NOTES: I really enjoyed writing the first monologue for Roger Smith, and found myself drawn to this style of "putting words in the character's mouth"--they are words that you know you'd hear them say, but because they never spend the time to actually sit down and just talk, you would never hear in one breath. With this in mind, I hope that, when you are finished reading this, you find that it was worth your time.
- This is a monologue by R. Dorothy Wayneright. For maximum enjoyment, I reccomend that, as you read this, you hear Dorothy's voice reading the text.
--------------------------

I don't understand humans. The way that they conduct themselves is neither logical nor illogical, and that in itself is illogical and logical. They are a species that cannot decide which direction to head. They are a group that advances itself without working together. Humans, as a people, grow only when one person dominates the others, and this is called growth--even though it is only advancement in the eyes of the person who made that decision.

The human that created robots obviously had a fascination with a human trait of logical thought; the robots who had no design to be knowledgable of self, but only to execute actions that they were instructed to do. Their actions were only results of their programming; humans, too, seem to have a program to run, but their designer--whom none of them claim to have ever met, though a gentleman that I met on the way home told me that the humans' creator had grown to dislike them--obviously was a poor programmer or a lunatic, as the humans act as if they have programs that contradict each other. None of them seem to understand why.

I have seen this on several occasions. A human enacts an illogical decision contrary to his logical thought due to a passing emotion. It can also be the opposite, where a human emotion is denied because of the power of his logical thought processes. It is an interesting paradox of nature, but may not be paradoxical in that it is so widespread. The human nature is to contradict itself--it is regular for a human to lack any sense.

I have learned, when humans become fascinated by something, their emotions control their actions more-so than usual. Their logic informs them of their often-illogical actions, yet they continue to proceed forward. My attention to humans cannot be called illogical; call it a 'fascination' if you must, but my attention toward the nature of humans is only a result of my programming as an android. By my program, when there is a problem, I should work to find an answer. If I am asked to calculate the mathematical square root of 2873.94, I can anwer with 53.609141011584955258523810441749. When I am to answer as to the logic of human action, I can only continue to calculate.

The more that I observe humans, I can further calculate as to the exact reasoning of their reactions. I have learned much from speaking with them. They possess many traits which factor into their result. Because of this, I have attempted to simulate human decision-making into my programme base. However, I have been told that this simulation is far from perfect, so I must continue.

I have also heard that a human's past determines his actions in the present, which in turn decides his future. Perhaps it is my lack of memories that prevents an adequate simulation of humanity's nature. If this is the case, I suppose the only answer is to survive in this world for a period of adequate time to garner a sufficient amount of memories into my personal databanks. That I think of them as 'memories' rather than 'records' may be an interesting change as well; perhaps my "human program" is beginning to fully function.