Thank you so much for posting this I finished caves of steel and couldn’t find the next one in the series anywhere, I’ve always loved getting immersed in an Asimov world
Final thoughts (Spoilers): Throughout the robot series there has been a transition taking place where robots are becoming progressively more dangerous to humans. From the short stories in I, Robot where a robot lies or hallucinates, to the caves of steel where a robot carries a murder weapon, to this book where the robot is the murder weapon. We are seeing Asimov set the stage for the robot revolution which will see the robots being the threat instead of being the instruments of threat.
And when was this story written guys?....the days before flash special effects and fast story lines. Compare the narrative to early 1950's sci fi films.
Daneel speaking with emotional responses is very odd. How could he be “happy” to see Bailey? Other incidences too, I thought robots couldn’t express or feel emotions?
I think it's important to remember Daneel was designed to fit in with and emulate humans. If your programed to be able to blend in with humans you would talk like them even if you didn't understand or feel that way.
Read the first book “caves of steel” or listen to the whole book. Daneel explains the robots feel “good” or pleasant when they achieve goals and are doing what they are designed to do and negative “emotions”(for lack of a better term) when they fail. The positronic brain is the most complex machine made by man(in this series) and an ai robot brain had to be able to think positively and negatively to perform. If an oven had a brain it might be pleased if it helps you cook and upset if it burns the food. Daneel was built to be as human as possible and his main function was to study and understand people(of earth). It’s 100% feasible for his robot brain to feel pleased that a human remembered and was happy to see him…it’s part of his programming. Actually…read I robot, the short stories in that book explain the development and recognition of robot “feelings” from the conception of the fictional positronic brain.
I try to like Isaac Asimov but not really. Most of his stories are really dry. Who likes more character driven stories should give Stanislaw Lem a try.
I get what you mean. Asimov was a very technical person. He not only wrote science fiction, but wrote scientific papers. A lot of that is actual science meets imagination. Where Lem has a more fantasy approach to his writing. Thanks. Ill see if there is any Lem to adapt.
@@holz_name Asimov is indeed a bit dry and technical. He didn't really have the story-telling component locked down. Arthur C. Clarke on the other hand, had the story-telling component LOCKED! I've very much enjoyed his works. He understood how to capture the reader in a riotus extacy between imagination and contemplation. He used science as a means to command depth unto his concepts. He was visionary in his explicitly. Like Einstien, he was not a man of science... he was the becoming of truth, as beholden unto man by what his science need be.
Thank you so much for posting this I finished caves of steel and couldn’t find the next one in the series anywhere, I’ve always loved getting immersed in an Asimov world
So much better narrated here than one I tried that frankly was a monotonous drone of a voice! Thank you for putting this version up.😊
Theyre doing it for $ not as a favor to you or anyone lol 🙄
@@rezzer7918next you'll tell us you refuse to say thank you to waiters because it's their job. It's just politeness my dude
I am so glad that people uploaded all these favorite books I read decades ago! Thank you!
Wonderful narrator! It can make or break a book, especially an Asimov book, where you're asked to sit and masticate on the ideas. Thanks for sharing
You mean ruminate not masticate lol
@@rezzer7918 I said what I meant, so... no? xD
I often wonder how Asimov would have progressed his stories, if he had lived in this century, with our current oddeties.
I recommend End of Eternity for anyone who hasn't read it.j
Bookmark: 2:26:51
Bookmark: 37:24
3:45:06
5:03:00
7:06:00
Final thoughts (Spoilers): Throughout the robot series there has been a transition taking place where robots are becoming progressively more dangerous to humans. From the short stories in I, Robot where a robot lies or hallucinates, to the caves of steel where a robot carries a murder weapon, to this book where the robot is the murder weapon. We are seeing Asimov set the stage for the robot revolution which will see the robots being the threat instead of being the instruments of threat.
And when was this story written guys?....the days before flash special effects and fast story lines. Compare the narrative to early 1950's sci fi films.
"guys" lol
@@rezzer7918But you get the point, this may not be for you. This is for more stable minds.
2:52:55
What a sick and demented society.
😊😊😊@Embassy_of_Jupiter
Which one? Earth? Or Solaria?
Jackson Michael Davis Steven Garcia Lisa
Daneel speaking with emotional responses is very odd. How could he be “happy” to see Bailey? Other incidences too, I thought robots couldn’t express or feel emotions?
A painting or a song can express emotions to human observers, but the canvas or the sound waves don't _feel_ those emotions.
I think it's important to remember Daneel was designed to fit in with and emulate humans. If your programed to be able to blend in with humans you would talk like them even if you didn't understand or feel that way.
Read the first book “caves of steel” or listen to the whole book. Daneel explains the robots feel “good” or pleasant when they achieve goals and are doing what they are designed to do and negative “emotions”(for lack of a better term) when they fail. The positronic brain is the most complex machine made by man(in this series) and an ai robot brain had to be able to think positively and negatively to perform. If an oven had a brain it might be pleased if it helps you cook and upset if it burns the food. Daneel was built to be as human as possible and his main function was to study and understand people(of earth). It’s 100% feasible for his robot brain to feel pleased that a human remembered and was happy to see him…it’s part of his programming.
Actually…read I robot, the short stories in that book explain the development and recognition of robot “feelings” from the conception of the fictional positronic brain.
Slow, plodding and boring. What killed it for me was the resistance of the character that replaced the poisoned man.
I try to like Isaac Asimov but not really. Most of his stories are really dry. Who likes more character driven stories should give Stanislaw Lem a try.
I get what you mean. Asimov was a very technical person. He not only wrote science fiction, but wrote scientific papers. A lot of that is actual science meets imagination. Where Lem has a more fantasy approach to his writing. Thanks. Ill see if there is any Lem to adapt.
@@MundumVisum I'm pleasantly surprised by The Naked Sun, it's a character driven story. The Foundation and I Robot were quite dry.
I know what you mean. Try Asimov's short story: The Last Question. It's gripping at every single word, and is anything but dry.
@@holz_name Asimov is indeed a bit dry and technical. He didn't really have the story-telling component locked down. Arthur C. Clarke on the other hand, had the story-telling component LOCKED! I've very much enjoyed his works. He understood how to capture the reader in a riotus extacy between imagination and contemplation. He used science as a means to command depth unto his concepts. He was visionary in his explicitly. Like Einstien, he was not a man of science... he was the becoming of truth, as beholden unto man by what his science need be.
Damn sucks for you😂
1:29:00