Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Marvel November 2015 Solicits!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Marvel November 2015 Solicits!

    Here they are!

    http://www.comicbookresources.com/ar...-solicitations

  • #2
    Getting when they come out:

    ALL-NEW, ALL-DIFFERENT AVENGERS #1
    ALL-NEW, ALL-DIFFERENT AVENGERS #2
    WEB WARRIORS #1
    HERCULES #1
    ALL-NEW WOLVERINE #1
    ALL-NEW WOLVERINE #2
    MOON GIRL AND DEVIL DINOSAUR #1
    UNCANNY AVENGERS ANNUAL #1
    CAPTAIN AMERICA: WHITE #4 (of 5)
    THE UNBEATABLE SQUIRREL GIRL #2
    MS. MARVEL #1
    BLACK KNIGHT #1
    UNCANNY AVENGERS #2
    SECRET WARS TOO #1
    EXTRAORDINARY X-MEN #3
    DOCTOR STRANGE #2
    S.H.I.E.L.D. #12
    MIRACLEMAN BY GAIMAN & BUCKINGHAM #4

    Getting, most likely, later when I can afford them:

    BLADE: UNDEAD BY DAYLIGHT
    ALL-NEW X-MEN #1
    ALL-NEW X-MEN #2
    AVENGERS VS INFINITY #1
    THE MIGHTY THOR #1
    FIGMENT 2 #23 (of 5)

    Comment


    • #3
      DAREDEVIL VOL. 4: THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MATT MURDOCK TPB

      ANT-MAN and HOWARD THE DUCK when they hit TPB.

      ...and maybe check out HOWLING COMMANDOS OF S.H.I.E.L.D. to see how (or if) they undo that mess of Jason Aaron's about Dum-Dum Dugan being an LMD for years (or does Secret Wars give them a blanket pass for rebooted continuity?)... Haven't been much of a fan of Frank Barbiere's stuff so far, but I do like the Legion of Monsters.

      No SQUADRON SUPREME #2 this month, or did they solicit both #1 & 2 last month, I forget?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by pulphero View Post
        ...and maybe check out HOWLING COMMANDOS OF S.H.I.E.L.D. to see how (or if) they undo that mess of Jason Aaron's about Dum-Dum Dugan being an LMD for years
        I so want him to be a ghost, or even a ghost inhabiting an LMD (which would allow for at least some of his prior appearances to be the actual Dugan, whether Fury knew it or not), just because it would be perfect.

        Comment


        • #5
          Since it's been established that LMDs are genuine artificial intelligences and the Dugan LMD believed it was really him, does it really matter that it wasn't the same guy who fought in WWII? I thought it was quite an inspired solution to the problem of Dugan's seeming immortality.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by tony ingram View Post
            Since it's been established that LMDs are genuine artificial intelligences and the Dugan LMD believed it was really him, does it really matter that it wasn't the same guy who fought in WWII? I thought it was quite an inspired solution to the problem of Dugan's seeming immortality.
            I'd much rather have stuck with a simple "Dum-Dum is Dum-Dum". Longevity is established as a pretty elastic quality in the Marvel Universe as opposed to real life, so it's really no issue of unbelievability, and he's got plenty of contemporaries for company. Dragging the character into Ghost in the Shell/Blade Runner cyberpunk territory just doesn't sit right with me. They have other characters like Deathlok for that. One person's "inspired" is another person's "lame", I guess.

            I disagree (except for a few specific cases, like the Max Fury LMD from Brubaker's original Secret Avengers, which was an advanced/experimental model reprogrammed using the Zodiac Key) with your assessment of LMDs as "genuine artificial intelligences", and it seems to me there was a least one story where they made a point of differentiating LMDs from genuine AIs like Jim Hammond or X-51. According to my understanding of the LMD concept, they're programmed with exactly as much intelligence as is required for the assignment for which they're designed, no more and no less. Only some LMDs are capable of independent operation.

            In at least some cases, LMDs used to duplicate a person (like Nick Fury) are robotic avatars controlled by virtual reality remote operators, and I believe that was the original intention of the designation "decoy". It's a robot Modeled on a living person (Life Model, like Life Mask) designed to be used as a Decoy to fool someone else into believing it's the actual person it's modeled on, so that the real person the robot is modeled on can remain safe in another location controlling it (today called 'telepresence').

            It's probably pointless to debate the philosophical question of whether or not making an exact copy of an existing person's consciousness makes the copy in effect a real person (again, those questions are Philip K. Dick territory).
            Last edited by pulphero; 09-03-2015, 07:45 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by tony ingram View Post
              Since it's been established that LMDs are genuine artificial intelligences and the Dugan LMD believed it was really him, does it really matter that it wasn't the same guy who fought in WWII?
              Of course it matters. Certainly it would matter to the real Dugan, albeit if he's not hanging around as a ghost, then he's probably busy with his afterlife--and if the LMDs are real people, then it would matter to them as well, presumably with however many Dugan LMDs are wandering around the Marvel afterlife.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by pulphero View Post
                It's probably pointless to debate the philosophical question of whether or not making an exact copy of an existing person's consciousness makes the copy in effect a real person (again, those questions are Philip K. Dick territory).
                Or, better, Thomas Aquinas territory.

                Certainly, if a real person, they would not be the same person. They might think they were, but they would not be. If someone made a genuine AI/clone of, say, the Red Skull, then it would be wrong to punish the AI/clone for things the Red Skull did.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ChastMastr View Post
                  Or, better, Thomas Aquinas territory.

                  Certainly, if a real person, they would not be the same person. They might think they were, but they would not be. If someone made a genuine AI/clone of, say, the Red Skull, then it would be wrong to punish the AI/clone for things the Red Skull did.
                  Well, to the extent that they'd be different from the moment the clone/AI came into existence as a distinct and separate entity, yes. And then of course, you'd get into the circular question of who then is responsible for the clone/AI's actions henceforward, if it believes itself to be the genuine Red Skull, since the clone/AI isn't responsible for bringing itself into existence? And does it make a difference, if the clone/AI is made aware that it is a copy and not the original, but continues to behave as though it were the genuine Johann Schmidt anyway? The clone/AI Skull may not be morally responsible for the earlier crimes of the original Red Skull, but if it has free will and awareness of the fact that it is indeed a copy, should it be held responsible for its moral behavior from that point forth? One could argue that by not being given the choice to be brought into existence as an exact copy of the original Red Skull's consciousness, it never had a chance, in terms of the deck being stacked against its likelihood of making moral choices. Does the clone/AI have an exact copy of whatever morally rotten soul the original Skull does (self-determined by the original), in addition to his brain engrams?
                  Last edited by pulphero; 09-04-2015, 06:17 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by pulphero View Post
                    Well, to the extent that they'd be different from the moment the clone/AI came into existence as a distinct and separate entity, yes.
                    No, I mean, they'd be different in their essence. Yes, from the moment the other person came into being, of course, but that applies to everyone.

                    And then of course, you'd get into the circular question of who then is responsible for the clone/AI's actions henceforward, if it believes itself to be the genuine Red Skull, since the clone/AI isn't responsible for bringing itself into existence?
                    Well, one could consider the false memories to be analogous to one's upbringing, so while they'd still have free will, they might have some excuse for confusion. Depending on their choices, they might believe that despite their previous actions, they ought to find a better way--or they could just keep going down the path they think they are already on--or they could even go down a worse one. Like pretty much everyone else with their own backgrounds.

                    And does it make a difference, if the clone/AI is made aware that it is a copy and not the original, but continues to behave as though it were the genuine Johann Schmidt anyway?
                    Well, obviously it makes a difference to them. One would still have to fight them regardless.

                    The clone/AI Skull may not be morally responsible for the earlier crimes of the original Red Skull, but if it has free will and awareness of the fact that it is indeed a copy, should it be held responsible for its moral behavior from that point forth?
                    Of course!

                    One could argue that by not being given the choice to be brought into existence as an exact copy of the original Red Skull's consciousness, it never had a chance, in terms of the deck being stacked against its likelihood of making moral choices.
                    I don't believe such a person would "never have a chance." If somehow that were true, then they'd be no more responsible than a helpless infant trapped inside a killer machine body, unable to do anything to stop its programming.

                    Does the clone/AI have an exact copy of whatever morally rotten soul the original Skull does (self-determined by the original), in addition to his brain engrams?
                    Of course not. Souls aren't like that.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What I actually meant was, while every human being begins with a blank record, and stacks up his or her choices as they move along, a clone/AI of the Red Skull comes into existence already tainted by memories and thoughts determined by choices that it was not, itself, responsible for choosing -- in effect, a complete life history of "original sins", even before it has a chance to make any independent choices. What are the chances that those pre-loaded memories and thoughts are going to start making radically different choices beginning from the moment of "copied to device" forward? That's not a philosophical situation that has existed within the realm of human experience in the history of the human race so far. Maybe we should make a clone/AI of Thomas Aquinas and ask him, but then we couldn't be confident of an answer that we could depend on as a close analog of what the real Thomas Aquinas would have said about it. Or could we? Should we take into account that the clone/AI of Tom A. might have a personal bias when it came to that philosophical question?

                      Now the other thing you'd have to wonder is why anyone would want to create an exact duplicate of the Red Skull, that believed it was the actual Red Skull, in the first place. It seems unlikely that Johann Schmidt would activate such a plan himself while he was still alive, because let's face it... there's only room for one Red Skull, so who needs the competition? On the other hand, using the rationale of "From Hell's heart, I stab at thee", the Skull is just the kind of vindictive bastard that if he were sure he was dead, he might have something like that as a last-ditch contingency, a virtual last-laugh-in-absentia, maybe sort of "The Ultimate Sleeper". If that were the case, then he'd be pretty sure (or take additional measures to make sure) that the clone/AI Red Skull was going to behave in exactly the same manner that he himself would, even in the unlikely event that the clone/AI were to discover that it was not, in fact, the original Skull. Now, maybe someone else would make such a clone/AI of the Red Skull (the list of those capable would include Arnim Zola, M.O.D.O.K./A.I.M., the Leader, the Mad Thinker, and Machinesmith, among others), but why? It might be a case of a simple contract for cash to fund some project that needed a quick infusion of funds, but these guys also usually don't go off half-cocked, so they'd be sure to build in some fail-safe to make sure the copy Skull didn't come back to bite them on the butt for their efforts. In point of fact, we really can't be sure that it already hasn't happened, whether once or a dozen times, with a new clone/AI Skull booting up every time the previous one bites the bullet. But again, the key point here is, why make a clone/AI copy at all, if there's any chance the clone/AI is going to invoke his free will to countermand the original purpose of its creation? Unless there's some kind of Mad Philosopher running around the Marvel U., and questions like that just sort of bedevil the dickens out of him, so he does it as an experiment to prove or disprove a theorem.

                      When you come right down to it, why speculate about the moral what-ifs of a what-if copy/AI of the Red Skull? Let's talk about what we know. Do Doombots have souls and free wills, and does it make any difference whether they know they're Doombots or think they're the original?
                      Last edited by pulphero; 09-05-2015, 08:24 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by pulphero View Post
                        What I actually meant was, while every human being begins with a blank record, and stacks up his or her choices as they move along, a clone/AI of the Red Skull comes into existence already tainted by memories and thoughts determined by choices that it was not, itself, responsible for choosing -- in effect, a complete life history of "original sins", even before it has a chance to make any independent choices. What are the chances that those pre-loaded memories and thoughts are going to start making radically different choices beginning from the moment of "copied to device" forward?
                        Those pre-loaded memories and thoughts would not be making any life choices--the soul of the person who has them would be.

                        That's not a philosophical situation that has existed within the realm of human experience in the history of the human race so far. Maybe we should make a clone/AI of Thomas Aquinas and ask him, but then we couldn't be confident of an answer that we could depend on as a close analog of what the real Thomas Aquinas would have said about it. Or could we? Should we take into account that the clone/AI of Tom A. might have a personal bias when it came to that philosophical question?
                        Such a person might have the information available to the real Aquinas (or rather, the information he knew when he was on Earth), but then that information is largely already available in his writings such as the Summa Theologica.

                        But again, the key point here is, why make a clone/AI copy at all, if there's any chance the clone/AI is going to invoke his free will to countermand the original purpose of its creation? Unless there's some kind of Mad Philosopher running around the Marvel U., and questions like that just sort of bedevil the dickens out of him, so he does it as an experiment to prove or disprove a theorem.
                        Alas, a lot of writers over decades of stories haven't really thought these things through--some have, of course, but in various cases you wind up with "OMG it was a clone all the time!" without any real thought about the implications of it. I mean, over at DC I remember one Superman story (Action 500, I think) in which there was a clone of Superman made by Luthor who had Superman's memories (and thus we had a convenient reason to go over his whole life story for the anniversary issue), and at the end of the story he lost his powers, and we never heard about him again so far as I know, he was just sort of brushed under the rug, but he was treated as a living being, so... did Superman keep him in a cell in the Fortress, or erase his memory and put him somewhere to live his own life, or what? It just never (so far as I know) got mentioned again. Heck, there was a 1960s classic Imaginary Story about Superman-Red and -Blue putting these satellites into space which somehow made people not want to commit crimes, as part of what was suggested to be an awesome utopia, except for the incredibly creepy mind-control implications that were never touched on (and that was just the way those things were written back then), and so on. I think since the 1970s we've had a lot more stuff about what it means to be human, and the way people are dehumanized, so those issues have been handled better, but sometimes it's just convenient to fall back on and then never deal with it again. I think the whole Doombot thing was really because John Byrne decided that any appearance of Doom he didn't like was just a Doombot, and that they were programmed to think they were him (thus explaining away all of those maybe-not-in-character thought balloons, which means that scene with Doom and Storm feeling attracted to each other in X-Men 140-something was really even weirder), and over the years then the question of "What does it mean that they thought they were him? Do they have minds, then?" got raised and kind of answered in the affirmative, when its roots were kind of in things like Arcade lighting his match off Doom's armor...

                        http://goodcomics.comicbookresources...armor-or-what/

                        When you come right down to it, why speculate about the moral what-ifs of a what-if copy/AI of the Red Skull? Let's talk about what we know. Do Doombots have souls and free wills, and does it make any difference whether they know they're Doombots or think they're the original?
                        If they do, then yes, I think it does make a difference, and if they don't, then there isn't an "I" there to "know" anything, at least as I understand the metaphysics involved.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by pulphero View Post
                          Unless there's some kind of Mad Philosopher running around the Marvel U., and questions like that just sort of bedevil the dickens out of him, so he does it as an experiment to prove or disprove a theorem.
                          I have to post this now...

                          http://i964.photobucket.com/albums/a...her/w3412a.jpg

                          and

                          http://i964.photobucket.com/albums/a...her/w3413a.jpg

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ChastMastr View Post
                            Those pre-loaded memories and thoughts would not be making any life choices--the soul of the person who has them would be.

                            [ . . . ]

                            If they do, then yes, I think it does make a difference, and if they don't, then there isn't an "I" there to "know" anything, at least as I understand the metaphysics involved.
                            These two statements seem fundamentally at odds to me.

                            Cogito ergo sum. I don't know what Thomas Aquinas would have thought about that, but Descartes didn't mention anything about souls doing the choosing. So, YES, it IS the thoughts or the mind that make the life choices. Whether or not you can separate the soul from that in your philosophy is up to you. I tend not to believe in things like a phantom Ben Kenobi. Whatever 'soul' means is inextricable from the mind, which itself is inextricable from thoughts and memories, at least according to my understanding of it. The only variables in question would be which portions are part of the conscious mind, and which are part of the sub- or unconscious mind. What physical container or form of matter or energy is used to maintain the electrical impulses (or any analogous form of energy) needed for the mind to operate (biological brain or thinking computer) is neither here nor there, as long as it does operate.

                            If it's discovered that the original Red Skull has a brain tumor, and has always had a brain tumor since the time he first became the Red Skull, and that tumor is affecting his brain function, neurotransmitters and so forth, or that Hitler used psychotropic chemicals and brainwashing techniques to create the persona of the Red Skull out of Johann Schmidt, who was formerly no more than a petty criminal, does that absolve him of moral responsibility for the choices he has made? Or do we say no, it was because his soul chose to do all those evil things?
                            Last edited by pulphero; 09-10-2015, 07:12 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I always liked the Mad Exister. It's disappointing to hear him talk about "destiny" though... that would imply determinism, which would totally invalidate the causality associated with any mental calculations he could make. That would mean he should just change his name to the Mad Destiny-Awaiter. Tch-tch.
                              Last edited by pulphero; 09-10-2015, 07:41 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X