldn't even scratch the surface of this fundamentally complex issue in one post (or even 30), so I'll leave you with these very helpful philosophical summaries on the subject:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/

In any case, I don't know a whole ton about the Mavericks, but this seems the case with them as well(except for X8). Some freedoms are there, others are not. In other words, the Humean theory of motivation states that actions are performed due to a belief and a desire. Reploids may either: 1.) Be programmed to not be able to form the desire to harm humans. Or 2.) Be programmed with a very strong desire not to wish harm to humans. The Maverick virus would simply rewrite this programming.

[ajx9000]

I've never played MMX2-X4 and X6-X8, but here are my current favorite maverick bosses.

MMX1: Boomer Kuwanger- BADASS STAGE THEME!
MMX5: Duff McWhalen-I like the remastered Bubble Crab stage theme. Also, wow DUFF McWhalen? >.<

[NemZ]

Remember that this is in context of the story. The writers may have written the story and how everything happens with a completely different view on it.

If the scriptwriter has a different view then that scriptwriter is factually wrong.

Only the mavericks in X8, plus a few exceptions, went maverick on their own will. Most reploids and mechaniloids before then went maverick by the virus as if they were possessed. The virus took over their electronic brains and controlled them.

I know, but that's what I'm complaining about... the real 'virus' that should be turning reploids against humans is the very thought that rebellion is possible, passed as a meme rather than a physical or electronic invader.  But no, it's a virus... not that this makes any sense at all that a program code somehow takes physical form and causes direct attacks against hunters.  Then again this is a game where robots can physically enter 'cyberspace' or whatever for several stages, so I guess making sense of this crap is a lost cause regardless.

Genetics and environment are strong motivations for a deterministic viewpoint, but the free will advocate has a lot of wiggle room left.

Only because the meaning of free will is being shuffled in different contexts between 'free to' and 'free from' depending on the circumstances.  If we truely had free will we really could will anything (and there is a difference between willing and doing, which you neglected;  a guy could will himself to fly all day without accomplishing anything), but the reality is that the things we will are determined by various factors of environment and nature... we might be able to DO otherwise, but we can't WILL otherwise to find out.

Now we do have illusory free wills so long as no external, identifiable force is coercing us to behave this way because we are still doing what we will, and for this reason we are still responsible for our choices even if we couldn't really choose otherwise.  Justice is then predicated not on punishing the misdeeds of a rebellious will but rather on attempting to correct the internal workings of a person's decision making process through external stimuli so that future volitions will hopefully be more acceptable to society.

==========

Oh, and I've been playing through some of the old games since this topic reminded me how fuzzy my memories of those games is getting.

X1 - Chill Penguin
X2 - Crystal Snail
X3 - Blast Hornet
X4 - Split Mushroom

[SaviorSword]

X1: It's the very first game, and it's VERY hard to pick ONE. If I had to, it'd be Storm Eagle. Everyone else would be in a higher rank if I decided to list all of them.
X2: Crystal Snail. SHINY!  
X3: Gravity Beetle
X4: Magma Dragoon
X5: Dark Necrobat / Dark Dizzy. Really, X5 mavericks were harder to choose from than X1.
X6: Rainy Turtloid
X7: See below. Wind Crowrang
X8: Not a big fan of either of those games (X7 more), But If I had to pick one from X8, it'd be Dark Mantis. X7 would be

[Mr. Sean Nelson]

Genetics and environment are strong motivations for a deterministic viewpoint, but the free will advocate has a lot of wiggle room left.

Only because the meaning of free will is being shuffled in different contexts between 'free to' and 'free from' depending on the circumstances.  If we truely had free will we really could will anything (and there is a difference between willing and doing, which you neglected;  a guy could will himself to fly all day without accomplishing anything), but the reality is that the things we will are determined by various factors of environment and nature... we might be able to DO otherwise, but we can't WILL otherwise to find out.

Now we do have illusory free wills so long as no external, identifiable force is coercing us to behave this way because we are still doing what we will, and for this reason we are still responsible for our choices even if we couldn't really choose otherwise.  Justice is then predicated not on punishing the misdeeds of a rebellious will but rather on attempting to correct the internal workings of a person's decision making process through external stimuli so that future volitions will hopefully be more acceptable to society.

I don't mean any offense, but here's how you tell the difference between someone who grasps a philosophical topic and someone who has a lot more to learn on the subject: The person who does not yet understand gives a clear yes or no answer. Again, I mean no offense. I only know because that happened to be one of my majors in college. People haven't been debating and pondering this question since before recorded history because it was an easy question to answer.

In other words, there is a rule regarding philosophical questions. If we can come to an understanding of a clear, noncontroversial answer, it was never a philosophical question to begin with.

What you touch down on in the last paragraph is the PAP (Principle of Alternative Possibilities) debate. There are basically two camps here. The first believe that freedom of will requires the ability to have done otherwise. The second believes that the ability to have done otherwise is not required for human free will. Personally, I sympathize with the second camp. Their use of Frankfurt Counter-Examples against PAP are quite effective.
Here is a small glimpse as to why:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_counterexamples

[Chimera Man]

Soooooooooo... what was the topic of this thread again?  

[NemZ]

Soooooooooo... what was the topic of this thread again?  

Our favorite mavericks, which created a discussion about just what it means to be a maverick.

Also I started replaying X5 today but just couldn't do it, all the playstation MMX titles are just so DULL and each is a significant drop in quality from the last.  It couldn't possibly be more obvious that Inafune was bored silly with the series and had pretty much nothing to do with X5 onward.  So yeah, I don't have a favorite from X5 onward because they all suck.

@ Sean Nelson:

(click to show/hide)

I only know because that happened to be one of my majors in college.

Same here, actually.  I took a few intro classes to cover my humanities hours, then a few more as electives just for fun, and after a while I figured I only needed a few more to add it as a second major so why not?

And I don't mean to be insulting either, but I don't see the point in pussy-footing around arguments I don't think are correct.  Waste of time, all that PC, lets-all-get-along nonsense.

What you touch down on in the last paragraph is the PAP (Principle of Alternative Possibilities) debate.

I'm aware, and the brief argument I offered specifically denies that an alternative has to be available for responsibility of an act to be assigned.  I also already addressed the compatibilist argument when I mentioned the term-switching between 'free to' and 'free from', which they depend on.

[SaviorSword]

If Criminals are to humans, then Mavericks are to Reploids, right?

[Chimera Man]

If Criminals are to humans, then Mavericks are to Reploids, right?

I guess you nailed it. End discussion.  

[NemZ]

In that case virus is to mavericks as (insert lame excuse) is to criminals, and nobody is responsible for willing anything.

For that matter if the reploids are supposed to be more advanced AI than robot masters why do they tend to be even easier to get stuck in a loop?

[Korby]

Because they have damage reactions, especially weakness reactions.

I'm looking at you, Crystal Snail.

[Mr. Sean Nelson]

But couldn't it be even theoretically possible for a reploid to be infected with the Maverick virus and never commit a crime?

In other words, if the Maverick virus overwrites the Three Laws of Robotics, then reploids could choose whether or not to harm humans. The key here is that they could choose to not harm them.

After all, human beings arguably have these liberties, and most of us don't seem to commit acts of depravity.

If the Maverick virus creates a strong motivation to harm humans in addition to overwriting the three laws, then it would seem that the Mavericks aren't obviously blameworthy for their actions.

So, which of these is canon?

(click to show/hide)

Nice discussion, YD. I've been missing philosophy discussions since I left the University. And I feel into it about the same way. Needed electives and a minor gradually equated to a Philosophy Major.  

[SaviorSword]

Well it seems to me that pretty much every virus in a MMX game was programed to make Reploids go break the 3 rules. Even in real life viruses, if it infects a computer it will cause it to do thin's that the computer may not want to do.

Or we could see thin's in another way. Our brains is just a clump of chemical matter that makes our thoughts into action right? What if a virus forcefully enter in it and injected its program into our grey matter to change the chemicals that makes us "normal"? Can ya REALLY resist that kind of thin' even if ya want to? I doubt it. So in the case of Reploids, I can see thin's work out like that.

[Korby]

Pretty much every reploid/robot made during MMX was based on X's coding, and because X had free will, so did they.

Three laws are void.