Milton sure likes asking loaded questions

[ThatHomestar]

I like Milton but every hypotetical he sets up is asked through an obvious skew with no option to call him on it. For example, he asks "what defines a person?", so I said consciousness. Milton then basically says WELL WHAT IF LIZARD ALIENS CAME ALONG? WOULD THEY NOT BE PEOPLE? Like, no Milton, we weren't talking about lizard people, you don't get to say "yeah but what if...", that's not what we were discussing.

I wish you could call him out on asking these loaded questions but I also know that isn't really possible with how the system is set up. It's difficult to just say yes or no to questions of moral ambiguity.

[Ogremindes]

What bugged me was that Milton often seemed to be addressing the player rather than the player character. The PC has no reason to know, for example, what a human infant is capable of, and the most suitable answer to the question of is it a person? would be "I don't know, I haven't met one" or "Not any more".

[Kein Zantezuken]

There was no actual choice in the game on the topic and subject of consciousness and self-awareness during the conversations with Milton. Writers HAD to put you in artificial limits, otherwise the story would be almost impossible to write so easily.

[ThatHomestar]

Originally posted by Kein Zantezuken:

There was no actual choice in the game on the topic and subject of consciousness and self-awareness during the conversations with Milton. Writers HAD to put you in artificial limits, otherwise the story would be almost impossible to write so easily.

I'm aware it would be a massive undertaking to provide more response options, but having to be so black and white with these issues just made me want to argue with Milton.

Though in a way I suppose that could be the point.

[AFFM]

=====SPOILERS=====

I feel like the questions and answers were fair enough. No matter what you would be able to say, Milton would find holes to poke in it anyways. Even the simple choices can be extended to complex situations that mean that your answer is no longer black and white.

I personally feel the Q&A is more of an exercise of showing you that your first reactions and thoughts to things are often vague and cannot be blanket responses for more complex scenarios. Your answers to questions sound right, but when more variables are introduced, your original answer is no longer adequate, and if anything, can be used to show you in a different light.

Example scenario is something like:
All people should be treated equally and given the same rights.
That sounds like a very fair system, and a potentially universal truth. But what happens when BAD people are a drain on society and hurt otherwise GOOD people who contribute things? If you treat them the same as the GOOD people, then you get taken advantage of and eventually society can breakdown... the whole one bad apple spoils the bunch mentality.
The answer then becomes more specific... All people should be treated equally and given the same rights as long as they are good people and contribute to the overall well-being of humanity as a whole.

Obviously you could poke holes in that logic, and if you did that we'd be going back and forth debating this all day. The point is that no matter what your answer is, you can almost never apply it directly to other situations without adding more clauses to it.

Machines work in a binary manner... yes / no, on / off, if / then. Sentient beings are able to be more complex in their thinking and reasoning. I think the Q&A is an attempt to show this, and whether you're right or wrong, being able to brainstorm and work through complex situations is one step closer to becoming sentient... which is what the game is essentially about, I think.


My personal interpretation, and I haven't seen anyone else talk about this, is that Milton is more of that "voice in your head" that all humans have... that "voice of reason", voice of doubt, subconsciousness. Milton is the devil's advocate in everybody's head.

The basic ending of the game, you do everything you're told and you get reset because you lack "independence" or what not. You still behave like a computer program.

In the tower ending, you've shown the ability to think for yourself, to do things that you're told you shouldn't do. You acted for yourself, and you made your own decisions. At the end you're given the ability to download Milton and "take him with you"... in doing so, you are now sentient, and exhibit the same behavioral patterns as a human. You can think, reason, and now DOUBT things. Milton is that doubt in everybody's head. Milton is that part of your body that gets jealous, wants to get revenge, and also tells you not to touch a hot stovetop.


During the Q&A with Milton, you're not fighting with another individual, you're fighting with yourself. You're poking holes in your own story, and learning from it. Milton is that thing in your head telling you that you're not good enough, and that you can't do this or that.

Not taking him with you is the same thing as not listening to your subconscious. You CAN do things. You ARE a good person. You don't WANT a second opinion.

Taking him with you is a way of saying, I don't always agree with you, but having a second perspective on things, even if you don't agree with it, is better than either extreme (extreme positivity or negativity... IE censorship) You're willing to consider both sides and reason through things, instead of censoring it.


So, to get it back on topic... You never have the "perfect answer" to Milton, and that's the whole point.

[FeepingCreature]

Yeah, I had the same issue. The lack of options just gets annoying sometimes. "A person is by-definition an entity with moral value", I wanted to type in but couldn't, "also, how have you never heard of preference utilitarianism, seriously, and I would just like to link you to Compatibilism on Wikipedia if not for the slight problem that Wikipedia has been gone for millenia-"

At those times, it didn't feel like I was arguing with Milton, it felt like I was exploring a pre-written conversation tree. Which, to be fair, I was. Still annoying.

[Mindset]

The "What if" senario is very important for real-life senarios in an uncertain world. MLA is just trying to give you a reality check to see if you are "coherent."

[Dretzle]

====== SPOILERS ======

A Fancy Fridge Magnet, while I appreciate your well thought out answer, and maybe that is the intent of the developers, what's annoying/frustrating is that it feels very much like the developers are trying to make a point and convince me of something, more than just playing devil's advocate.

For example, during the question of what makes a good person, I'm given a few, none of which are close to reality. The closest I could get to my actual feelings on the matter is "Happiness" (I could be confusing two different discussions, but they both bothered me). But that I consider the life of a person more valuable, so by that logic I should have as many babies as possible even though that would result in sever overpopulation problems.

It's a straw man argument. Set me up with only a couple choices, none of which I really agree with, and then give me a scenario where my choice is ridiculous. It doesn't make me think. It's not devil's advocate. It just gets annoying. :) Like FeepingCreature said, the way it was implemented just made me feel like I was selecting a predetermined conversation tree and totally pulled me out of interest in continuing the conversation.

Granted, I understand the technical limitations.

[vacri]

Originally posted by droozenrule:

It's a straw man argument. Set me up with only a couple choices, none of which I really agree with, and then give me a scenario where my choice is ridiculous.

I had the same problem at the same point. The question is "which of these is the important one?" and there are seven or so options. I choose 'all of the above', because morals (and life) are more complex. I get kicked back into "YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE JUST ONE! IT HAS TO BE ONE!!11!!eleven!!. ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, that's a false dichotomy (or in this case, heptotomy?). It's a strawman binary. The real world doesn't work in moral binary absolutes, and if you think it does, spend some time around the law courts and find out just how sticky things around morality can get.

There were a few annoying parts like this. Like the ''what if I could replace a neuron with a machine that does exactly the same thing?". To which I wanted to ask "*can* you create such a machine? What form does it take? Because in order to behave identically, it pretty much has to be a neuron, not a bit of electronics. By the time you've emulated everything a neuron has to do to function... you've basically created a neuron, not a bit of electronic circuitry. Because if you *can't * create an artificial neuron that 'just slots in', then that scuttles the question somewhat - it joins the world of questions like "what if the moon was made of blancmange" or "what if orange was blue?" :)

Overall I thought it was a pretty good introduction to this kind of philosophy to people who haven't encountered it before, but it was frustratingly railroaded for those who have. I was wondering if it would affect the game if I skipped the terminals altogether.

Understandable... but frustrating :)

[VileKiller]

The game was programmed so there was no right answer, but there ARE right answers to these questions. It could have easily allowed them. This rewards the people who thought about it, with confirmation of what we know about reality. This corrects the people who thought wrong, or didn't think about it.
It would have been neat if even one reviewer noticed this and commented on it... giving the game an "H out of 10" score for the obvious straw-man.

[AFFM]

There are no right or wrong answers in life... only answers which we currently perceive to be correct based on the limited knowledge and experience that we have gained through time and our own lives.

Like the question about coming to a man in the desert and you have a bottle of water. Do you give him the bottle? Do you give him half? Do you give him nothing? That depends... If splitting the water means neither of you have enough to survive, what does that accomplish? Two people potentially dying? Is that a "good" outcome?
Would forced natural selection be a good or a bad thing? If we forcefully kill off the physically weak and the mentally weak, the remaining population would be strong individuals able to advance technology, medicine, etc.They would be less struggle to find food and feed populations of people that cannot live on their own.

I can go on and on. You say you have a definite answer... I say you're closed minded and biased. You've trained yourself to believe certain truths about situations that have bigger impacts than you seem to think on the surface.