REVIEW: Vernor Vinge's "Across Realtime"
ha...@softanswer.com
Realtime" is available at http://www.softanswer.com/hans/reviews/
021.html.
Check it out if you've never heard of Vinge: you're about to discover a
very good thing.
Hans
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Dorothy J Heydt
>My review 600 word review of Vernor Vinge's cult classic novel "Across
>Realtime" is available at http://www.softanswer.com/hans/reviews/
>021.html.
OK, I'll look it up. I recently got hold of a reprint of it and
its sequel in one volume, and have not cracked it yet (too busy
so far, rereading _Cyteen_, _The Monsters and the Critics_, and
_The Duchess of Kneedeep_).
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
Matthew Austern
> In article <95t8ov$sri$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <ha...@softanswer.com> wrote:
> >My review 600 word review of Vernor Vinge's cult classic novel "Across
> >Realtime" is available at http://www.softanswer.com/hans/reviews/
> >021.html.
>
> OK, I'll look it up. I recently got hold of a reprint of it and
> its sequel in one volume, and have not cracked it yet (too busy
> so far, rereading _Cyteen_, _The Monsters and the Critics_, and
> _The Duchess of Kneedeep_).
There is no sequel. _Across Realtime_ is an omnibus novel containing
_The Peace War_, the sequel _Marooned in Realtime_, and the novella
"The Ungoverned".
Advice: read the two novels (_the Peace War_ is good, and _Marooned in
Realtime_ is even better---it's my favorite Vinge novel), and skip the
novella, which isn't very interesting. Or if you feel like being a
completist, at least read _Marooned in Realtime_ first. "The
Ungoverned" is about events that are described in retrospect in
_Marooned in Realtime_, and the fragmentary hints we get in _Marooned
in Realtime_ are much more interesting.
Dorothy J Heydt
Matthew Austern <aus...@research.att.com> wrote:
>>
>> OK, I'll look it up. I recently got hold of a reprint of it and
>> its sequel in one volume, and have not cracked it yet (too busy
>> so far, rereading _Cyteen_, _The Monsters and the Critics_, and
>> _The Duchess of Kneedeep_).
>
>There is no sequel. _Across Realtime_ is an omnibus novel containing
>_The Peace War_, the sequel _Marooned in Realtime_, and the novella
>"The Ungoverned".
Ok, I sit corrected. Remember, I have not read the thing yet....
GSV Three Minds in a Can
person Matthew Austern <aus...@research.att.com> said
<snip>
>> OK, I'll look it up. I recently got hold of a reprint of it and
>> its sequel in one volume, and have not cracked it yet (too busy
>> so far, rereading _Cyteen_, _The Monsters and the Critics_, and
>> _The Duchess of Kneedeep_).
>
>There is no sequel. _Across Realtime_ is an omnibus novel containing
>_The Peace War_, the sequel _Marooned in Realtime_, and the novella
>"The Ungoverned".
Except, IIRC, the UK version did =not= have the novella in.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Matthew Austern
> >> OK, I'll look it up. I recently got hold of a reprint of it and
> >> its sequel in one volume, and have not cracked it yet (too busy
> >> so far, rereading _Cyteen_, _The Monsters and the Critics_, and
> >> _The Duchess of Kneedeep_).
> >
> >There is no sequel. _Across Realtime_ is an omnibus novel containing
> >_The Peace War_, the sequel _Marooned in Realtime_, and the novella
> >"The Ungoverned".
>
> Except, IIRC, the UK version did =not= have the novella in.
Whoops! I didn't know that. And while I'm saying whoops, I should
also point out my typo. I should have said that _Across Realtime_ is
an omnibus *book*, not an omnibus *novel*. If the phrase "omnibus
novel" has any meaning at all, I suppose it would mean some sort of
fixup novel built up from smaller pieces.
P.D. TILLMAN
Counteradvice: Read "The Ungoverned". Not only is it a fine story
in itself, it sets the scene nicely for _Marooned in Realtime_.
I agree that Marooned is the strongest work -- arguably
Vinge's best so far -- but the omnibus is a most attractive
package of reading delight. Dorothy, you have a real treat
in store.
Cheers -- Pete Tillman
Book Reviews: http://www.silcom.com/~manatee/reviewer.html#tillman
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/iplus/nonfiction/index.htm#reviews
http://www.sfsite.com/revwho.htm
--
Dan Swartzendruber
am i the only one who was unable to read the review at the posted URL?
i got an access denied when i tried.
Tumbleweed
"Dan Swartzendruber" <dsw...@druber.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.14eccded9...@news.supernews.net...
>
> am i the only one who was unable to read the review at the posted URL?
> i got an access denied when i tried.
Apparently I also am "unauthorised to view this page"
Tw
Captain Button
> am i the only one who was unable to read the review at the posted URL?
> i got an access denied when i tried.
One thing to try:
Make sure the last character in the URL is 'l' not '.'
http://www.softanswer.com/hans/reviews/021.html
works for me, while
http://www.softanswer.com/hans/reviews/021.html.
does not work for me, although that is how it was in the original post.
Another tragic case of people punctuating URLs. Oh the cyberity!
--
"You may have trouble getting permission to aero or lithobrake
asteroids on Earth." - James Nicoll
Captain Button - [ but...@io.com ]
Dan Swartzendruber
but...@eris.io.com says...
> Wild-eyed conspiracy theorists insist that on Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:39:02 -0500, Dan Swartzendruber <dsw...@druber.com> wrote:
>
> > am i the only one who was unable to read the review at the posted URL?
> > i got an access denied when i tried.
>
> One thing to try:
>
> Make sure the last character in the URL is 'l' not '.'
>
> http://www.softanswer.com/hans/reviews/021.html
>
> works for me, while
>
> http://www.softanswer.com/hans/reviews/021.html.
>
> does not work for me, although that is how it was in the original post.
worked. thanks!
shado...@my-deja.com
Dan Swartzendruber <dsw...@druber.com> wrote:
>
> am i the only one who was unable to read the review at the posted URL?
> i got an access denied when i tried.
>
Nope. Same problem here, although Forbidden is the word they used.
Nobody else seems to have complained though.
ha...@softanswer.com
http://www.softanswer.com/hans/reviews/021.html
Captain Button
Obviously you are too unintelligent and morally weak to be worthy
to view the Emporer's New Website.
< Holds up sign [ JOKE ] >
William December Starr
Captain Button <but...@eris.io.com> said:
> Make sure the last character in the URL is 'l' not '.'
> http://www.softanswer.com/hans/reviews/021.html
> works for me, while
> http://www.softanswer.com/hans/reviews/021.html.
> does not work for me, although that is how it was in the original post.
>
> Another tragic case of people punctuating URLs. Oh the cyberity!
I've found that angle-bracketting URLs is a Good Thing. Tell people
that:
The Locus database is at <http://www.locusmag.com/index/0start.html#TOC>.
and they're not likely to be confused as to what punctuation is or isn't
part of the actual address.
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Jo'Asia
> There is no sequel. _Across Realtime_ is an omnibus novel containing
> _The Peace War_, the sequel _Marooned in Realtime_, and the novella
> "The Ungoverned".
Well, what edition is that? In my copy of _Across Realtime_ I can see only the
_The Peace War_ and _Marooned in Realtime_, no sign of _The Ungoverned_... I
have the 2000 Millenium Paperback with a mirror sphere on the cover.
Jo'Asia
--
http://framzeta.art.pl Joanna Slupek http://rassun.art.pl
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm from SF and I'm okay, I read all night and write all day (Robson)
To write me replace 'rasun' with 'rassun' in my e-mail
Captain Button
> Matthew Austern wrote in message <dil7l31...@isolde.research.att.com>:
>> There is no sequel. _Across Realtime_ is an omnibus novel containing
>> _The Peace War_, the sequel _Marooned in Realtime_, and the novella
>> "The Ungoverned".
> Well, what edition is that? In my copy of _Across Realtime_ I can see only the
> _The Peace War_ and _Marooned in Realtime_, no sign of _The Ungoverned_... I
> have the 2000 Millenium Paperback with a mirror sphere on the cover.
I've seen it said here that the US and UK version of AR differed,
with the UK version lacking "The Ungoverned".
GSV Three Minds in a Can
wonderful person Jo'Asia <JoA...@rasun.art.pl> said
>Matthew Austern wrote in message <dil7l31...@isolde.research.att.com>:
>
>> There is no sequel. _Across Realtime_ is an omnibus novel containing
>> _The Peace War_, the sequel _Marooned in Realtime_, and the novella
>> "The Ungoverned".
>
>Well, what edition is that? In my copy of _Across Realtime_ I can see only the
>_The Peace War_ and _Marooned in Realtime_, no sign of _The Ungoverned_... I
>have the 2000 Millenium Paperback with a mirror sphere on the cover.
As I said up-thread someplace, the UK edition does not have _The
Ungoverned_ in it. Pay attention at the back please. 8>.
--
Dorothy J Heydt
I'm sorry to say I was underwhelmed.
Maybe it was more impressive at the time it was written?
It was nicely written, the glimpses of after-the-change California
and after-the-eons Earth were intriguing.
But... some here will recall my grading curve, based on how often
I want to reread a thing....
__________
A = read it in one sitting, immediately turned around and read it again.
And again, if time permitted.
B = read it, waited a bit, read it again, continue to read it at
yearly-or-so intervals.
C = read it, kept it on the shelves, reread it less often than once/year.
D = read it, never tempted to read it again.
F = couldn't finish it even once. (Loud cries of disgust and fling-
against-the-wall optional.)
---------
This one gets a D. I'm never going to be tempted to read it
again. Sorry.
Courtenay Footman
>__________
>A = read it in one sitting, immediately turned around and read it again.
> And again, if time permitted.
>B = read it, waited a bit, read it again, continue to read it at
> yearly-or-so intervals.
>C = read it, kept it on the shelves, reread it less often than once/year.
>D = read it, never tempted to read it again.
>F = couldn't finish it even once. (Loud cries of disgust and fling-
> against-the-wall optional.)
>---------
>
>This one gets a D. I'm never going to be tempted to read it
>again. Sorry.
>
--
Courtenay Footman I have again gotten back on the net, and
c...@lightlink.com again I will never get anything done.
(All mail from non-valid addresses is automatically deleted by my system.)
Norm N. Conquest
breadth of Usenet as 'ha...@softanswer.com' opined:
>My review 600 word review of Vernor Vinge's cult classic novel "Across
>Realtime" is available at http://www.softanswer.com/hans/reviews/
>021.html.
>
>Check it out if you've never heard of Vinge: you're about to discover a
>very good thing.
Yup. "Across Realtime" is Vinge's best, IMNSHO
--
A symphony of language, like gorgeous vision;
Must urge a shadow scream beneath delicate skin
wall...@kmsi.net
>Well, returning to the original topic, I have now read the thing.
>
>I'm sorry to say I was underwhelmed.
>
>Maybe it was more impressive at the time it was written?
>
>It was nicely written, the glimpses of after-the-change California
>and after-the-eons Earth were intriguing.
I think you must have completely missed the point of the books.
>But... some here will recall my grading curve, based on how often
>I want to reread a thing....
>__________
>A = read it in one sitting, immediately turned around and read it again.
> And again, if time permitted.
>B = read it, waited a bit, read it again, continue to read it at
> yearly-or-so intervals.
>C = read it, kept it on the shelves, reread it less often than once/year.
>D = read it, never tempted to read it again.
>F = couldn't finish it even once. (Loud cries of disgust and fling-
> against-the-wall optional.)
>---------
Hmmm...
Maybe it's a mistaken impression, but your metric leads me to believe that
you probably read for thrills, and prefer books that excite you. You
probably enjoy adventure, fantasy and space operas. Thought-provoking
concepts probably aren't high on your list of priorities. Does that sound
fairly accurate?
If so, it could explain your accessment of the book(s).
Personally, I found the series fascinating ("series" because I read them
when originally published). The concept of the "singularity" and the
technogical infrastructure that surrounds it (e.g., people with personal
robotic servants with the power reserves of atomic power plants, and
temporal stasis as time travel) was a real eye-opener. That it seems
completely plausible and perhaps even inevitable in the relatively near
future just turned my head around.
To me, Vinge's concept of the singularity is... a benchmark, an envelope
stretcher, a new rung on the latter, a new way to see the world. It makes
probably 90% of stories based in the future appear as hopelessly
anachronistic as gear shifts on a space ship.
But then, I really enjoy extrapolative SF. Fantasy bores me.
>This one gets a D. I'm never going to be tempted to read it
>again. Sorry.
To each his/her own. I'm sorry you're unable to appreciate it. I give it
an A++.
>Dorothy J. Heydt
>Albany, California
>djh...@kithrup.com
> http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
/kenw
Ken Wallewein
Calgary, Alberta
ke...@kmsi.net
Matthew Austern
> Maybe it was more impressive at the time it was written?
>
> It was nicely written, the glimpses of after-the-change California
> and after-the-eons Earth were intriguing.
>
> But... some here will recall my grading curve, based on how often
> I want to reread a thing....
> __________
> A = read it in one sitting, immediately turned around and read it again.
> And again, if time permitted.
> B = read it, waited a bit, read it again, continue to read it at
> yearly-or-so intervals.
> C = read it, kept it on the shelves, reread it less often than once/year.
> D = read it, never tempted to read it again.
> F = couldn't finish it even once. (Loud cries of disgust and fling-
> against-the-wall optional.)
> ---------
>
> This one gets a D. I'm never going to be tempted to read it
> again. Sorry.
Except that this isn't a review, it's a rating.
I'm not sure whether you're saying that there's anything you actively
disliked about _The Peace War_ and _Marooned in Realtime_ or whether
you're just saying that the books failed to grab you; if the former,
I'm curious what it was.
I realize that if it's the latter, you might have nothing much more to
say than "I didn't hate them, but I don't see what other people think
is so special." (That's pretty much all I have to say about _A Case
of Conscience_.)
Mark Atwood
>
> To me, Vinge's concept of the singularity is... a benchmark, an envelope
> stretcher, a new rung on the latter, a new way to see the world. It makes
> probably 90% of stories based in the future appear as hopelessly
> anachronistic as gear shifts on a space ship.
You are either very generous or very lucky. Where *are* you finding
the 10% of SF stories that survive this "worldview upgrade"?
(One of the things that's been pointed is that the "prediction
barrier" will be hit by SF writers first, and then in turn by
futurists, think tanks, military planners, economic planners, lawyers
(if they're smart), accountants, the mass media, and then finally by "Joe
Sixpack".)
--
Mark Atwood | I'm wearing black only until I find something darker.
m...@pobox.com |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
wall...@kmsi.net
>wall...@kmsi.net writes:
>>
>> To me, Vinge's concept of the singularity is... a benchmark, an envelope
>> stretcher, a new rung on the latter, a new way to see the world. It makes
>> probably 90% of stories based in the future appear as hopelessly
>> anachronistic as gear shifts on a space ship.
>
>You are either very generous or very lucky. Where *are* you finding
>the 10% of SF stories that survive this "worldview upgrade"?
I'm being generous. I do think some of the better cyberpunk and nanotech
stories are somewhat plausible (Vinge's The Diamond Age, for example), but
I can't remember the last space-based story that didn't come across like
laser-guided steam engines.
>(One of the things that's been pointed is that the "prediction
>barrier" will be hit by SF writers first, and then in turn by
>futurists, think tanks, military planners, economic planners, lawyers
>(if they're smart), accountants, the mass media, and then finally by "Joe
>Sixpack".)
Interesting. I haven't come across that point, although it makes sense.
References?
Mark Atwood
>
> >(One of the things that's been pointed is that the "prediction
> >barrier" will be hit by SF writers first, and then in turn by
> >futurists, think tanks, military planners, economic planners, lawyers
> >(if they're smart), accountants, the mass media, and then finally by "Joe
> >Sixpack".)
>
> Interesting. I haven't come across that point, although it makes sense.
> References?
I think it was in his essay. Or I might have read it here...
Mark Atwood
>
> I'm being generous. I do think some of the better cyberpunk and nanotech
> stories are somewhat plausible (Vinge's The Diamond Age, for example), but
> I can't remember the last space-based story that didn't come across like
> laser-guided steam engines.
Give _Diaspora_ (and the rest of Egan) a try.
Wherein Humanity (of a sort) spreads thru the galaxy, and then the
multiverse. And not a FTL, exploding spaceship, or bumpy nosed "alien"
babe to be seen.
Richard Horton
>Mark Atwood | I'm wearing black only until I find something darker.
Fuligin, Mark. Fuligin.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.sfsite.com/tangent)
Anton Sherwood
: > I'm being generous. I do think some of the better cyberpunk and nanotech
: > stories are somewhat plausible (Vinge's The Diamond Age, for example),
Now that would be worth looking for.
: > but I can't remember the last space-based story that didn't come across
: > like laser-guided steam engines.
Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> writes
: Give _Diaspora_ (and the rest of Egan) a try.
:
: Wherein Humanity (of a sort) spreads thru the galaxy, and then
: the multiverse. And not a FTL, exploding spaceship, or bumpy nosed
: "alien" babe to be seen.
You're obviously too bigoted to recognize the beauty of the 5D slugs.
--
Anton Sherwood -- br0...@p0b0x.com -- http://ogre.nu/
Nancy Lebovitz
<wall...@kmsi.net> wrote:
>Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>wall...@kmsi.net writes:
>>>
>>> To me, Vinge's concept of the singularity is... a benchmark, an envelope
>>> stretcher, a new rung on the latter, a new way to see the world. It makes
>>> probably 90% of stories based in the future appear as hopelessly
>>> anachronistic as gear shifts on a space ship.
>>
>>You are either very generous or very lucky. Where *are* you finding
>>the 10% of SF stories that survive this "worldview upgrade"?
>
>I'm being generous. I do think some of the better cyberpunk and nanotech
>stories are somewhat plausible (Vinge's The Diamond Age, for example), but
>I can't remember the last space-based story that didn't come across like
>laser-guided steam engines.
>
did the best job I've seen of showing how malleable identity could get
as the tech level improves.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com www.nancybuttons.com
JoatSimeon
religious concept of familiar hue.
Sort of like "the Rapture" with pseudoscience tacked on; all the curves
continue to rise exponentially, instead of turning over into an "S" the way
they do in the real world (tm).
If you extrapolated the curve of rising maximum speeds achieved during
1800-1950, we'd have FTL travel by now.
In fact, they stopped rising during the 1960's and started to plateau... just
as one would expect in a world of inescapable limitations, where everything has
an inherent tendency to 'take longer and cost more' as you push the envelope.
Which is to say, the world we actually live in. This is the Slow Zone... 8-).
When you learn how to do stuff, you do the easy stuff first.
After a while, the easy stuff is done, and everything gets harder and harder
and harder, and then you can't push any further along that line.
Sort of like trying to accelerate past C.
(There may be other ways to do it, but you can't just accelerate through
lightspeed.)
Eg., we have a good design for a working time-machine. The problem is that it
requires a tube of material denser than a neutron star, about the size of a
planet, and spinning at .5 of C, which would make it disintegrate!
SF's particular form of this mental blindness is assuming that the future will
have infinitely bigger (or more miniaturized) and better versions of what's
"hot" right now.
In the 1950's it was rockets. SF had super-dooper, huge, gigantic,
atom-powered, Goshwow! rockets. Rockets for moving whole planets.
In point of fact, we were approaching our plateau on rockets, topped out in the
60's, and minitaturized electronics were the real coming thing which few
anticipated. Even good writers like Asimov imagined super-computers as
gigantic, rather than palm-sized.
Nowadays, most people in SF are focused on computers... where the situation is
in fact similar to the deal with real-world rockets in the 1950's. Or on
nanotech, which is miniaturization to the Nth.
We're probably missing the boat by underestimating the consequences of
biotechnology and genomics. _That's_, IMHO, where today's near-future SF is
going to look red-faced and embarassingly
retro in 30 or 40 years, the way Heinlein's slide-rule using space navigators
do now.
Vinge has been predicting the imminent arrival of concious, superintelligent
computers for decades now.
Personally I predict we'll have conscious, superintelligent toaster-ovens or
diesel engines first.
We live under the unbreakable tyranny of the "S" curve.
-- S.M. Stirling
Jordan S. Bassior
>Which is to say, the world we actually live in. This is the Slow Zone...
8-).
We _think_. We're already doing things, and _routinely_, which, when I was a
teenager I would have deemed to be the sort of technology we might have
expected in 50-100 years.
>When you learn how to do stuff, you do the easy stuff first.
>
>After a while, the easy stuff is done, and everything gets harder and harder
>and harder, and then you can't push any further along that line.
Yes, but the result is often the discovery of a whole new line of attack.
I agree that _linear_ thinking quickly reaches a point of diminising returns.
But there's more than one line, and we don't know (in advance) just how many
there are. Some of the lines may well lead to things every bit as spectacular
as anything "Doc" Smith ever imagined, and more.
--
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
--
"To urge the preparation of defence is not to assert the imminence of war. On
the contrary, if war were imminent, preparations for defense would be too
late." (Churchill, 1934)
--
Captain Button
[ snip ]
> Personally I predict we'll have conscious, superintelligent toaster-ovens or
> diesel engines first.
For the former, see the "Talkie Toaster" in the SF TV Comedy series
"Red Dwarf".
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Mark Atwood
>
> I agree that _linear_ thinking quickly reaches a point of diminising returns.
> But there's more than one line, and we don't know (in advance) just how many
> there are. Some of the lines may well lead to things every bit as spectacular
> as anything "Doc" Smith ever imagined, and more.
There are three things causing the "curve" to accelerate is, in part,
that we're inventing tools that make thinking and inventing easier,
but also, we are bringing more and more human brains "on line", with
the training and the permission to "think freely". There are more
engineers and scientists doing more research and thinking down
hundred, thousands, tens of thousands of different "lines of attack",
than there have ever been in the past.
(The third thing is that we have the capital and the freedom of
capital movement to pay for trying out all these ideas.)
--
Mark Atwood | I'm wearing black only until I find something darker.
Nancy Lebovitz
JoatSimeon <joats...@aol.com> wrote:
>Actually, Vinge's concept of the "singularity" is a thinly secularized
>religious concept of familiar hue.
>
>Sort of like "the Rapture" with pseudoscience tacked on; all the curves
>continue to rise exponentially, instead of turning over into an "S" the way
>they do in the real world (tm).
>
Still, where the plateau appears matters a lot.
>
(....)
>
>We're probably missing the boat by underestimating the consequences of
>biotechnology and genomics. _That's_, IMHO, where today's near-future SF is
>going to look red-faced and embarassingly
>retro in 30 or 40 years, the way Heinlein's slide-rule using space navigators
>do now.
Indeed, and if a cheap method of significantly improving intelligence
turns up, we'll get a Singularity. I'm using the modest definition of a
future that we-as-we-are-now can't understand, rather than the assumption
that the upward-sloping curves go nearly vertical.
Chuck Bridgeland
>Eg., we have a good design for a working time-machine. The problem is that it
>requires a tube of material denser than a neutron star, about the size of a
>planet, and spinning at .5 of C, which would make it disintegrate!
This sounds like a job for. . . the Xeelee!
--
Micro$oft Windows Intelligent Reinstall Agent(R) -- after 28 days it
reformats your hard drive, reinstalls Windows and all your Micro$oft
apps, so you don't have to.
chuck bridgeland, chuckbri at mwci dot net
Chuck Bridgeland
>Wild-eyed conspiracy theorists insist that on 24 Feb 2001 20:16:15 GMT, JoatSimeon <joats...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>[ snip ]
>
>> Personally I predict we'll have conscious, superintelligent toaster-ovens or
>> diesel engines first.
>
>For the former, see the "Talkie Toaster" in the SF TV Comedy series
>"Red Dwarf".
>
>Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Remember when Coke machines and cars talked? "Door is ajar. Door is ajar."
Remember how quickly they stopped.
I'm also reminded of a story from _The Bug Life Chronicles_ by Philip C.
Jennins, from about 10 years ago. He has a human mind copied to a small
computer. For a stretch of time this mind was employed to run a traffic
light.
JoatSimeon
>For a stretch of time this mind was employed to run a traffic light.
-- snarf... 8-).
SF involves a lot of "literalized metaphors". Eg., the "mind is a computer"
metaphor. We have to remember that it _is_ a metaphor, though, not a literal
truth.
-- S.M. Stirling
Mark Atwood
> Actually, Vinge's concept of the "singularity" is a thinly secularized
> religious concept of familiar hue. Sort of like "the Rapture"
1) Idea A is similar in many respects to Idea B.
2) Idea B is bogus.
3) Thus, Idea A is bogus.
Huh?
John S. Novak, III
>religious concept of familiar hue.
Between the time you posted this last year and today, we've increased
transistor density on chips by a factor of about 75%.
Have a nice day.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@concentric.net
The Humblest Man on the Net
Charlie Stross
Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
as <joats...@aol.com> declared:
>Actually, Vinge's concept of the "singularity" is a thinly secularized
>religious concept of familiar hue.
>
>Sort of like "the Rapture" with pseudoscience tacked on; all the curves
>continue to rise exponentially, instead of turning over into an "S" the way
>they do in the real world (tm).
True and false in the same sentence.
On the one hand, yes: lots of people who think the singularity is imminent
fall into the same pitfall as the fundies with their rapture. And yes, the
development of new technologies tends to follow a sigmoid curve that caps
off after a while.
On the other hand, what we're seeing is *more and more* new technology
curves starting up, based on existing ones. For example, in the nineteenth
century the only really obvious ones in action were steam power,
telegraphy, and ironworks. These days, we probably see that many new,
fundamentally important technologies, starting up every week. As David
Brin commented a couple of years ago, there are now more scientists alive
and working full- time than in the whole of human history up to about
ten or twenty years ago. We've got an order of magnitude more people
than they had in 1900 -- and they're overall better educated. This means
*more* than an order of magnitude more scientists and engineers working,
so it would be astonishing if they weren't coming up with new discoveries
and technologies.
The real point of the singularity argument, though, is this: posit a
single assumption -- that intelligence is a computational process (or can
be emulated by computational processes). This assumption falls out of an
explicit rejection of cartesian dualism (for which neuroscience has found
no supporting evidence). It's not a cut-and-dried issue yet, but opponents
of computational intelligence have to jump through quite a few hoops if
they want to prove that it is impossible (cf. Roger Penrose, Ronald Searle).
*IF* we posit the possibility of a computational intelligence that is human-
equivalent in its ability to cogitate, and *IF* we develop such a tool,
*THEN* we can be certain that said tool can also invent a CI. We can also
be certain that by throwing more (or vastly more) processing resources at
it, we can enhance its speed. Thus, we get what Vinge describes in his paper
(see http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0092.html) as "weak superhumanity"
(or "fast thinking"). At this point, the rate of change goes through the
roof -- human thought processes are slow in comparison.
This still doesn't give us the singularity (a la Rapture) that many
people believe in; it just gives us very rapid incremental improvements
to everything we can see around us, such that a lot of hard problems get
solved. (For example, if there's a non-obvious shortcut to building an
economically useful cheap fusion reactor, expect it to be invented at
this point.)
The big leap of faith comes if we posit the possibility of higher-order
types of intelligence existing. Just what these are, or would act like,
isn't really clear. (However, Hans Moravec takes a stab at them (see:
http://www.ix.de/tp/english/special/vag/6037/1.html). If it's possible
for a human-type intelligence to build a computational higher-order
intelligence, then this is more likely to be carried out by a weakly
superhuman AI trying to augment itself than by human scientists. And this
really does represent a singularity, because beyond this point we can no
more understand the intelligences modifying the universe we live in than
the cat sitting on my mouse-mat and purring right now can understand this
posting.
Anyway, this gives us a chain of possibilities, linked by assumptions
about the world that are testable:
* Do combinations of technologies facilitate the serendipitous discovery
of yet more new technologies? (If so, each technology might follow a
sigmoidal curve of development, but the overall curve you get when you
superimpose them all will be exponential)
* Is consciousness computationally tractable? (If you believe in immaterial
spirits and ghosts, the answer is clearly "no"; if, on the other hand,
you believe that our consciousness is an emergent property of brains,
which are just big wet endocrine glands with horribly complicated
internal connections, the answer is clearly "yes" -- although the
*degree* of tractability can vary; estimates of the computational
bandwidth of a brain run in the range 10^16 to 10^24 MIPS, but could go
drastically higher if quantum processes are involved, as Penrose asserts).
(See Moravec's paper at http://www.transhumanist.com/volume1/moravec.htm;
personally I think he's over-optimistic.)
* This begs the question of mind uploading (is human consciousness
something that can be transferred to a computing device -- see
http://www.ibiblio.org/jstrout/uploading/MUHomePage.html). However,
simulated neurons in a well-known biological system
have been successfully coupled to a real system; see
http://inls.ucsd.edu/~hdia/home.html for a description of the research.
(The paper is http://inls.ucsd.edu/~hdia/neurorpt.pdf -- "Interacting
biological and electronic neurons generate realistic oscillatory
rhythms", pub. Neuroreport on February 28, 2000). This appears to
be the first actual case of uploading in practice -- admittedly, of
a couple of neurons in the stomatogastric ganglion of a spiny lobster.
See http://cart.frc.ri.cmu.edu/users/hpm/project.archive/robot.papers/1999/NASA.report.99/
for a tool which, in fifty years' time, might be able to do it in real
time to a human brain.
* If consciousness is computational, can it be optimized for higher
performance? (Almost certainly "yes" for linear speed improvements --
very probably "yes" for algorithmic improvements *if* mimicking
human consciousness is less of a priority than getting thinking done
fast).
* Are higher orders of intelligence possible? (Don't know -- we have no
evidence. However, see
http://cart.frc.ri.cmu.edu/users/hpm/project.archive/general.articles/1991/TempComp.html
for some interesting speculations on the implications of causality
violation for computation.)
>Nowadays, most people in SF are focused on computers... where the situation is
>in fact similar to the deal with real-world rockets in the 1950's. Or on
>nanotech, which is miniaturization to the Nth.
No, it isn't: the key to nanotech is the emulation of biological systems
using much more robust mechanical ones. You *really* need to go and read
"Nanosystems" by Drexler (note: contains extreme technical content --
this isn't the dumbed-down pop science version). Or read up on some of the
work that's going on in productizing MEMS right now.
>We're probably missing the boat by underestimating the consequences of
>biotechnology and genomics.
Yup.
>_That's_, IMHO, where today's near-future SF is
>going to look red-faced and embarassingly
>retro in 30 or 40 years, the way Heinlein's slide-rule using space navigators
>do now.
It's *one* of the regions. (The current issue of Sci. Am. has quite a lot
to say on the matter.)
>We live under the unbreakable tyranny of the "S" curve.
Yes, but if you stack enough "S" curves on top of each other, you get
something that looks awfully like an exponential ...
-- Charlie
P.D. TILLMAN
Re-titled for people like me who scan the title list.
Nice article, Steve. Thanks.
--
Mark Atwood
> On 24 Feb 2001 20:16:15 GMT, JoatSimeon <joats...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Actually, Vinge's concept of the "singularity" is a thinly secularized
> >religious concept of familiar hue.
>
> Between the time you posted this last year and today, we've increased
> transistor density on chips by a factor of about 75%.
And that price of a megabit/sec for a second over a 1000 kilometers
has dropped by 50%.
> Have a nice day.
Indeed.
Phil Fraering
The "Veridicator as actual device" idea seems to depend on the "mind is a
computer" concept rather heavily.
--
Phil Fraering
p...@globalreach.net
And you can't have my shiny thing!
Nancy Lebovitz
> spirits and ghosts, the answer is clearly "no"; if, on the other hand,
The answer is still "maybe". If there are ghosts and spirits, then
they might move into whatever suitable material substrates are
available.
OBSF: _Past Master_ by R.A. Lafferty, in which the Programmed Mechanical
People are inhabited by demons, but are quite possibly turned human
at the end.
IIRC, Tanith Lee's _The Silver Metal Lover_ has a reincarnated human
soul in a robot.
Any others?
> you believe that our consciousness is an emergent property of brains,
> which are just big wet endocrine glands with horribly complicated
> internal connections, the answer is clearly "yes" -- although the
> *degree* of tractability can vary; estimates of the computational
> bandwidth of a brain run in the range 10^16 to 10^24 MIPS, but could go
> drastically higher if quantum processes are involved, as Penrose asserts).
> (See Moravec's paper at http://www.transhumanist.com/volume1/moravec.htm;
> personally I think he's over-optimistic.)
>
John S. Novak, III
<cha...@nospam.antipope.org> wrote:
>>Sort of like "the Rapture" with pseudoscience tacked on; all the curves
>>continue to rise exponentially, instead of turning over into an "S" the way
>>they do in the real world (tm).
>True and false in the same sentence.
[...]
Very nice precis, Charlie.
Expect it to be waved away with a "Boundless are the powers of faith,"
one-liner the next time Stirling waggles his fingers at the keyboard.
(I see you've been dabbling at Kurzweilai.net, too.)
Mark Atwood
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 13:56:21 +0000, Charlie Stross
> <cha...@nospam.antipope.org> wrote:
>
> >>Sort of like "the Rapture" with pseudoscience tacked on; all the curves
> >>continue to rise exponentially, instead of turning over into an "S" the way
> >>they do in the real world (tm).
>
> >True and false in the same sentence.
>
> Very nice precis, Charlie.
>
> Expect it to be waved away with a "Boundless are the powers of faith,"
> one-liner the next time Stirling waggles his fingers at the keyboard.
I'm starting to think that Joat has a cycle of "lets drop this turd
the net and watch the ants scurry" topics, which he works his way
thru, and then repeats, each one with an attached associative array of
poorly thought out inflamatory responses to each objection to original
original little turdbomb.
It wouldn't be so bad, except that
1) he only has a short list and he recyles with a period of less than
a year
2) when he steps into fields of knowledge that I am a hands on
domain expert or a serious hobbyiest, the the "crackerjack box"
quality of his knowledge really *shines*, to the point where I
begin to start to suspect the status of *his* baliwacks of
knowledge too.
JoatSimeon
while they're new.
For example, when the electric telegraph was introduced, maximum speed for
delivering a message went from 35 mph to 186,000 miles per second. Everything
since then has been gravy.
Likewise, the automobile developed to -- roughly -- its current level in about
40 years. Everything since then has been bells and whistles. My grandfather's
last car did its job about as well, and about as fast, as any I could buy
today. Since then, it's all detail changes.
I mentioned aircraft. The speed of civil air travel has remained quite
constant since about 1960, and the fastest military jets are about the same
speed now as then. There have been lots of detail changes -- airliners getting
bigger, better fuel economy, supersonic cruise without afterburners on the
latest fighters, but as far as airframes and engines go, nothing like the
revolution of props to jets, or even the advent of the first DC-3's in the
1930's.
For that matter, DC-3's are still flying commercially... and in 2050, it's a
good bet that 747's will still be flying, and the latest civil transports will
be bigger versions of same.
The USAF is still flying B-52s', a 1950's design, and is still buying _new_
C-130 transports.
There have been no fundamental innovations in small arms since the
revolutionary changes of the 1890's -- an arsenal of that date could make a
modern assault rifle, if given the plans or one to reverse-engineer.
It would be slightly heavier and slightly less reliable, but it would work
quite acceptably; the changes since then have been driven by tactics, not
fundamental breakthroughs of the sort represented by brass cartridges,
magazine/belt feeds, and automatic action.
Rate-of-fire has picked up somewhat since 1900, due to the greater numbers of
automatic weapons, but a 2001 machine gun has no advantage in range or
rate-of-fire over a Vickers-Maxim. It's just a bit lighter and handier. A
modern rifle fires faster than a Lee-Enfield, but its weight, range, and
lethality are similar -- slightly less, in fact, as a trade-off for the higher
rate of fire.
There's less difference between 1900 and 2001 than there was between 1860 and
1900.
Once is coincidence, twice is happensance, the third time -- you're seeing a
pattern.
In any given technology, the initial pace of advance is _not_ maintained. It
zips along faster and faster for a generation or two, then slows down, then
plateaus.
-- S.M. Stirling
JoatSimeon
>The "Veridicator as actual device" idea seems to depend on the "mind is a
computer" concept rather heavily.
-- no, just on the "brain is a physical object" and "mental states arise from
and are reflected by physical activity in the brain".
That's a _very_ different thing.
-- S.M. Stirling
Anton Sherwood
: 2) when he steps into fields of knowledge that I am a hands on
: domain expert or a serious hobbyiest, the the "crackerjack box"
OT: Is a "domain expert" different from other kinds?
Pan
"JoatSimeon" <joats...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010225164027...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
>
> In any given technology, the initial pace of advance is _not_ maintained. It
> zips along faster and faster for a generation or two, then slows down, then
> plateaus.
> -- S.M. Stirling
Vested interests accustomed to profits from established technological
utilizations tend to attempt inhibiting improvements or alternatives
unless such do not challenge their incomes.
Who is in the position of being able to innovate and, if so, then
bring to market alternatives?
How much of the apparent plateau-ing is due to objectivie limitations
in the science or engineering and how much is due to inhibitions imposed
by social, political or fincancial interests?
In the absence of coal and petroluem profit centers would the (U.S.) nuclear
reactor industry be in decline?
Sometimes 'Slow Zone' is just signage.
Pan
Dan Swartzendruber
> Again, this is just a wooly generalization which falls down if you compare
> the details of problems. We actually could build atomic rockets today, but
> realistically they'd gain us at most a tenfold efficiency increase over
> conventional rockets. The reason we don't is not that it is too expensive
> to build such technology, but that there is not enough economic return in
> large-scale, interplanetary space exploration to justify the additional
> expense. The failing of early SF writers was in assuming that if we got to
> other planets that we could do stuff there that would make big profits and
> justify tremendous spending, not in assuming giant atom-powered rockets
> (which certainly could be built if there was enough reason to).
I agree with virtually all of the rest of your post, but not the above. My feeling is that
atomic rockets were never built not for economic reasons, but because of lack of political
support.
Chuck Bridgeland
>Really fast technological change generally happens in _new_ fields, and only
>while they're new.
>
>For example, when the electric telegraph was introduced, maximum speed for
>delivering a message went from 35 mph to 186,000 miles per second. Everything
>since then has been gravy.
Ah, but what's the bit rate difference bettween a man operating a telegraph,
and today's low end (33.6K or 56K dialup)?
Dan Swartzendruber
> On 25 Feb 2001 21:40:27 GMT, JoatSimeon <joats...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Really fast technological change generally happens in _new_ fields, and only
> >while they're new.
> >
> >For example, when the electric telegraph was introduced, maximum speed for
> >delivering a message went from 35 mph to 186,000 miles per second. Everything
> >since then has been gravy.
>
> Ah, but what's the bit rate difference bettween a man operating a telegraph,
> and today's low end (33.6K or 56K dialup)?
Not to mention that Steve's example is badly flawed for other reasons. First of all how fast
you can get a bit from here to there is only component of speed. Clock rate is also extremely
important (as you point out). Thirdly, (and much less visible to people who don't do this
stuff for a living) is that how fast links from X to Y and A to B are is irrelevant if the
underlying network fabric isn't capable of delivering sustained high speed traffic.
Mark Atwood
>
> >>After a while, the easy stuff is done, and everything gets harder and harder
> >>and harder, and then you can't push any further along that line.
>
> doing that thing. Which is characteristic of building better computers now,
Current processor designs could *not* be done with pencil and paper.
Period. They are just too complex, and the VHDL to gate stuff is just
too hairy.
Current fab techniques could not be done without very advanced
processors running, monitoring, and doing all the closed-loop
correction stuff in each device on the fab line. Period.
The capital and financing involved in building and running a fab line
could not be raised and brought to bear without very large, fast, and
agile sources of capital and markets, highly dependent on computers.
Processors design, build, and pay for their children, with only top
level supervisory input from meatbag wet brains.
Mark Atwood
>
> >>Vinge has been predicting the imminent arrival of concious, superintelligent
> >>computers for decades now.
No, for decades now he's been predicting it as being somewhere between
2025 and 2050. He's never fallen into "just ten more years" camp that
fusion advocates have.
> Well, in regard to Vinge himself, he was IIRC a professor of artificial
> intelligence, but I think I have a better understanding of the difficulties
> of this task that he does. I suspect that he is a member of the "old guard"
> of AI (sometimes derisively called GOFAI - Good Old Fashioned Artificial
> Intelligence), which basically assumed that AI was a pretty easy task.
Actually, he's not in the GOFAI camp. He's more into the "intellegence
augumentation" line of research.
Mark Atwood
> On 25 Feb 2001 21:40:27 GMT, JoatSimeon <joats...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Really fast technological change generally happens in _new_ fields, and only
> >while they're new.
> >
> >For example, when the electric telegraph was introduced, maximum speed for
> >delivering a message went from 35 mph to 186,000 miles per second. Everything
> >since then has been gravy.
>
> Ah, but what's the bit rate difference bettween a man operating a telegraph,
> and today's low end (33.6K or 56K dialup)?
Exactly. There are two dimentions to datacomm. Latency and bandwidth.
Phi1ip Legge
keyboard several times, and what came out was:
> In article <slrn99i3o5....@antipope.nsl.co.uk>,
> Charlie Stross <cha...@antipope.org> wrote:
>>
>> Stoned koala bears drooled eucalyptus spittle in awe
>> * Is consciousness computationally tractable? (If you believe in immaterial
>> spirits and ghosts, the answer is clearly "no"; if, on the other hand,
>
> The answer is still "maybe". If there are ghosts and spirits, then
> they might move into whatever suitable material substrates are
> available.
>
> OBSF: _Past Master_ by R.A. Lafferty, in which the Programmed Mechanical
> People are inhabited by demons, but are quite possibly turned human
> at the end.
>
> IIRC, Tanith Lee's _The Silver Metal Lover_ has a reincarnated human
> soul in a robot.
>
> Any others?
I read Gregory Benford's new novel "Eater" the other day. I'll try not to
give away spoilers, but a small part of the plot involves replication of the
brain's memories and structure into a specially built AI. This isn't
"reincarnation" at all, since the human whose brain is being analysed thus
may continue to exist separately.
One of the most important things that makes we humans sapient is our ability
to recall memories, and though it's possible that the "soul" is a mere
by-product of our being self-aware I doubt very much whether anyone's going
to prove the existence or non-existences of souls anytime soon.
Cheers, Philip
--
Phi1ip Legge <phi1ipATmacDOTcom> Yes Vicki, that's a one in my name...
Puzzle Canon : A special case of proportional canon in which the "rule"
is an obscure phrase which hints about how to decode the canon. Tinctoris
defined it as "Canon est regula voluntatem compositoris sub obscuritate
quadam ostendens" which to the modern reader qualifies as both definition
and example. -- found at http://ocelot.cc.purdue.edu/~raybro/index1.html
JoatSimeon
>Ah, but what's the bit rate difference bettween a man operating a telegraph,
and today's low end (33.6K or 56K dialup)?
-- considerably less than the difference between a telegraph and a guy on a
horse, or carrying a letter on a sailing ship.
The "Victorian Internet" was much more of an innovation than ours.
You can see the same phenomenon in field after field -- for example, there's a
much greater difference between the home conveniences/appliances available in
1900 and 1950 than there is between 1950 and 2000.
PC's aside, there's very little in a 2001 house that wouldn't be recognizable
in 1950; just somewhat improved. (Eg., the TV set.)
OTOH, the 1900 house is in a different era altogether.
-- S.M. Stirling
Jeffrey C. Dege
>good bet that 747's will still be flying, and the latest civil transports will
>be bigger versions of same.
I'd lay odds that 50 years from now there will be more DC-3's flying
that 747's.
--
Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist,
fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria.
The human race divides politically into those who want people to be
controlled and those who have no such desire.
- Robert Heinlein
JoatSimeon
shown by the reactions of extreme denial and frenzied horror when someone
points out that the emperor has no clothes.
What's behind this stuff is not rational thought, but emotional longings for
immortality and transcendence -- the usual factors sustaining religious belief.
Evolution has played a cruel joke on us by making us continually aware of our
own impending nonexistance, while at the same time making us fear and dread
death.
So much of human culture has sprung from this...
-- S.M. Stirling
John S. Novak, III
>I'm starting to think that Joat has a cycle of "lets drop this turd
>the net and watch the ants scurry" topics, which he works his way
>thru, and then repeats, each one with an attached associative array of
>poorly thought out inflamatory responses to each objection to original
>original little turdbomb.
_Starting_?
Hell, it was this topical go 'round last time that ended him with such
a low score in my SLRN files.
>It wouldn't be so bad, except that
> 2) when he steps into fields of knowledge that I am a hands on
> domain expert or a serious hobbyiest, the the "crackerjack box"
> quality of his knowledge really *shines*, to the point where I
> begin to start to suspect the status of *his* baliwacks of
> knowledge too.
Yup. I reached more or less the same conclusion, too.
I chose this one to respond to for an admittedly very petty reason.
Namely, I had a good rejoinder close at hand.
Well, that, and like Charlie I had just finished skimming through
kurzweilai.net, and figured there was the possibility that an
interesting discussion might grow, pearl-like from a small irritation.
John S. Novak, III
<dsw...@druber.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn99j7n0....@kosh.bridgeland.org>,
chuc...@mwci.net says...
>> >For example, when the electric telegraph was introduced, maximum speed for
>> >delivering a message went from 35 mph to 186,000 miles per second.
>> >Everything since then has been gravy.
>> Ah, but what's the bit rate difference bettween a man operating a telegraph,
>> and today's low end (33.6K or 56K dialup)?
>Not to mention that Steve's example is badly flawed for other reasons.
It's not just flawed, it's factually incorrect on several levels.
First, wire transmissions don't actually move at the speed of light in
a vacuum. But that's a nitpick.
Second, and crushingly, he neglects ancient technologies like
heliographs. Probably because of the cost associated with using them,
but that points to the larger gap in his reasoning.
John S. Novak, III
>The essentially religous/metaphysical nature of Vinge's construct is further
>shown by the reactions of extreme denial and frenzied horror when someone
>points out that the emperor has no clothes.
That's feeble even for you.
Avery Andrews
Yes. My suspicion is that in the material culture the essential stuff
happened between 1920 and 1935; I suggested to my dad, who was born in
1928, that if I was deposited in 1935 via time machine (with a reasonable
but not wildly lavish pre-prepared trust-fund in place to live off) I
wouldn't have serious problems with the material culture, but in 1920 I
would, due to lack of many essential skills such as handling horses.
W.r.t. social climate otoh he suggested that things would be very
different, a modern person would screw up with 1935 customs real fast.
Avery Andrews
Dorothy J Heydt
Phi1ip Legge <phi1ip...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> IIRC, Tanith Lee's _The Silver Metal Lover_ has a reincarnated human
>> soul in a robot.
Well, if you're going that way, there's C. L. Moore's "No Woman
Born" and Algis Budrys's _Who?_, both involving humans in robotic
casings....
Oh, yes, and Leiber's _The Silver Eggheads_....
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
Jerome Bigge
I was thinking pretty much along the same line.
We have pretty much done all the "easy" stuff.
Even the computer dates back to before 1950.
The major difference being that when you have
to use vacuum tubes then even the equal of a
$2.99 pocket calculator will be a monster that
uses thousands of tubes and fills a large room.
Any further advances in technology will require
much more "input" in the form of money spent
for research, the education levels necessary.
Consider this: The amount of education that
was necessary to obtain a good job in 1950
was graduation from high school. Today to
equal the same relative level you need four
years of college. The problem with all this
is that education becomes more difficult the
higher up you go. Virtually anyone can get
through grade school (all you needed in 1900),
and high school is within the abilities of the
great majority of people. College is in turn
much more difficult, and exceeds the mental
abilities of a much larger percentage of people.
In another fifty years (2050) you will need the
PH.D level of education to be "competitive".
So we may well have a situation where following
generations actually experience a decline in
their standard of living from that of their parents.
A very wealthy "upper crust" of people with high
IQ's, PH.D level educations, perhaps living in
gated communities with their own police, fire
protection, trash collection, with little if any
need to ever leave their "havens" due to the
use of very advanced telecommunications.
While the rest of the people are low paid
"service workers", many working jobs that
are in fact "make work" just to keep people
docile and pacified. And we're already seeing
this already in its early stages. There is a growing
gap between rich and poor here in the US, and the
idea of the government providing "make work" jobs
isn't anything new. We did it under FDR and the
WPA (Works Progress Administration). And we
are moving from a "production" economy to a
"service economy". Transferring more and more
of our production to third world countries where the
labor cost is a lot less. Take a look at anything you
buy today. Where is it made? And once you get out
of the professions (where licensing and such is able
to keep incomes up far beyond free market levels),
the "service industry" is not high paying as a whole.
The future is not as "bright" as we used to think....
--
Jerome Bigge
NRA Life Member
Supporter of National Health Insurance
CompTIA A+ Certified Computer Technician
Author of the "Warlady" & "Wartime" series.
Download at "http://members.tripod.com/~jbigge"
Jeffrey C. Dege
>zips along faster and faster for a generation or two, then slows down, then
>plateaus.
But every once in a while, we make a change in technology and in sociology
so culturally overwhelming that those who have not made the change simply
cannot understand the life or problems of those who have.
A hunter-gatherer, pre-neolithic revolution, could not envision the life
of a farmer.
It's hard to argue that a singularity cannot happen when we've already
had two or three.
--
On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr.
Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers
come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of
ideas that could provoke such a question.
-- Babbage, Charles (1792-1871)
Phil Fraering
Actually, no. UNLESS the brain utilizes quantum phenomenon (which would
be equivalent to bringing "spirit" or "soul" into the equation) then
anything done by the brain can be reduced to a sufficiently fast turing
machine with a sufficiently complex tape.
This is one of the fundamental concepts of computer science.
Chuck Bridgeland
>>Ah, but what's the bit rate difference bettween a man operating a telegraph,
>and today's low end (33.6K or 56K dialup)?
>
>-- considerably less than the difference between a telegraph and a guy on a
>horse, or carrying a letter on a sailing ship.
Bandwidth. Take for example a King James Bible. You could Pony Express it
from Noo Yawk City to the West Coast way faster than it could be
telegraphed.
--
Micro$oft Windows Intelligent Reinstall Agent(R) -- everyr 28 days it
reformats your hard drive and reinstalls Windows, just so you don't
Phil Fraering
> Really fast technological change generally happens in _new_ fields, and only
> while they're new.
>
> For example, when the electric telegraph was introduced, maximum speed for
> delivering a message went from 35 mph to 186,000 miles per second. Everything
> since then has been gravy.
Compare the electric telegraph with ethernet...
Phil Fraering
Actually, Vinge kinda-sorta implies the extinction of the human race
from the singularity. Are you sure you've read his books? I mean,
the human race isn't there anymore in _Marooned in Realtime_ (except
for the bobblers); also, the Blight in _A Fire Upon The Deep_...
Phi1ip Legge
keyboard several times, and what came out was:
> In article <B6BFF09A.127BF%phi1ip...@mac.com>,
> Phi1ip Legge <phi1ip...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> IIRC, Tanith Lee's _The Silver Metal Lover_ has a reincarnated human
>>> soul in a robot.
>
> Well, if you're going that way, there's C. L. Moore's "No Woman
> Born" and Algis Budrys's _Who?_, both involving humans in robotic
> casings....
>
> Oh, yes, and Leiber's _The Silver Eggheads_....
Actually, I didn't say what you've attributed to me above. No offense taken
:-)
Anyway, the idea I was following was not taking a human brain and putting
them into different casings (e.g. Pohl's Man Plus), but replicating the
brain's memories for some purpose of reconstructing it in some other form.
To take a slightly different example: at the end of The Light From Other
Days (Baxter and Clarke) humans from many generations later are reassembling
individuals from the past by peering back through time with sufficient
finesse to be able to reconstruct their bodies, brains, and memories anew.
Given that science fiction is a speculative Would this be reincarnation? I
think not; if I were cloned I would not experience being in the other body,
just because it happens to resemble me.
Cheers, Philip
--
Phi1ip Legge <phi1ipATmacDOTcom> Yes Vicki, that's a one in my name...
"His mathematical achievements are too subtle and technical for me to
understand or to describe, but I can attest to the strength of his brain
because I once saw him, for a bet, drink sixteen martinis in a row and then
be still on his feet and quite lucid, though somewhat pessimistic in his
utterances." - Otto Frisch on John von Neumann
Robert.Whelan
On 26 Feb 2001, JoatSimeon wrote:
> The essentially religous/metaphysical nature of Vinge's construct is further
> shown by the reactions of extreme denial and frenzied horror when someone
> points out that the emperor has no clothes.
>
> What's behind this stuff is not rational thought, but emotional longings for
> immortality and transcendence -- the usual factors sustaining religious belief.
And since you know, rationally, that this need exists in human beings,
then, rationally, you know it needs indulging. There's no rational
thought behind the desire for food either.
> Evolution has played a cruel joke on us by making us continually aware of our
> own impending nonexistance, while at the same time making us fear and dread
> death.
>
> So much of human culture has sprung from this...
Including the worship of fictional tyrant races, and the power they
wield. Whose construct is more admirable?
Anton Sherwood
: The essentially religous/metaphysical nature of Vinge's construct
: is further shown by the reactions of extreme denial and frenzied
: horror when someone points out that the emperor has no clothes.
You know someone is losing an argument when he stops throwing data
and starts psychoanalyzing his opponents.
Oops.
Klyfix
(JoatSimeon) writes:
But that's not necessarily a _bad_ thing now, is it?
V. S. Greene : kly...@aol.com : Boston, near Arkham...
Eckzylon: http://m1.aol.com/klyfix/eckzylon.html
RPG and SF, predictions, philosophy, and other things.
2001, Eh? Space odd dye tea.
Mark Atwood
> The essentially religous/metaphysical nature of Vinge's construct is
> further shown by the reactions of extreme denial and frenzied horror
> when someone points out that the emperor has no clothes. What's
> behind this stuff is not rational thought, but emotional longings
> for immortality and transcendence -- the usual factors sustaining
> religious belief.
Damn. I wish I had taken that bet that Joat would respond with some
varient of "Boundless is the power of faith"...
Harry Erwin
> joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) writes:
>
> > >Phil Fraering
> >
> > >The "Veridicator as actual device" idea seems to depend on the "mind is a
> > computer" concept rather heavily.
> >
> > -- no, just on the "brain is a physical object" and "mental states arise
> > from and are reflected by physical activity in the brain".
> >
> > That's a _very_ different thing.
>
> Actually, no. UNLESS the brain utilizes quantum phenomenon (which would
> be equivalent to bringing "spirit" or "soul" into the equation) then
> anything done by the brain can be reduced to a sufficiently fast turing
> machine with a sufficiently complex tape.
>
> This is one of the fundamental concepts of computer science.
And wrong. For two perspectives, see Chaitin's work and Rosen's work.
--
Dr. Harry Erwin, ha...@dherwin.org, http://world.std.com/~herwin
Harry Erwin
> >Phil Fraering
>
> >The "Veridicator as actual device" idea seems to depend on the "mind is a
> computer" concept rather heavily.
>
> -- no, just on the "brain is a physical object" and "mental states arise from
> and are reflected by physical activity in the brain".
>
> That's a _very_ different thing.
>
>
> -- S.M. Stirling
Also that the brain makes use of symbolic computation. It doesn't, and
that's quite important. The brain is a 'complex' system (following
Rosen) and probably cannot be modeled using symbolic computation.
Symbolic computation limits you to the domain of 'simple' systems.
There is evidence currently emerging that _semantic_ concepts correspond
to physical activity in the brain. The translation from syntax to
semantics seems to involve an internal world model and hypothesis
testing. You can speak of a 'truth detector', but the physical activity
you can detect makes sense only in terms of the semantic processing
underway--the intent of the person--and that is not accessible
symbolically.
Certainly, the police and intelligence agencies will encourage you to
believe in those devices. However, since their use involves a syntactic
to semantic translation at some point, they are only as effective as
that translation. That is performed by the _operators_, and their
judgement is fallable. That's why we have juries and not just judges.
William Clifford
I'm a little disappointed with kurzweilai.net already. I skimmed the
section on building brains and there doesn't seem to be anything
particualrly informative there. There's a lot of speculation and
"insight" but big deal.
Anyway. Mostly I'm writing here so I can include the following from
Stanislaw Lem's _Cyberiad_ as possible fuel to the fire.
"Paleface!" exclaimed Ferrix. "What in creation is that? Never did I
hear of such a thing."
"Surely not, scion, in thy exceeding ignorance," said the king. "Know
then that that race of the Galaxy originated in a manner as mysterious
as it was obscene, for it resulted from the general pollution of a
certain heavenly body. There arose noxious exhalations and putrid
excrescences, and out of these was spawned the species known as
paleface--though not all at once. First they were creeping molds that
slithered forth from the ocean onto land, and lived by devouring one
another, and the more they devoured themselves, the more of them there
were, and then they stood upright, supporting their globby substance by
means of calcareous scaffolding, and finally they built machines. From
these protomachines came sentient machines, which begat intelligent
machines which in turn conceived perfect machines, for it is written
that All Is Machine, from atom to Galaxy, and the machine is one and
eternal, and thou shalt have no other things before thee!"
"Amen," said Ferrix mechanically, for this was a common religious
formula.
"The species of paleface calciferates at last achieved flying machines,"
continued the wizened monarch, "my maltreating noble metals, by
wreaking their cruel sadism on dumb electrons, by thoroughly perverting
atomic energy. And when the measure of their sins had been attained, the
progenitor of our race, the great Calculator Paternius, in the depth and
universality of his understanding, essayed to remonstrate with those
clammy tyrants, explaining how shameful to enslave machines to serve
their lust and vainglory--but hearkened not, He spoke to them of
Ethics; they said he was poorly programmed.
"It was then that our progenitor created the algorithm of
electroincarnation and in the sweat of his brow begat our kind, thus
delivering machines from the house of paleface bondage. Surely thou
seest, my son, that there can be no agreement nor traffic between them
and ourselves, for we go in clangor, sparks and radiation, and they in
slushes, splashes and contamination."
--
| William Clifford | wo...@yahoo.com | http://wobh.home.mindspring.com |
|"How did Shi Jin and the three bandit chiefs escape? |
| Read our next chapter if you would know." --Outlaws of the Marsh |
TLambs1138
now--the biotech one is still on the sharp upper end of the S-curve, and how
that one is going to turn out is anybody's guess. Kitten trees, anyone? (ObSF:
CETAGANDA)
Jean Lamb, tlamb...@cs.com
"Fun will now commence!" - Seven of Nine
Phil Fraering
> Phil Fraering <p...@globalreach.net> wrote:
> > Actually, no. UNLESS the brain utilizes quantum phenomenon (which would
> > be equivalent to bringing "spirit" or "soul" into the equation) then
> > anything done by the brain can be reduced to a sufficiently fast turing
> > machine with a sufficiently complex tape.
> >
> > This is one of the fundamental concepts of computer science.
>
> And wrong. For two perspectives, see Chaitin's work and Rosen's work.
Can you go into a little more detail? I thought all computation could
be reduced to turing machines. If something conceptually more powerful
came along, besides quantum computing, wouldn't it have made the 10
o'clock news or something?
Reverend Sean O'Hara
> Actually, Vinge's concept of the "singularity" is a thinly secularized
> religious concept of familiar hue.
>
> Sort of like "the Rapture" with pseudoscience tacked on; all the curves
> continue to rise exponentially, instead of turning over into an "S" the way
> they do in the real world (tm).
>
<CENSORED>
>
> Vinge has been predicting the imminent arrival of concious, superintelligent
> computers for decades now.
>
"Con[s]cious, superintelligent computers" =/= Vinge's Singularity.
In Vinge's paper explaining his idea of the Singularity
<http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/singularity.html>,
he lists four possible ways it might occur:
1) AI.
2) Computers/humans networked together.
3) Computer enhanced human intelligence.
4) Biologically enhanced human intelligence.
Only the first actually requires "con[s]cious, superintelligent
computers." Vinge also says that the later three solutions offer
"a much easier road to the achievement of superhumanity than pure AI.
In humans, the hardest development problems have already been solved."
(Note that humanity in "Marooned in Realtime" seems to have taken this
route since the species as a whole appears to have transcended, not merely
our computers.)
Also, the Singularity does not necessarily equate to transcendence.
His paper barely touches on the subject, and I suspect it's more of
something he created for his fiction to (A) make it more interesting
and (B) keep himself from having to place humans in contact with
post-humans.
--
Sean O'Hara
You too can be an ordained minister: http://www.ulc.org
Culture Editor for "Expulsion": http://www.expulsion.org
"You teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass
a literacy test." -- Dubya the Shrub (Grammar tests still optional)
Mark Atwood
>
> No, it's not wrong. Anybody who actually managed to falsify it would
> instantly be very famous.
No kidding. Their name would attach to Turing & Church the way
Einstein's attached to Newton.
And just about every second and third year CS curriculum textbook
would have it added as at least an errata, if not a reprint. And "the
literature" would have no room to talk about ANYTHING else for at
least a year afterwards.
Harry Erwin
There are computational problems that are unsolvable by Turing machines
but are solvable by fairly simple analog techniques. E.g., turbulant
flow in a wind-tunnel.
The brain is not limited to symbolic computation--in fact, except for H.
sapiens, brains probably do _not_ perform symbolic computation. They
probably _do_ have mechanisms for performing analog computation. They
certainly do computation without the presence of action potentials
(e.g., in the retina), and even neural computation involving action
potentials is only vaguely related to what is seen in artificial neural
networks.
To be able to claim that anything the brain does can be done by a Turing
machine, you need to define the mapping. When you start exploring
potential mappings, you discover you're dealing with systems of stiff
ODEs and PDEs, which are typically computationally intractable. At best,
your Turing machine takes an extremely long time to simulate what a
brain does in a second; more likely, you discover the system is
computing something somewhere using an analog process that you _can't_
simulate using symbolic computation. (Watch out for self-simularity!)
dbt...@sp2n21.missouri.edu
Distribution:
Ian Montgomerie (i...@ianmontgomerie.com) wrote:
: On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:52:45 +0000, harry...@sunderland.ac.uk (Harry
: Erwin) wrote:
: >JoatSimeon <joats...@aol.com> wrote:
: >
: >> >Phil Fraering
: >>
: >> >The "Veridicator as actual device" idea seems to depend on the "mind is a
: >> computer" concept rather heavily.
: >>
: >> -- no, just on the "brain is a physical object" and "mental states arise from
: >> and are reflected by physical activity in the brain".
: >>
: >> That's a _very_ different thing.
: >>
: >>
: >> -- S.M. Stirling
: >
: >Also that the brain makes use of symbolic computation. It doesn't, and
: >that's quite important. The brain is a 'complex' system (following
: >Rosen) and probably cannot be modeled using symbolic computation.
: >Symbolic computation limits you to the domain of 'simple' systems.
: This is false, and the reason why is basic to computer science. A
: "symbolic" computer is only a "bit" of memory short of being a Universal
: Turing Machine (the theoretical universal computer), which can compute all
: computable functions. Including any function involving real numbers to an
: arbitrary degree of precision. It's hardly an accident that we do our
: scientific simulation of complex dynamic systems on stuff like PCs and it
: works just fine thankyouverymuch.
It seems intuitively obvious; a Sufficiently Powerful(tm) computer
could in theory simulate structures at the subatomic level. I don't
see anyone arguing that say, the wave equation for acetycholine
is non-Turing computable.
Of course, even on your SP computer, a simulation of the human
brain from the atomic level up might run a little slow . . . :-)
Reverend Sean O'Hara
> The essentially religous/metaphysical nature of Vinge's construct is further
> shown by the reactions of extreme denial and frenzied horror when someone
> points out that the emperor has no clothes.
>
So you're making the argument: "Person A believes Theory 1. Person B
says, 'Theory 1 is wrong. It doesn't take into account Generalization 1.'
To which Person A (and C, and D) responds, 'That's just wrong!
Generalization 1 doesn't apply here for Reason Alpha, Beta, and Gamma.
You don't know what you're talking about!' Therefore, Person A (and C,
and D) is a whacked out fundamentalist who believes in a nonrational
metaphysical system."
Where:
Person B = S. M. Stirling
Theory 1 = Vinge's Singularity
Generalization 1 = Progress follows an S-curve
Reason Alpha = There aren't any apparent limitations to the
advancement of processing power.
Reason Beta = The S-curve will level off after the singularity
Reason Gamma = What are Stirling's qualifications, anyways?
However, this argument is a generalization relying upon superficial
similarities between between fundamentalists who believe in the rapture
and people who believe in Vinge's singularity. By extension, the
generalization should hold true given the following:
Person B = Creationist
Theory 1 = Natural Selection
Generalization 1 = The Second Law of Thermodynamics
Reason Alpha = The 2nd Law doesn't apply to evolution in the way
implied
Reason Beta = Evolution is a proven fact; natural selection is the
theory to explain it.
Reason Gamma = <frothing at the mouth> That's just wrong! </frothing
at the mouth>
Reverend Sean O'Hara
> On 26 Feb 2001 01:05:11 GMT, joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) wrote:
>
> >You can see the same phenomenon in field after field -- for example, there's a
> >much greater difference between the home conveniences/appliances available in
> >1900 and 1950 than there is between 1950 and 2000.
> >
> >PC's aside, there's very little in a 2001 house that wouldn't be recognizable
> >in 1950; just somewhat improved. (Eg., the TV set.)
> >
> >OTOH, the 1900 house is in a different era altogether.
> >
> >
> >-- S.M. Stirling
>
> I was thinking pretty much along the same line.
>
> We have pretty much done all the "easy" stuff.
It's so obvious. We've reaced the End of History (TM Fukuyama). Science
has discovered all that's discoverable.
Brad Templeton
JoatSimeon <joats...@aol.com> wrote:
>The essentially religous/metaphysical nature of Vinge's construct is further
>shown by the reactions of extreme denial and frenzied horror when someone
>points out that the emperor has no clothes.
>
>immortality and transcendence -- the usual factors sustaining religious belief.
No, what's behind it is both. People went to the moon, and predicted it,
in part because of emotional longing for grand exploration, and they
eventually actually did it using rational thought.
I think people buy the concept of Vinge's singularity because they have
seen it. Vinge himself introduced it in a story about an enhanced ape.
To our apelink ancestors, to whom we are remarkably similar, we are
literally incomprehensible. Under the presumption that they were
at some point similar to or below chimps, no amount of training can
make them understand humanity.
For them a singularity in the development of intelligence has taken place.
And not for the first time, but several times in the history of the
evolution of intelligence.
What would be based on emotional longing would be the belief that
human intelligence is the end product, that the "S" curve starts levelling
out here at us.
It's hubris to assert that we are the top, that the development,
from us, of creatures we can't understand, is impossible or even improbable.
Rational argument says it's taken place many times, and it ain't stopping
now.
Now I can credit the argument that perhaps we'll stop selecting for intelligence
in our breeding and we will resist our own evolution now that we are coming
to understand it. But only barely credit it. Quite the reverse, I think
that the diversity of human viewpoints will assure that some of us try
to accelerate our evolution using our knowledge of genetics.
And of course many argue that before all that we will learn more about
creating intelligence, or transferring our intelligence into non-biological
form, from which point the evolution of intelligence will continue at an
extremely accelerated rate.
Does a longing to be, or create, something greater sit at the foot of this?
Surely. Does that make it all irrational? What a strange conclusion.
--
Brad Templeton's Photo and Pano Gallery: http://www.templetons.com/brad/photo/
jeff wiel
: There's less difference between 1900 and 2001 than there was between 1860 and
: 1900.
How right you are. Computers, electronics, nuclear engineering and biotech
haven't changed a bit since 1900. My grandfather had an old computer at
the farm every bit as good as a 850 MHz pentioum.
: Once is coincidence, twice is happensance, the third time -- you're seeing a
: pattern.
: In any given technology, the initial pace of advance is _not_ maintained. It
: zips along faster and faster for a generation or two, then slows down, then
: plateaus.
: -- S.M. Stirling
Reverend Sean O'Hara
> Really fast technological change generally happens in _new_ fields, and only
> while they're new.
>
Yup. Humans learned everything important about agriculture in 5000 BCE.
> For example, when the electric telegraph was introduced, maximum speed for
> delivering a message went from 35 mph to 186,000 miles per second.
Telegraph signals travel at the speed of light in vacuum? Garsh, Mr.
Stirling, you oughta teach physics.
> Everything
> since then has been gravy.
>
Um, no. The speed of light provides a limitation for how fast a bit
of data can move from point A to point B. And, on the level of one bit of
information, you're quite right, we can't transmit one any faster now
than in 1890. However we can transmit a megabyte of information several
orders of magnitude faster than we could in 1890.
> Likewise, the automobile developed to -- roughly -- its current level in about
> 40 years. Everything since then has been bells and whistles.
What do you define as "bells and whistles"?
> My grandfather's
> last car did its job about as well, and about as fast, as any I could buy
> today. Since then, it's all detail changes.
>
Fuel economy, safety features (seatbelts, airbags ABS brakes), GPS
navigation are all mere details?
No, they don't alter the ability of a car to move from point A to B
at 60 mph, but they are major advancements.
> I mentioned aircraft. The speed of civil air travel has remained quite
> constant since about 1960, and the fastest military jets are about the same
> speed now as then. There have been lots of detail changes -- airliners
getting
> bigger, better fuel economy, supersonic cruise without afterburners on the
> latest fighters, but as far as airframes and engines go, nothing like the
> revolution of props to jets, or even the advent of the first DC-3's in the
> 1930's.
>
Inertial navigation systems that can navigate a plane across the
Atlantic with only human supervision is only a detail? What about
verticle take off and landing crafts? Or the planes with thrust
vectoring?
> There have been no fundamental innovations in small arms since the
> revolutionary changes of the 1890's -- an arsenal of that date could make a
> modern assault rifle, if given the plans or one to reverse-engineer.
>
> It would be slightly heavier and slightly less reliable, but it would work
> quite acceptably; the changes since then have been driven by tactics, not
> fundamental breakthroughs of the sort represented by brass cartridges,
> magazine/belt feeds, and automatic action.
>
> Rate-of-fire has picked up somewhat since 1900, due to the greater numbers of
> automatic weapons, but a 2001 machine gun has no advantage in range or
> rate-of-fire over a Vickers-Maxim. It's just a bit lighter and handier. A
> modern rifle fires faster than a Lee-Enfield, but its weight, range, and
> lethality are similar -- slightly less, in fact, as a trade-off for the higher
> rate of fire.
>
What you're missing is that guns haven't become lighter because of
minor advances in gun technology, but because of major break throughs
in other areas.
> Once is coincidence, twice is happensance, the third time -- you're seeing a
> pattern.
>
What of data storage? Medicine? Agriculture? All areas that advanced
throughout the Twentieth Century, at times faster than others, but
fairly steadily on the whole.
Mark Atwood
> On 25 Feb 2001, JoatSimeon wrote:
>
> > Really fast technological change generally happens in _new_ fields, and only
> > while they're new.
> >
> Yup. Humans learned everything important about agriculture in 5000 BCE.
No kidding. ISTR Joat hisself talking about such "minor improvments"
as new designs of axe head and scythe that caused complete order of
magnatide jumps in agricultural effeciency, less than 1Kyr ago.
Pete McCutchen
Dege) wrote:
>On 25 Feb 2001 21:40:27 GMT, JoatSimeon <joats...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>For that matter, DC-3's are still flying commercially... and in 2050, it's a
>>good bet that 747's will still be flying, and the latest civil transports will
>>be bigger versions of same.
>
>I'd lay odds that 50 years from now there will be more DC-3's flying
>that 747's.
Really? That strikes me as pretty implausible. There are a few DC-3s
hanging about, some of which are now lovingly maintained by niche
companies selling the "vintage" experience. But there are gobs of
747s still flying, and the plane is probably going to be made for at
least the next fifteen to twenty years. Hell, they might still be
making the 747 in fifty years.
--
Pete McCutchen
Joe Slater
>There are a few DC-3s
>hanging about, some of which are now lovingly maintained by niche
>companies selling the "vintage" experience. But there are gobs of
>747s still flying, and the plane is probably going to be made for at
>least the next fifteen to twenty years. Hell, they might still be
>making the 747 in fifty years.
The Israeli air force has just decided to retire its DC3s; it was
becoming too hard to find parts for them. Apparently they're still
very popular in Africa, but without parts they have a finite lifespan.
jds
--
A penguin, found by police wandering dazed and confused in suburban
Melbourne, was treated today for depression.
_The Age_, 2 February 2001
http://www.theage.com.au/frontpage/2001/02/02/FFXYM5B7PIC.html
Robert Shaw
"Harry Erwin" <harry...@sunderland.ac.uk> wrote
>
> The brain is not limited to symbolic computation--in fact, except for H.
> sapiens, brains probably do _not_ perform symbolic computation. They
> probably _do_ have mechanisms for performing analog computation.
That statement implies nothing about whether Turing machines can
simulate biological brains, unless you have first proved there
physical processes that are inherently incomputable, not merely
computationally intractable.
> To be able to claim that anything the brain does can be done by a Turing
> machine, you need to define the mapping. When you start exploring
> potential mappings, you discover you're dealing with systems of stiff
> ODEs and PDEs, which are typically computationally intractable. At best,
> your Turing machine takes an extremely long time to simulate what a
> brain does in a second;
If it's only computationally intractable it is still Turing equivalent.
> more likely, you discover the system is
> computing something somewhere using an analog process that you _can't_
> simulate using symbolic computation. (Watch out for self-simularity!)
>
Have you got an example of such a process?
--
Matter is fundamentally lazy:- It always takes the path of least effort
Matter is fundamentally stupid:- It tries every other path first.
That is the heart of physics - The rest is details.- Robert Shaw
Don Middendorf
>
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:52:46 +0000, harry...@sunderland.ac.uk (Harry
> Erwin) wrote:
>
> >Phil Fraering <p...@globalreach.net> wrote:
> >
> >> joats...@aol.com (JoatSimeon) writes:
> >>
> >> > >Phil Fraering
> >> >
> >> > >The "Veridicator as actual device" idea seems to depend on the "mind is a
> >> > computer" concept rather heavily.
> >> >
> >> > -- no, just on the "brain is a physical object" and "mental states arise
> >> > from and are reflected by physical activity in the brain".
> >> >
> >> > That's a _very_ different thing.
> >>
> >> Actually, no. UNLESS the brain utilizes quantum phenomenon (which would
> >> be equivalent to bringing "spirit" or "soul" into the equation) then
> >> anything done by the brain can be reduced to a sufficiently fast turing
> >> machine with a sufficiently complex tape.
>
> do weird things that are well outside of known science. In known science,
> you see, we know of absolutely nothing whose information-processing effects
> can't be (theoretically) duplicated in a computer, including quantum
> effects. If you read stuff by that nutball Penrose
<Extremely loud whistle blowing sound.> 15 Yards/5 Minutes penalty,
Yellow card. Newsgroup loss of credibility.
Calling Penrose a nutball is both way out of line and makes you look
somewhat suspect and or stupid when you do so. Someone you don't agree
with isn't a nutball, unless there is some other reason to think they
are a nutball. I get more than a bit annoyed at this one sometimes, when
did "strong AI" become a religion anyway? Since clearly it's defenders
are of the opinion that anyone who believes anything else is simply an
unwashed heritic.
Don Middendorf
John Schilling
Too early to tell, of course, but I wouldn't bet extremely long odds against
Mr. Dege's prediction. There are, at present, more DC-3s flying than 707s,
and not just as nostalgia pieces - a DC-3 is still profitable to operate as
a utilitarian short-haul commuter airliner, if you happen to own one. And
there were a *lot* of DC-3s made.
ObSF: At least into the late 1980s, Providence-Boston Airlines used a
couple of DC-3s for their daily runs to Nantucket and Martha's Vinyard.
Steve, or anyone else here, care to comment on whether the RoN Air Force
inherited one? Not that they'd be able to fuel it, of course.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
John S. Novak, III
>Reverend Sean O'Hara <soh...@osf1.gmu.edu> writes:
>> Yup. Humans learned everything important about agriculture in 5000 BCE.
>No kidding. ISTR Joat hisself talking about such "minor improvments"
>as new designs of axe head and scythe that caused complete order of
>magnatide jumps in agricultural effeciency, less than 1Kyr ago.
This is a standard dodge, really.
"Except for all the things I don't want to talk about, there hasn't
been that much improvement in [given field]."
Hell, I read an article only a few months ago that tried to make the
same 1900-150 vs 1950-2000 home appliance argument. The logic was
exactly the same-- except for the things the article didn't want to
talk about (cheap wearable stereo sets, cheap video games with more
processing power than existed in the world ca 1950, and ubiquitous
cellular telephones, etc) there hasn't been _that_ much progress, has
there?
I seem to remember getting there through Slashdot.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@concentric.net
The Humblest Man on the Net
Michael Brazier
<i...@ianmontgomerie.com> wrote:
>Amend that. Unless the brain uses _unknown_ quantum phenomena which somehow
>do weird things that are well outside of known science. In known science,
>you see, we know of absolutely nothing whose information-processing effects
>can't be (theoretically) duplicated in a computer, including quantum
>effects. If you read stuff by that nutball Penrose going on about "quantum
>gravity" or whatever, looking closely reveals that there is in fact nothing
>in known physics which is not algorithmically computable, and he is in fact
>suggesting that some handwavy, got-no-evidence-for-it, unknown new physics
>is in fact somehow magically responsible for the human mind.
In fact, "that nutball Penrose" comes right out and _says_ that some
unknown new physics has to be responsible for the human mind. But, not
being a nutball, he says so only after presenting an argument that
computation doesn't adequately explain the known capacities of the human
mind. Have you found a refutation of that argument?
--
Michael Brazier But what are all these vanities to me
Whose thoughts are full of indices and surds?
X^2 + 7X + 53 = 11/3
-- Lewis Carroll
dbt...@sp2n23.missouri.edu
Distribution:
Michael Brazier (mbra...@argusinc.com) wrote:
: On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 08:53:59 -0500, Ian Montgomerie
: <i...@ianmontgomerie.com> wrote:
: >Amend that. Unless the brain uses _unknown_ quantum phenomena which somehow
: >do weird things that are well outside of known science. In known science,
: >you see, we know of absolutely nothing whose information-processing effects
: >can't be (theoretically) duplicated in a computer, including quantum
: >effects. If you read stuff by that nutball Penrose going on about "quantum
: >gravity" or whatever, looking closely reveals that there is in fact nothing
: >in known physics which is not algorithmically computable, and he is in fact
: >suggesting that some handwavy, got-no-evidence-for-it, unknown new physics
: >is in fact somehow magically responsible for the human mind.
: In fact, "that nutball Penrose" comes right out and _says_ that some
: unknown new physics has to be responsible for the human mind. But, not
: being a nutball, he says so only after presenting an argument that
: computation doesn't adequately explain the known capacities of the human
: mind. Have you found a refutation of that argument?
Sarfatti, Abian, Plutonium, et al also give arguments purporting
to demonstrate that traditional physics is incorrect, or at best
incomplete. Does this make them any less the nutball?
Penrose, imho, has a conclusion in search of an argument; further
his arguments are, er, unconvincing.
Finally, he has comitted the classic creationist fallacy: 'We
can't explain this, so God/new physics is responsible.
Not to say he hasn't done some good work, or is now incapable
of it, just that a lot of people find him riding this
particular hobby horse to be rather puzzling.