Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. - 4x20 - "Farewell, Cruel World!" - Discussion Thread

[Chemistro]

it might get shut down but don't think it will be the agents of shield that do it, major ethical issues if they do.

qft.

 

[Chemistro]

I don't care. I've seen excuses for this garbage from comic fans my entire life and I'm not convinced. If it's Grant Ward played by the same actor then all we REALLY have is Ward rebooted back to before he turned heel in season 1.

No, that's not what we really have. It's another person, with different memories, goals, values, beliefs, etc. (though in some cases, like Mace, they would be almost identical, but still a copy).
By the way, Daisy told Framework Ward she hopes he survives and Framework Skye comes back to him. It's not what she'd tell Ward, whom she hated.

 

[Heretic]

No, that's not what we really have. It's another person, with different memories, goals, values, beliefs, etc. (though in some cases, like Mace, they would be almost identical, but still a copy).
By the way, Daisy told Framework Ward she hopes he survives and Framework Skye comes back to him. It's not what she'd tell Ward, whom she hated.

End result is the same...season 1 Ward (or, someone who might as well be him) back.

I get it...fans are used to seeing comic books kill a character and then bring them back because the new one is from the past or alternate future or another dimension...but the end result is the same...the character is back.

 

[Chemistro]

No machine runs forever in the long run it will eventually shut down & be destroyed anyway & in the end everyone in it is not real

Regarding the first part (i.e., that it will be shut down eventually), let's say they find a planet with billions of people connected to a doomsday device. The device will eventually destroy the planet (say, in a century or so), but they can't shut it down. They can however trigger it immediately. Would it be okay to do so?
It wouldn't. They should tell the people of the planet about the device, so that they can try to find a way to deactivate it, or else a way to reduce the bad result (e.g., having no more children so the device will not kill anyone). Granted, some people on the planet will end up making bad choices. But that does not justify taking away their freedom to choose, or their lives. In other words, it would not be okay to trigger the device, as long as the people are real. So, the issue comes down to whether they are real in the Framework. As I've argued, I'd say very probably they are.

 

[just one thing]

I don't care. I've seen excuses for this garbage from comic fans my entire life and I'm not convinced. If it's Grant Ward played by the same actor then all we REALLY have is Ward rebooted back to before he turned heel in season 1.

Ward gets changed each arch

season 1
all american hero

traitor

season 2

broken compass

love sick bonnie and clyde

season 3

hart broken vengeful

demigod


season 4

hero.


he is the most versatile character on the show. rebooting him fits in with his history on the show.

 

[just one thing]

qft.

ah be nice.

 

[Heretic]

While I'm willing to accept sci-fi nonsense (usually) when they show us that sci-fi nonsense (i.e., there is good evidence within the story for that, or at least reasons to think the characters have such evidence), this is not what's happening here. The people we see in the Framework are probably all real people. They don't have "Real World" bodies, but they are real. Pac-Man is not alive. But Pac-Man either has no mind, or has a mind simpler than that of a mosquito. Framework people probably have human minds. That makes them real people, and it's wrong to kill them (except in self-defense, etc.).

The Framework doesn't exist as a real place...and the "people" you are talking about are not flesh and blood. They aren't anything more than code, really. The images that look like people are just graphics the computer came up with. They are highly advanced video game characters, basically. Aida admits that she has to be REAL...as in the REAL world in order to actually have free will and exist as an actual person.

 

[Chemistro]

End result is the same...season 1 Ward (or, someone who might as well be him) back.

I get it...fans are used to seeing comic books kill a character and then bring them back because the new one is from the past or alternate future or another dimension...but the end result is the same...the character is back.

Personally, I've not read any comics for about 3 decades, and I was never a big fan of comics though I enjoyed them once in a while. But that aside, the result is not the same, since those are not the same people. The question is whether the differences are such that you, or I, or others, like or dislike the result because of it.

Personally, I don't have a problem with bringing copies back. You apparently do. Different people have different preferences, and there isn't much to debate about on that front - where there is room for debate is whether those are the same people; as I've been arguing, they aren't.

 

[Dark Raven]

I don't care. I've seen excuses for this garbage from comic fans my entire life and I'm not convinced. If it's Grant Ward played by the same actor then all we REALLY have is Ward rebooted back to before he turned heel in season 1.

It's not really a reboot back to before he turned heel in season 1. Because he was written as a villain from the start, so he was never good, whereas this version of Ward is. Dalton may not have always known he was playing a villain until a number of episodes into the first season, but he was told to play him a certain way, and even said things (or things were said about him) that were to be understood in a villainous way when you saw the bigger picture.

For example, in the very first episode, either Coulson or Maria Hill (can't remember which one) said that his scores were off the charts and that he rivalled Natasha Romanov. Now at the time it sounded like they were just talking him up and making him out to be better than he actually appeared. But that was because of his duplicitous nature all along.

We've not really seen a true heroic Ward in this series apart from this glimpse of one in the framework. The Ward we thought was heroic in early season 1 was never that but was a Hydra plant all along who was good at hiding his true nature.

 

[Chemistro]

The Framework doesn't exist as a real place...and the "people" you are talking about are not flesh and blood. They aren't anything more than code, really. The images that look like people are just graphics the computer came up with. They are highly advanced video game characters, basically. Aida admits that she has to be REAL...as in the REAL world in order to actually have free will and exist as an actual person.

But who says that flesh and blood is required for minds to exist?
It seems to me that it's not. I would say that Vision, Ultron and Aida very probably do have minds, though they have no flesh or blood.
The complexity of the behavior of Framework people is strong evidence that they are real people, with real minds, etc. Zombies would be just as complex, but the zombie hypothesis is a priori very improbable already, and I see nothing to raise its probability. So, they're probably real.
If video games characters actually behaved like humans, with the full range of behavior (but you'd need video games with an enormous computing power to match a human brain), I would say those characters are very probably people, even if not humans. Killing them would be wrong except for self-defense, etc. But video game characters aren't like that. Their behavior follows extremely simple rules. A mosquito is very probably much more complex.

ETA: Aida is very probably real, and she is making plenty of decisions of her own free will, as she intends to escape her limitations. But her freedom is limited because Radcliffe chose to limit her. That does not make her not real, just as the Russian guy is still real despite the fact that his freedom has been limited. They both can make free choices, just not as many as most people.

 

[just one thing]

The Framework doesn't exist as a real place...and the "people" you are talking about are not flesh and blood. They aren't anything more than code, really. The images that look like people are just graphics the computer came up with. They are highly advanced video game characters, basically. Aida admits that she has to be REAL...as in the REAL world in order to actually have free will and exist as an actual person.

the point the show is going for is that people in the framework have consciousness, capable of choice, hope loss stuff like that. A world exists.

Turn it off and that world stops to exist.

 

[Chemistro]

ah be nice.

I am nice.
I was agreeing with you.

 

[Heretic]

the point the show is going for is that people in the framework have consciousness, capable of choice, hope loss stuff like that. A world exists.

Turn it off and that world stops to exist.

That's not what Aida seems to think about it. Regardless...they are, in fact, just advanced code...video games characters that are programmed to react naturally to situations and evolve as characters from there.

But yes...when you turn off Legend of Zelda, the people in the game cease to exist. That isn't a big deal. This happens to be a video game that is very convincing to real people when placed inside it...like a Star Trek Holodeck or X-Men Danger Room.

 

[Heretic]

It's not really a reboot back to before he turned heel in season 1. Because he was written as a villain from the start, so he was never good, whereas this version of Ward is. Dalton may not have always known he was playing a villain until a number of episodes into the first season, but he was told to play him a certain way, and even said things (or things were said about him) that were to be understood in a villainous way when you saw the bigger picture.

For example, in the very first episode, either Coulson or Maria Hill (can't remember which one) said that his scores were off the charts and that he rivalled Natasha Romanov. Now at the time it sounded like they were just talking him up and making him out to be better than he actually appeared. But that was because of his duplicitous nature all along.

We've not really seen a true heroic Ward in this series apart from this glimpse of one in the framework. The Ward we thought was heroic in early season 1 was never that but was a Hydra plant all along who was good at hiding his true nature.

I know that. Regardless...you thought he was a good guy in season 1...and if Framework ward lives, then Good Guy Ward will be back. That fact that its an actual good Ward in a new body is comic book nonsense. It's a retcon without the actual retcon.

 

[Dark Raven]

The Framework doesn't exist as a real place...and the "people" you are talking about are not flesh and blood. They aren't anything more than code, really. The images that look like people are just graphics the computer came up with. They are highly advanced video game characters, basically. Aida admits that she has to be REAL...as in the REAL world in order to actually have free will and exist as an actual person.

In various Star Trek series, this whole issue was debated endlessly. There were people like Data in TNG or the holographic doctor in Voyager. It was always questioned whether they were considered real people and had any rights like any other person. Those arguing against it always said that they were just computer code, programming, circuits etc. Their feelings (in the case of the doctor) was said to be just a simulation of feelings and not actual ones.

But they were always argued to be people just as much as anyone else. They were able to learn, to love, to tell right from wrong, to sacrifice, or to think independently.

Is free will the only measure of whether a person is a person? What about all these slaves or people sold in human trafficking? Do they have completely freedom to do what they like? They are severely limited in what they can do. Some other people are even drugged and are in a catatonic state. Does that make them less of a person?

I think you need to distinguish between determining whether someone is considered human (in which case someone like Data or the holographic doctor would not be) or whether someone is considered a person. In the framework, these people not be human in the traditional sense of the word, but they could still be considered people.

 

[Silvermoon]

In various Star Trek series, this whole issue was debated endlessly. There were people like Data in TNG or the holographic doctor in Voyager. It was always questioned whether they were considered real people and had any rights like any other person. Those arguing against it always said that they were just computer code, programming, circuits etc. Their feelings (in the case of the doctor) was said to be just a simulation of feelings and not actual ones.

But they were always argued to be people just as much as anyone else. They were able to learn, to love, to tell right from wrong, to sacrifice, or to think independently.

Is free will the only measure of whether a person is a person? What about all these slaves or people sold in human trafficking? Do they have completely freedom to do what they like? They are severely limited in what they can do. Some other people are even drugged and are in a catatonic state. Does that make them less of a person?

I think you need to distinguish between determining whether someone is considered human (in which case someone like Data or the holographic doctor would not be) or whether someone is considered a person. In the framework, these people not be human in the traditional sense of the word, but they could still be considered people.

I was about to bring up Data and EMH in Star Trek but you beat me to it

It seems to me that this might be AOS's way of tackling the "Data/EMH" question.... I for one am interested to see where it goes and whether our main characters end up struggling with a decision to destroy the Framework or not

 

[Heretic]

I'd say that the difference is that in Star Trek, there are actual holograms or whatever created to resemble people and places. That doesn't happen in the Framework. The Framework contains ZERO buildings, ZERO vehicles...no one is actually shooting any guns because there are no guns and there are no people. The ENTIRE existence of the Framework is computer code. Daisy isn't running around with Ward...Daisy isn't actually running at all. Framework Ward isn't an individual...he's part of a computer program.

Regardless...the show will likely take the cheap way out of having Aida or some other villain destroy the Framework, taking the moral dilemma out of our heroes hands. That way you guys won't have to come back here and call the heroes of this show genocidal murderers.

 

[just one thing]

I'd say that the difference is that in Star Trek, there are actual holograms or whatever created to resemble people and places. That doesn't happen in the Framework. The Framework contains ZERO buildings, ZERO vehicles...no one is actually shooting any guns because there are no guns and there are no people. The ENTIRE existence of the Framework is computer code. Daisy isn't running around with Ward...Daisy isn't actually running at all. Framework Ward isn't an individual...he's part of a computer program.

Regardless...the show will likely take the cheap way out of having Aida or some other villain destroy the Framework, taking the moral dilemma out of our heroes hands. That way you guys won't have to come back here and call the heroes of this show genocidal murderers.

think of the dr in star trek voyager, his story was about being self aware and getting acknowledgement for being self aware. or the dr Moriarty story in TNG.

 

[just one thing]

That's not what Aida seems to think about it. Regardless...they are, in fact, just advanced code...video games characters that are programmed to react naturally to situations and evolve as characters from there.

But yes...when you turn off Legend of Zelda, the people in the game cease to exist. That isn't a big deal. This happens to be a video game that is very convincing to real people when placed inside it...like a Star Trek Holodeck or X-Men Danger Room.

appears to be a means to an end for aida alright.

When you turn on legands of zelda are the characters self aware. Can they behave on their own initiative.

when we saw fitzsimmons messing with the tech for the framework yes that concept was that of a video game or a training exercise.

Radcliffs concept though was of a world were people could live beyond a physical world. not exactly a video game.

 

[Silvermoon]

The world of TRON is another universe that kind of brings up this question as well (and indeed perhaps that universe in general is even more comparable to the Framework than the discussion of Data or the EMH in Star Trek). The 'beings' within The Grid are indeed just programs (or started out as just programs), but many of them appear aware (and, eventually, Flynn's new Grid - in Uprising & Legacy - sprouted "life" on it's own when the ISOs simply 'came into being' due to the conditions being right) At what point do we say that a program has evolved from being just a program and has instead become something more?

 

[Chemistro]

It was not their choice to even be made they were an experiment they are not real there is no logical reason to keep something running also costing money to keep it on for a bunch of not real people there is no logical reason to keep the framework working & maintained in the real world

There is no good reason to suspect that they're not real. Given their behavior, they very probably are real. As to whose choice it was, it was Radcliffe's and Aida's, but that would not make it morally acceptable for others to kill them. For that matter, Vision was also some kind of experiment, and it would be immoral to kill him for no reason, or to save money if there was a cost in terms of money.

 

[Chemistro]

The best thing to happen would be the creator destroying it from within somehow as he built a back door that not even Aida knows about so surely he would have built a way to destroy it even from the inside if Aida got out of hand

But you're saying that they're not real people. They very probably are, but if they were not, then neither would be Radcliffe, as he died in the "Real" world.

 

[Chemistro]

I'd say that the difference is that in Star Trek, there are actual holograms or whatever created to resemble people and places. That doesn't happen in the Framework. The Framework contains ZERO buildings, ZERO vehicles...no one is actually shooting any guns because there are no guns and there are no people. The ENTIRE existence of the Framework is computer code. Daisy isn't running around with Ward...Daisy isn't actually running at all. Framework Ward isn't an individual...he's part of a computer program.

But whether the hologram is visible out of the framework is not the point. It's still a computer program, running on some hardware. It's also a person.

 

[Heretic]

A box in a corner beeping and booping as it is programmed to do is not a person...and its also not billions of people.

In video games, characters DO make "decisions." Some townsperson is fetching water and Link asks them a question to get info about his quest. If you entered the game and were able to speak to that character, they would not be aware that they are a video game character. But they are very, very limited as far as what their life entails. These 0s and 1s are programmed to react naturally to events inside the game.

 

[Chemistro]

A box in a corner beeping and booping as it is programmed to do is not a person...and its also not billions of people.

In video games, characters DO make "decisions." Some townsperson is fetching water and Link asks them a question to get info about his quest. If you entered the game and were able to speak to that character, they would not be aware that they are a video game character. But they are very, very limited as far as what their life entails. These 0s and 1s are programmed to react naturally to events inside the game.

Videogame characters have extremely simple behavior. Again, a mosquito is probably much more complex. But the people in the framework exhibit the full range of human behavior, which is strong evidence that those are people. Why would they not be so? Because they have no human brain? But there is no reason to suspect that human brains are required (e.g., Ultron, Aida, Vision, and plenty of aliens). Is it because they're not made of flesh and blood? Again, Aida, Vision, Ultron, aren't made of flesh and blood, either. But they make plenty of choices. By the way, as long as Framework People feel pain, pleasure, love, fear, hate, have hope and dreams, etc., it would be wrong to kill them even if they didn't have free will - then again, their behavior is very strong evidence that they do have it. I'm a compatibilist by the way.

Framework people aren't limited to a few responses like video games characters. Framework people have the full range of human behavior. Otherwise, Mack, May, Mace, etc., would realize they're dealing with something like a videogame character - as we all would, if we saw something that looks human but behaves with the complexity of a video game character. We would not that's not a normal human. Surely Mack could tell if Hope behaved like a video game character, Coulson could tell if his students did that, etc.