Some comments on Jacking In etc.
Joseph Brenner
>I managed to track down a reference for artificial optical stimulation:
>
>Dobelle, W. H., Mladejovsky, M. G., Girvin, J. P., ``Artificial Vision
>for the Blind: Electrical Stimulation of visual cortex offers hope for
>a functional prosthesis'' Science, 1974, 183, 440-444.
>[...]
>
>It may not be long before there is a visual prosthesis for the
>partially blind, followed by partial sight for the congenitally blind,
>then perhaps a vision-extender for the normally-sighted.
I once saw a panel discussion here Marvin Minsky used this work as
an example to show that we are "suffering from a surfiet of ethics".
His point was that this work is NOT progressing because you can
no longer do experiments like this on human subjects, even if the
subjects are well-informed volunteers.
-- Joe B.
(J.JBR...@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU Materials Science Dept/Stanford, CA 94305)
JMS...@psuvm.bitnet
Someone doesn't know Pink Floyd *or* Heinlein (for shame)
The line is part of the opening line for Heinlein's _Friday_, and goes:
'The door dilated, and a man stepped through.'
(I don't have the book with me, but I'm sure of everything before the comma)
A reader of alt.cyberpunk doesn't know these things? What's this world
coming to? :-)
johnmichaelpatricksmith
Gregory J. E. Rawlins
Here are two questions and some comments on three recent articles.
-From: dave...@cis.ohio-state.edu (james l davenport)
-Subject: Mick Farren's Latest
-Message-ID: <54...@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
-Date: 10 Jul 89 17:00:08 GMT
-
-So... So you think you can tell, Heaven from Hell,
-Blue skies from Pain, Can you tell a green field,
-From a cold steel rail, a smile from a veil,
-Do you think you can tell? .......... WYWH - PF
I'm sorry, i can't parse the initials; where's this quote from?
-From: ka...@Apple.COM (Alex Kazim)
-Subject: Re: ACM takes on Cyberpunk
-Message-ID: <33...@apple.Apple.COM>
-Date: 12 Jul 89 06:06:01 GMT
-
-Reminded me of what Jim Gunn called the best typical SF opening line
-taken from a Heinlein story: "The door dilated open" or something to
-that effect.
I'm reasonably sure that the line was "The door irised open,"
and that it wasn't an opening line.
-From: pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva)
-Subject: Re: ACM takes on Cyberpunk
-Message-ID: <40...@sugar.hackercorp.com>
-Date: 11 Jul 89 02:06:48 GMT
-
-The problem is that Gibson's stuff doesn't stand up well to close inspection.
-Some of the areas that he misses are caught by other cyberpunk authors, such
-as Walter John Williams, so it's not just my imagination.
I presume you're talking about _Hardwired_? What does he do better there
that Gibson didn't do in _Mona Lisa Overdrive_?
-Not from the way I sound... from the way you read what I write. Hogan's got
-a big failure-of-the-imagination problem too. [...]
Sadly, almost everyone else does as well. Perhaps that's why we read SF.
-Try John Varley or Vernor Vinge.
Seconded. Although i fail to see how you can cavil Gibson while recommending
Vinge et al. Seems to me that Gibson's imagination is at least as good as
Vinge's.
-Ther's nothing wrong with concentrating on the style, but you have to avoid
-confusing it with real life. Some of the other posters here seem to be
-expecting to plug cyberspace decks into their heads before the turn of the
-century.
I've found that the phrase "real life" is often either a pleonasm or an
oxymoron. I'm sure that "turn of the century" (forget century, it's twelve
years to the next millenium) is far too optimistic, but i wouldn't be as
skeptical as you seem to be.
Never one to avoid beating a dead horse, here is an article i wrote last
July for alt.cyberpunk on the most probable avenue towards the first
meat/machine interface. (Personally, i give the project 40 years,
unless there's a war real soon to boost military interest in fast
response meat/machine systems, in which case i give it 15 years.)
gregory.
------------------
Subject: Jacking In for real.
References: <10...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu- <4...@buengc.BU.EDU>
In article <4...@buengc.BU.EDU- b...@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
-Old and lost references:
->>> There has been some research done on inducing visual images by
->>> electronically stimulating the optic nerves....
->>>persons the ability to "see" with the aid of certain equipment.
->
->I have seen a number of articles claiming that devices of this type
->exist/have existed yet i have yet to see any references to published
->journal articles. Can someone please provide some?
-> gregory.
-
-I don't think it's been done optically. Aurally definitely (it's
-called Cochlear Implantation; look in the SCI for the past few
-years).
I managed to track down a reference for artificial optical stimulation:
Dobelle, W. H., Mladejovsky, M. G., Girvin, J. P., ``Artificial Vision
for the Blind: Electrical Stimulation of visual cortex offers hope for
a functional prosthesis'' Science, 1974, 183, 440-444.
They placed a two-dimensional array of electrodes on the visual cortex
of peripherally blind patients and the patients were able to ``see''
geometrical patterns corresponding to the pattern of electrical
stimulation in the electrodes applied. Unfortunately, the experiment
was later called a failure because long-term electrical stimulation
caused tissue damage (perhaps through ion deposition).
Two things are interesting about this: (1) this work was done before
Hubel and Wiesel did their seminal work on the visual cortex (roughly
'77-84). Dobelle et al. were basically shooting in the dark, we know
quite a bit more now about the organization of the visual cortex and
perhaps we could even do 3-d perception and (perhaps!) colour.
(2) the new conducting plastics suggest that the same experiment done
today would not damage tissue (the plastics are not rejected by the
body).
It may not be long before there is a visual prosthesis for the
partially blind, followed by partial sight for the congenitally blind,
then perhaps a vision-extender for the normally-sighted. From there we
can hope for real cybernetic sensory extension. It may even be that
the military is already hard at work on devices of this kind. I would
appreciate any further references that seem relevant.
gregory.
--
raw...@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
Matt Womer
>
> Someone doesn't know Pink Floyd *or* Heinlein (for shame)
>
>
> The line is part of the opening line for Heinlein's _Friday_, and goes:
>
> 'The door dilated, and a man stepped through.'
>
> (I don't have the book with me, but I'm sure of everything before the comma)
I think the line you're all thinking of goes someting like this:
"As the door contracted behind him I killed him"
(My personal favorite is in _The Cat Who Walks Through Walls_
"We want you to kill a man"
"I'm not an assasin. Killing is more of a hobby. Have you had dinner?")
> A reader of alt.cyberpunk doesn't know these things? What's this world
>coming to? :-)
What *IS* the world coming to!!
Matt
Peter da Silva
> From: pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva)
> -The problem is that Gibson's stuff doesn't stand up well to close inspection.
> -Some of the areas that he misses are caught by other cyberpunk authors, such
> -as Walter John Williams, so it's not just my imagination.
> I presume you're talking about _Hardwired_? What does he do better there
> that Gibson didn't do in _Mona Lisa Overdrive_?
I always wondered why Case bothered with a keyboard. Direct neural control
of his deck would be expected to give him the same sort of edge as Cowboy
gets in Hardwired.
> -Try John Varley or Vernor Vinge.
> Seconded. Although i fail to see how you can cavil Gibson while recommending
> Vinge et al. Seems to me that Gibson's imagination is at least as good as
> Vinge's.
But Vinge rarely misses a possible application of his technology. Really, he's
quite miserly with his miracles... because he doesn't need a new set of
buzzwords for each new special effect. He understands the technology better.
More, he understands the myriad effects a new technology can have.
Look at his Realtime stories. He only uses two miracles: neural interfaces and
the bobble... and gets a hell of a lot of milage out of it.
--
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-'
...texbell!sugar!peter, or pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com 'U`
SML...@psuvm.bitnet
As neat a device as that was, I don't see much work being with it as it
involves experimentation on human subjects in a VERY delicate area. Given
the degree of protection some fanatics out there want to give to mice
involved in valid scientific research which currently cannot be conducted
any other way, I think it is just about IMPOSSIBLE to do this kind
of research at this time.
It is very unfortunate, too, as I also believe a far superior device
could be created today. It wouldn't give a person normal vision, but
I think it would allow them to get around fairly well...
Joseph Brenner
> I always wondered why Case bothered with a keyboard. Direct neural control
> of his deck would be expected to give him the same sort of edge as Cowboy
> gets in Hardwired.
I'm a little tired of this complaint. Are you so sure that
you'd be faster with some sort of artificial neural link than
by using your natural equipment? And anyway, as long as your
motor nerves are there, why not use them for something?
Let the "neural link" be dedicated to one purpose and your hands
to another. I notice that despite menus and mice Macintoshes also
have control codes.
Today, computers have keyboards and that's the image in everyone's mind.
It either didn't occur to Gibson that computers of the future might be
different, or he chose not to deviate from this image. In either case,
I fail to see how it would've made Neuromancer a better book if this one
detail were changed.
I suspect that the reason the keyboards may bother you is that you're
hung up on some fairly ordinary, mystical notions about the way
human beings work. "When his soul is in cyberspace, his body should
be immobilized, right?"
(Incidently, something I might complain about is the way Gibson deals
with "flatlining". When Neuromancer transports your soul to wherever
your brain waves go dead? Huh?)
Vinge is not bad, but you rarely get much of a feel of what it
would be like to live in one of his futures, and that feel is
an important part of the substance of an SF story. Gibson excels
at this *as well* as in matters of style (show me one Vinge sentence
with the flair of the opening line of Neuromancer).
If you want some deeper thinking about the way the world works, and
what the future might be like, I might recommend Bruce Sterling
or Gregory Benford. Vernor Vinge would be way down on the list.
Peter da Silva
> In article <40...@sugar.hackercorp.com> pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> > I always wondered why Case bothered with a keyboard. Direct neural control
> > of his deck would be expected to give him the same sort of edge as Cowboy
> > gets in Hardwired.
> I'm a little tired of this complaint. Are you so sure that
> you'd be faster with some sort of artificial neural link than
> by using your natural equipment?
Surer than I am that you'd be faster with some sort of artificial neural link
than by using your eyes. Direct neural *control* has already been demonstrated
multiple times. Peripheral nerve control of prosthetics (while not quite as
exotic) is standard (albeit advanced) technology.
> And anyway, as long as your
> motor nerves are there, why not use them for something?
So long as your sensory nerves are there, why not use them for something.
> Let the "neural link" be dedicated to one purpose and your hands
> to another. I notice that despite menus and mice Macintoshes also
> have control codes.
True, but irrelevant.
Look, it's not that Gibson thought about the alternatives and went with
Cyberspace because it made sense. He was trying for a feel, a style, and
that's what he got.
> I fail to see how it would've made Neuromancer a better book if this one
> detail were changed.
Did I say it would? I have made that claim in the past, and I still believe
it, but it's irrelevant in the context of this particular discussion.
> I suspect that the reason the keyboards may bother you is that you're
> hung up on some fairly ordinary, mystical notions about the way
> human beings work.
Not really, it's just that cyberspace is sort of backwards. The data channel
is supposedly widened to this amazing consensual hallucination, but the
control channel is narrowed down to a keyboard. Modern user interfaces are
widening the control channel (mouse + keyboard, at the very least), adding
more bandwidth.
> (Incidently, something I might complain about is the way Gibson deals
> with "flatlining". When Neuromancer transports your soul to wherever
> your brain waves go dead? Huh?)
Yes, this bugs me. But no more than (jumping to another system) Valentina,
P-1, or Harlie not having backup copies.
> Vinge is not bad, but you rarely get much of a feel of what it
> would be like to live in one of his futures, and that feel is
> an important part of the substance of an SF story. Gibson excels
> at this *as well* as in matters of style...
I would rather say he excells *because of* his control of style.
> If you want some deeper thinking about the way the world works, and
> what the future might be like, I might recommend Bruce Sterling
> or Gregory Benford. Vernor Vinge would be way down on the list.
Benford, yes. Sterling, however, leaves me kind of flat. Islands in the
Net, for example, reads more like a catalog of future societies than a
real novel.
Also, try Greg Bear or John Varley... particularly the Ophiuchi Hotline
short stories. Beatnik Bayou is excellent.
Eric S. Tiedemann
>Also, try Greg Bear or John Varley... particularly the Ophiuchi Hotline
>short stories. Beatnik Bayou is excellent.
"Ophiuchi Hotline short stories"? Speusippus! I've always thought of them
as the Eight Worlds stories, as Varley called them. Beatnik Bayou is one of
my favorites too, but I love *all* his short stories and *none* of his novels!
Eric
e...@cs.nyu.edu
Joseph Brenner
"I notice that despite menus and mice Macintoshes also
about what I meant by this.
My point is that it's easy to develop a vision of the future as
the embodiment of a single concept, but the real world frequently turns
out to be messier than that. Cars displaced horses to a large extent,
and yet we have mounted police patroling in Central Park. Further,
bicycles are still useful and everybody walks now and then.
I find it easier to believe that the future will be mixture of
visions, some of them apparently contradictory. Nothing is ever
pure.
Keyboards may be about to die out, or they may be retained in some
circumstances to do a few limited things.
I don't remember Gibson stating that all control functions are
performed via keyboard, by the way. I could be wrong about this.
I also said:
>> If you want some deeper thinking about the way the world works, and
>> what the future might be like, I might recommend Bruce Sterling
>> or Gregory Benford. Vernor Vinge would be way down on the list.
In article <40...@sugar.hackercorp.com> pe...@sugar.hackercorp.com
(Peter da Silva) writes:
That flat feeling, I bet, is the cool chill of a writer with the
courage to embrace an idiosyncratic world view that is sometimes really
bleak, cynical, perhaps anti-romantic. Like the scene in Schismatrix
where Lindsay and a female character with a body tailored to be without
ordinary human desires each shoot up with each a syringe full of each
other's hormonal context... and in the process they completely
trade viewpoints, temporarily adopting the other person's world view.
Compare this to the usual Star Trek bullshit where human emotion
always triumphs over logic. Or the cliche of telepathy/telekinesis
where emotion becomes translated directly into a physical force.
Gibson gives you something closer to an ordinary adventure story.
Sterling is Not Nice.
(I grant you, however, that Islands is a bit on the slow side. Still
look at what I said: "deeper thinking", etc. This doesn't always lend
itself to lightweight entertainment.)
>Also, try Greg Bear or John Varley... particularly the Ophiuchi Hotline
>short stories. Beatnik Bayou is excellent.
I'd go with the Greg Bear. Personally, John Varley leaves me kind of
flat. A few good ideas, but his stuff is usually too smooth, too pat.
No memorable characters. I can recall a few scenes of his short
stories, but I draw a complete blank on the plot of the Ophiuchi
Hotline, though I know I've read it.
William Lewis
>
> 'The door dilated, and a man stepped through.'
>
> (I don't have the book with me, but I'm sure of everything before the comma)
The first sentence of _Friday_, acquired from a nearby bookshelf:
As I left the Kenya Beanstalk capsule he was right on my heels.
No doors there ... Of course, it continues (to the end of the paragraph:)
He followed me through the door [aha!] leading to Customs, Health
and Immigration. As the door contracted behind him I killed him.
There we go.
> A reader of alt.cyberpunk doesn't know these things? What's this world
>coming to? :-)
>
> johnmichaelpatricksmith
--- phelliax
"It was a dark and dusty orbit. Suddenly a laser rang out! Pirates
appeared over the event horizon! An android screamed, an airlock
slammed...."
Jason Asbahr
Greets, all! (Loving this newsfeed)
(Brag alert) A couple friends and I solved the Apple // version in
one week. We also disk-edited our inventory to give us a gas mask.
(Which enables one to safely enter Maas biolabs and acquire CyberEyes.)
Now can some one tell me why this wasn't included in the mainstream of
game play? (We successfully solved Neuromancer without CyberEyes. It's
not only possible, but easy.) Still, it bothers me that such an otherwise
great game would leave that thread hanging...
Hmm...I really enjoyed Bruce Sterling's _Islands in the Net_. Then again,
I also enjoy reading the Radio Shack sales catalog. :)
do...@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joseph Brenner @ Stanford University) writes:
>(Incidently, something I might complain about is the way Gibson deals
>with "flatlining". When Neuromancer transports your soul to wherever
>your brain waves go dead? Huh?)
the tropical island in the first book. Remember that "flatline" refers
to heartrate and not brain activity. My interpretation is that
Neuromancer suspended Case's bodily functions (in the usual ICE manner)
and fed sensory data directly to Case's brain. This would indicate that
the island was "in Case's head" (actually location is not important) and
since he survived the ordeal, we can assume that the experience was NOT
in real time. :) In other words, the whole island episode was
subjectively long for Case, but objectively instantaneous. Simple, no?
Ok, refering to neural control of cyberspace (or at least of one's deck).
Well, I think Gibson largely assumed that his characters would mentally
control the deck. He seemed to describe the link between cowboy and
deck as an extension of the body. Consider the story "Dogfight" in
_Burning Chrome_... (Looking up the name...Deke!) When Deke first played
SPADS&FOKKERS, he had to concentrate to keep the Spad in existance and
directed the little plane's flight mentally/neurally. *He* didn't have a
keyboard, and he didn't need one because the control was entirely spacial
(sensory). Now, if he had wanted to enter a series of numbers, or
something non-spacial, he would have needed a keyboard. Make sense?
Besides, a computer operator clattering away on a keyboard is a classical
literary image! Where would we be without it? ;)
-Jason Asbahr, clattering away at sugar, Houston.
E-mail to: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-europa!jasona
"Hal love, mon."
William Lewis
>In article <36...@portia.Stanford.EDU>, do...@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joseph Brenner) writes:
>> (Incidently, something I might complain about is the way Gibson deals
>> with "flatlining". When Neuromancer transports your soul to wherever
>> your brain waves go dead? Huh?)
>
>Yes, this bugs me. But no more than (jumping to another system) Valentina,
>P-1, or Harlie not having backup copies.
Hmm, as I remember, P-1 *did* have backups of everything except a "nucleus",
and had to use them several times, to boot (system crashes, power blackouts,
et cetera). This was in fact the reason P-1 got in touch with (flip flip
flip) Gregory again, in the first place...
--- phelliax
"rodsasdt llllllreport*"
Joe Horowitz
> do...@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joseph Brenner @ Stanford University) writes:
>
>>(Incidently, something I might complain about is the way Gibson deals
>>with "flatlining". When Neuromancer transports your soul to wherever
>>your brain waves go dead? Huh?)
>
>I think you're refering to the part where Neuromancer "pulls" Case to
>the tropical island in the first book. Remember that "flatline" refers
>to heartrate and not brain activity. My interpretation is that
>Neuromancer suspended Case's bodily functions (in the usual ICE manner)
>and fed sensory data directly to Case's brain. This would indicate that
Wrong. Gibson specifically says the *EEG* was flatlined, there was no mention
of EKG or heart rate. I think at one point Maelcum says something like, "EEG
was *flat*, mon! Flat as a *strap*!" I have to agree with Joe that this is a
little far-fetched.
But then again, it made for a wonderful, if nonsensical, touch. I enjoy
Gibson's writing so much that things like this just don't bother me; I see it
more as a literary device to underline the strangeness of the experience, and I
think it works quite well in that way.
"The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel."
**********************************************************************
jhor...@bbn.com / Joe N. Horowitz /
**********************************************************************
Pete DiMarco and his pal Michiko
>In article <36...@portia.Stanford.EDU>, do...@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joseph Brenner) writes:
>> (Incidently, something I might complain about is the way Gibson deals
>> with "flatlining". When Neuromancer transports your soul to wherever
>> your brain waves go dead? Huh?)
>
>Yes, this bugs me. But no more than (jumping to another system) Valentina,
>P-1, or Harlie not having backup copies.
Off the subject, but P-1 *did* have a backup copy. It avoided
doing so at first because it didn't want to create a competitor for
itself. (Apparently P-1 didn't just "dump itself to tape" in fear
that the tape might be reloaded without P-1's knowledge.)
As for "flatlining," I agree - no brainwaves = no consciousness. But
it was a forgivable mistake.
- PDM
ARPA: ma...@sbcs.sunysb.edu | "Hey man, my school is insane... | "YURI!!!!"
UUCP: philabs!sbcs!marco | Hey man, my work's down the drain" | - Kei
DISCLAIMER: The above is | - Bowie, "Suffragette City" | "KEI!!!!!"
official Stony Brook policy. | Go Go Michiko! | Let's Go Tech! | - Yuri
bxr...@csc.anu.oz
view available here as to what is or is not the c-word, but then I've always
felt that the reading of any form of fiction is a matter of taste. I mean if
cyberpunk is all about form and style over content, then why isn't the weekly
Mills & Boons romance included in the list? I mean they would fit admirably
into that classic definition of the c-word.
Brian Ross
David J Rostcheck
True - but I wrote a cyberpunk story once in which people existed
as stored memory patterns in a computer (and then read about fifty other
stories by authors who had already thought of it). If the computer
can preserve a record of your neural interconnections and (presumedly
somehow) conscious/unconscious thought patterns, it could stimulate
the direct electronic input to synapse-analogs that would have controlled
physical nerves; thus it could generate a complete simulation of
reality
(everyone at once: CYBERSPACE!)
Look at the flatline (Dixie) in Neuromancer - what do you think it (he?)
is, in a way... So maybe Wintermute could read Case's neural patterns
(remember, he's neurally wired to the Net), copy him into software,
flatline the flesh, and still have a working Case...
================================================================================
Geniuses and supergeniuses always make their own rules on sex as on everything
else; they do not accept the monkey customs of their lessers.
- Robert Heinlein in Friday
jlud...@angora.dec.com
>>
>>Yes, this bugs me. But no more than (jumping to another system) Valentina,
>>P-1, or Harlie not having backup copies.
>
> Off the subject, but P-1 *did* have a backup copy. It avoided
>doing so at first because it didn't want to create a competitor for
>itself. (Apparently P-1 didn't just "dump itself to tape" in fear
>that the tape might be reloaded without P-1's knowledge.)
>
to follow you astray.....
Harlie dumped himself to tape regularly, or at least he did in the
edition that i read. that was one of the problems that they conquered
before the start of the novel, and referred to it during the story.
i say the edition that i read, because i read an updated version of
it. the author made a comment in his introduction that he was happy
he didn't win awards for the book, as purists would have screamed if
he brought in current technology.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
jonathan ludgate jludgate%ant...@decwrl.dec.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And if I smile, tell me some bad news |include generic disclaimer
Before I laugh, and act like a fool |about company and opinions
"behind blue eyes" p.t. |and not being same etc etc
=======================================================================
robert.g.robillard
>>>> your brain waves go dead? Huh?
Okay, here's what I think about flatlining. When Neuromancer does
his thing, he downloads your software (i.e. your "mind") into his
hardware (or maybe the net's or cyberspace's or wherever) You still
have consciousness, but you're not running in your brain anymore,
and so your EEG goes flat.
I don't know why the download trashes the process running on your
hardware, but that's the way I interpret the whole thing.
--
| Duke Robillard |
| Internet: r...@m21ux.att.com | BITNET: rgr%m21ux.uucp@psuvax1 |
| UUCP: {backbone!}att!m21ux!rgr | (maybe) |
Jonathan A. Chandross
> I always read flatlining as an out-of-body experience. As those people
> on operating tables seem to have. As their body "dies" on the table
> they have experiences in a different place, until they can be snatched
> back... I wonder if this isn't wasn't alluding to?
An ``out-of-the-body experience'' is just the brain hallucinating
because of oxygen deprivation and blood ion imbalances which affect
synaptic processes. Unless you're Shirley McClaine (sp), of course;
she has no brain to be affected.
dav...@wpi.wpi.edu (David J Rostcheck)
> If the computer
> can preserve a record of your neural interconnections and (presumedly
> somehow) conscious/unconscious thought patterns, it could stimulate
> the direct electronic input to synapse-analogs that would have controlled
> physical nerves; thus it could generate a complete simulation of reality
The 5 pounds of oatmeal in your head is significantly more complex
than you make it out to be. A great deal of what goes on occurs at
the synaptic level, not in the neuron proper itself. Memory and
learning are very complicated electo-chemical reactions. Check out
the literature on brain-trauma, specifically that on surgical approaches
to epilepsy. Retrograde (i.e., amnesia induced by electroshock) and
anteriograde amnesia (usually precipitated by cortical lesions or brain
trauma) all affect the biochemical process of memory. In one case
you can't remember things you used to; in the other you can't learn
acquire new memories.
Even if the computer *could* simulate your consciousness giving rise to
a pseudo-reality, it could not *store* the memory of that pseudo-reality
back into your head without performing some serious chemical adjustment of
your brain. Thus Case would not ``remember'' talking with neuromancer.
Besides, to quote Woody Allen, who would let a machine adjust with your
brain - ``Adjust my brain? But it's my second favorite organ....''
> Look at the flatline (Dixie) in Neuromancer - what do you think it (he?)
Don't you remember the first instance of Case ``meeting'' Dixie? He
jack in, said hello, and jack out. When he jacked back in again, Dixie
had no recollection of having talked with Case before. The reason given
was that Dixie was a ROM construct. Of course, this is inconsistent with
the behavior exhibited when using the icebreaker on TA. Unless Dixie was
using Cyberspace as a sort of temporary storage area.
Jonathan A. Chandross
Internet: j...@paul.rutgers.edu
UUCP: rutgers!paul.rutgers.edu!jac
Lawrence Sterzinger
In article <31...@sbcs.sunysb.edu> ma...@sbgrad6.UUCP (Pete DiMarco and his pal Michiko) writes:
>>> (Incidently, something I might complain about is the way Gibson deals
>>> with "flatlining". When Neuromancer transports your soul to wherever
>>> your brain waves go dead? Huh?)
>>
>it was a forgivable mistake.
>
I always read flatlining as an out-of-body experience. As those people
on operating tables seem to have. As their body "dies" on the table
they have experiences in a different place, until they can be snatched
back... I wonder if this isn't wasn't alluding to?
--
lawrence Support Darwinian evolution...
Destroy a weakling today!
SML...@psuvm.bitnet
>
>ster...@astroatc.UUCP (Lawrence Sterzinger)
>
>An ``out-of-the-body experience'' is just the brain hallucinating
>because of oxygen deprivation and blood ion imbalances which affect
>synaptic processes. Unless you're Shirley McClaine (sp), of course;
>she has no brain to be affected.
>
with God alot lately ?
>
>The 5 pounds of oatmeal in your head is significantly more complex
>than you make it out to be. A great deal of what goes on occurs at
>the synaptic level, not in the neuron proper itself. Memory and
>learning are very complicated electo-chemical reactions. Check out
>the literature on brain-trauma, specifically that on surgical approaches
>to epilepsy. Retrograde (i.e., amnesia induced by electroshock) and
>anteriograde amnesia (usually precipitated by cortical lesions or brain
>trauma) all affect the biochemical process of memory. In one case
>you can't remember things you used to; in the other you can't learn
>acquire new memories.
>
workings. Just a general idea of what goes on, and some interesting
ways to muck things up...
>Even if the computer *could* simulate your consciousness giving rise to
>a pseudo-reality, it could not *store* the memory of that pseudo-reality
>back into your head without performing some serious chemical adjustment of
>your brain. Thus Case would not ``remember'' talking with neuromancer.
>Besides, to quote Woody Allen, who would let a machine adjust with your
>brain - ``Adjust my brain? But it's my second favorite organ....''
>
Why not ? Just feed the info to whatever part of the brain is
responsible for storing memory as the guy comes out of his "flatlined"
trance...
>> Look at the flatline (Dixie) in Neuromancer - what do you think it (he?)
>
>Don't you remember the first instance of Case ``meeting'' Dixie? He
>jack in, said hello, and jack out. When he jacked back in again, Dixie
>had no recollection of having talked with Case before. The reason given
>was that Dixie was a ROM construct. Of course, this is inconsistent with
>the behavior exhibited when using the icebreaker on TA. Unless Dixie was
>using Cyberspace as a sort of temporary storage area.
>
Case wasn't a ROM construct, case closed.....
DDA
<31...@sbcs.sunysb.edu> <33...@wpi.wpi.edu>
Distribution: world
Keywords: flatlining, ------------------------------------------
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
In article <Jul.20.18.03...@paul.rutgers.edu>,
j...@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) writes:
[stuff deleted]
> > Look at the flatline (Dixie) in Neuromancer - what do you think it (he?)
>
> Don't you remember the first instance of Case ``meeting'' Dixie? He
> jack in, said hello, and jack out. When he jacked back in again, Dixie
> had no recollection of having talked with Case before. The reason given
> was that Dixie was a ROM construct. Of course, this is inconsistent with
> the behavior exhibited when using the icebreaker on TA. Unless Dixie was
> using Cyberspace as a sort of temporary storage area.
>
>
> Jonathan A. Chandross
> Internet: j...@paul.rutgers.edu
> UUCP: rutgers!paul.rutgers.edu!jac
If I recall correctly, case "copied" Dixie into the RAM memory of his
Hitachi, thus letting Dixie get sort of a "life" again. Of course, what
Dixie REALLY wanted, he got later from Neuromancer itself.
DDA
PENNnet Oper/Planning
I suspect that the reason the keyboards may bother you is that you're
hung up on some fairly ordinary, mystical notions about the way
human beings work. "When his soul is in cyberspace, his body should
be immobilized, right?"
Seems that this was Dr. Strange's "problem". Whenever he "projected"
he used a "throne" in his townhouse so that his physical body was
protected and imobelized. His assistant also maintained a watch over
his body lest any of the Dr.'s enemies manifest an attack.
Of course Dr. Strange was worried about the "silver cord" of astral
projection. I haven't seen a Dr. Strange comic for about 20-25 years
now. Are they still being written?
By they way, don't forget Roger Zalazney's "Coils".
Granted it's his only work in the area - unless you're an oddball
like me that finds Amber to be very descriptive of the world of
computing.
--
William H. Magill Manager, PENNnet Operations Planning
Data Communications and Computing Services (DCCS) University of Pennsylvania
Internet: mag...@dccs.upenn.edu mag...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu
mag...@upenn.edu
PENNnet Oper/Planning
The general consensus seems to be that "no brainwaves=no consciouness."
True - but I wrote a cyberpunk story once in which people existed
as stored memory patterns in a computer (and then read about fifty other
stories by authors who had already thought of it).
This also happens to be the premis behind "Red Dwarf".
At least I think that's its name. A new (to me at least) BBC
science fiction program.
One of the principal characters is a holographic projection of
a stored (dead of radiation poisioning) crew member.
Jonathan A. Chandross
> An ``out-of-the-body experience'' is just the brain hallucinating
> because of oxygen deprivation and blood ion imbalances which affect
> synaptic processes. Unless you're Shirley McClaine (sp), of course;
> she has no brain to be affected.
SML...@PSUVM.BITNET
> Not to sound anti-scientific, but how do you know ? Been talking
> with God alot lately ?
Ever hear of Occam's Razor? You take the simplest possible explanation.
If you play around with blood ionic balances you can induce all sorts of
hallucinations. (Kids, don't try this at home.)
> Last I knew, we really didn't know jack about the brains' real
> workings. Just a general idea of what goes on, and some interesting
> ways to muck things up...
Neurologists understand a great deal more about the brain's functioning
these days. Synaptic chemistry and the mechanisms of memory are understood,
at least within the context of the biochemical reactions necessary.
> Why not ? Just feed the info to whatever part of the brain is
> responsible for storing memory as the guy comes out of his "flatlined"
> trance...
You can't point to 1 part of the brain and say - that piece stores memory.
Memory is a distributed holographic process. Check out a basic neurology
book.
>> Look at the flatline (Dixie) in Neuromancer - what do you think it (he?)
jac> Don't you remember the first instance of Case ``meeting'' Dixie? He
jac> jack in, said hello, and jack out. When he jacked back in again, Dixie
jac> had no recollection of having talked with Case before. The reason given
> Case wasn't a ROM construct, case closed.....
You maybe can't read? I didn't say Case was the ROM construct, only Dixie.
Thomas Merkel
>............[ stuff deleted ]............................ You still
>have consciousness, but you're not running in your brain anymore,
>and so your EEG goes flat.
>
>I don't know why the download trashes the process running on your
>hardware, but that's the way I interpret the whole thing.
I thought that the "flatline" was a countermeasure used by systems
to attack the hardware ( physical body ) of human intruders.
While you are wandering around in cyberspace, snooping about,
other systems have access to your hardware, and will try to
shut down the host ( kill you ). If you get trapped out of your
dead body in cyberspace how long will you last? If your physical
body dies how long will the software run? You certainly aren't
going anywhere.
-Tom
--
Tom Merkel | mer...@shuxd.att.com
Keep It Simple | att!shuxd!merkel
(201)898-3547 | merkel%sh...@att.arpa
Eliot Handelman
>Just feed the info to whatever part of the brain is
>responsible for storing memory ...
Wow! Would you care to elaborate? This might help me get my thesis finished.
Peter da Silva
In article <36...@portia.Stanford.EDU>, do...@portia.Stanford.EDU (Joseph Brenner) writes:
> That flat feeling, I bet, is the cool chill of a writer with the
> courage to embrace an idiosyncratic world view that is sometimes really
> bleak, cynical, perhaps anti-romantic.
Not really. There are other authors who do a better job of presenting that
sort of world-view. John Brunner, for example, in _Stand on Zanzibar_. Or
Harlan Ellison (yes, I know, not (necessarily) cyberpunk...).
The flat feeling is because I find it hard to believe in the society as
he presents it. He never makes me believe that a society like any of the
ones presented in his book could really exist.
> and in the process they completely
> trade viewpoints, temporarily adopting the other person's world view.
No big deal. That goes on in real SF all the time.
You might even like Jack Chalker's stuff. All he writes about is how the
body controls the mind.
> Compare this to the usual Star Trek bullshit...
Agreed. The operative word is bullshit. And little to do with real SF...
whether cyberpunk or not.
> >Also, try Greg Bear or John Varley... particularly the Ophiuchi Hotline
> >short stories. Beatnik Bayou is excellent.
> I'd go with the Greg Bear. Personally, John Varley leaves me kind of
> flat. ... I can recall a few scenes of his short
> stories, but I draw a complete blank on the plot of the Ophiuchi
> Hotline, though I know I've read it.
Agreed. He can't keep control of an idea long enough to write a novel. That's
why I recommended his short stories... the ones set in the O.H. universe.
Peter da Silva
> Of course, this is inconsistent with
> the behavior exhibited when using the icebreaker on TA. Unless Dixie was
> using Cyberspace as a sort of temporary storage area.
Dixie was using RAM in Case's deck. I'm sure Gibson explicitly stated that
at some point.
David Wright
I find the idea that somehow the local end (human in this case)
could be killed in the way they describe a little hard to believe. It
supposes that you have no outside control, andmust somehow return to a
set location in order to re-enter your body. But Case repeatedly flips
in and out of cyberspace when he is "riding" on the girl. Now I guess you
could look at this in some kind of mystical light, but the only way that
I see it is that you could be prevented from removing yourself (jacking
out) on your own. But I don't see any way that you could be stuck should
someone at your physical location remove your 'trodes and thereby snap you back
into your body. In fact, in one of the other stories, someones box begins to smoke
and a third party shuts it off and the person in cyberspace pops right
back...
Dave
Craig S. Wilson
>
>You can't point to 1 part of the brain and say - that piece stores memory.
>Memory is a distributed holographic process. Check out a basic neurology
>book.
>
Oh, I don't know, I caught part of a TV show on memory the other night
and they showed result of experimentation which DID pinpoint the
location of a memory stored in a rabbit's brain. I also remember a
movie in school, eons ago, that showed electric stimuli being applied
to a guy's brain. Depending upon where they applied the probe, the
guy re-experienced the memory stored there. He didn't just recall it,
he experienced it like the first time. Sights, sounds, smells, etc.
Craig S. Wilson | Brilliant Pebbles: |{amdahl|hpda}!bungia!com50!craig
Com Squared Systems, Inc| |cr...@c2s.mn.org
2520 Pilot Knob Road | DUMB Idea!!! |(612) 452-9522 voice
Mendota Heights MN 55120| |(612) 452-3607 fax
Jonathan A. Chandross
>You can't point to 1 part of the brain and say - that piece stores memory.
>Memory is a distributed holographic process. Check out a basic neurology
>book.
cr...@com2serv.C2S.MN.ORG (Craig S. Wilson)
> Oh, I don't know, I caught part of a TV show on memory the other night
> and they showed result of experimentation which DID pinpoint the
> location of a memory stored in a rabbit's brain.
Television is not a reputable source for neurological data. Lashley
was dead wrong. The mythical ``engram'' is indeed, just that: mythical.
It is impossible for what you said to have occurred.
> I also remember a
> movie in school, eons ago, that showed electric stimuli being applied
> to a guy's brain. Depending upon where they applied the probe, the
> guy re-experienced the memory stored there. He didn't just recall it,
> he experienced it like the first time. Sights, sounds, smells, etc.
NO. NO. NO.
What happened was that neural firing was induced in one spot, in a
pattern of spreading activation, caused other firings. Memory is
*NOT* localized to specific neurons. It is holographic and distributed.
You can't point to 1 neuron and say ``that stores the fact that you
like tomato soup.'' It just doesn't work that way.
Secondly, you don't know that it was just as good as the original.
There is significant, well, digitization error in memory acquisition.
Furthermore, humans are incapable of remembering pain and can only
remember colors poorly. So it is a dubious assertion, at best to
insist that it was as real as the original experience. After all,
there is absolutely no sound basis for any comparison.
Why don't you go off to your library and check out some basic
neurological textbooks. If you don't want to read the hard
stuff, you should check out Ulric Neisser's book called something
like _Memory Observed: Memory in Natural Contexts_.
Pete DiMarco and his pal Michiko
>In article <Jul.21.23.42....@paul.rutgers.edu> j...@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) writes:
>>
>>You can't point to 1 part of the brain and say - that piece stores memory.
>>Memory is a distributed holographic process. Check out a basic neurology
>>book.
>>
>
>Oh, I don't know, I caught part of a TV show on memory the other night
>and they showed result of experimentation which DID pinpoint the
>location of a memory stored in a rabbit's brain. I also remember a
>movie in school, eons ago, that showed electric stimuli being applied
>to a guy's brain. Depending upon where they applied the probe, the
>guy re-experienced the memory stored there. He didn't just recall it,
>he experienced it like the first time. Sights, sounds, smells, etc.
The human experiments were probably performed by a particular
neurosurgeon (his name escapes me) during the 50s and 60s. He became
rather famous for these experiments, but unfortunately they wound up
in the irreproducible results bin over time.
It's important to realize that what may be happening when such
stimuli are applied is the activation of one or more modules[1] in
other places of the brain, rather than actually activating a "storage
location."
Some experiments have been done with rats that have been trained to
run through mazes, where the rats have varying amounts of brain tissue
removed from their cerebral cortex. The experimenters found that they
could not locate a specific region where the "maze memories" were
stored. Instead they found that the more tissue they removed, the
poorer the rats' overall performance became.
- PDM
[1]Check out chapt 17 of MacClelland & Rummelhardts' _Parallel Distributed
Processing_
SML...@psuvm.bitnet
a "flatlined" brain is in a sort of stasis with the body being maintained
by the machine that one is hooked into, it is not impossible to give the
person a real feeling that one experienced whatever occurred during this
period.
It is obvious that the brain can handle an incredible amount of input
at a very rapid rate (you wouldn't be reading this if it couldn't), there-
fore why can't a machine be built which could take advantage of some
architecture in the brain to rapidly feed in information to the short
term memory. (ie a blipvert for Max Headroom Fans). Remember, this
is SF, and the brain is VERY poorly understood, so I can theorize
just about anything and there is NO way to disprove it currently...
Although I think it's a lot of fun to extrapolate about this technology,
some people out there are taking this FAR too seriously. Lighten up
guys, it's only a novel....
Eliot Handelman
>why can't a machine be built which could take advantage of some
>architecture in the brain to rapidly feed in information to the short
>term memory.
Such a machine has been built. It's called Cable TV.
SML...@psuvm.bitnet
to label something you don't understand as "impossible".
Eliot Handelman
* In article <96...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>, el...@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) says:
* >In article <89208.104552SML108@PSUVM> SML...@PSUVM.BITNET writes:
* >>why can't a machine be built which could take advantage of some
* >>architecture in the brain to rapidly feed in information to the short
* >>term memory.
* >Such a machine has been built. It's called Cable TV.
* Oh phooey, you know what I mean, I was just stating that it is silly
* to label something you don't understand as "impossible".
I don't call it impossible, I was just commenting on its desireability.
Incidentally, a much simpler problem than the one you pose is building an
artificial eye or an artificial ear. Good luck, Mr. Phelps.
Paul T.S. Lee
> In article <Jul.20.18.03...@paul.rutgers.edu>,
> j...@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) writes:
>>
>> Don't you remember the first instance of Case ``meeting'' Dixie? He
>> jack in, said hello, and jack out. When he jacked back in again, Dixie
>> had no recollection of having talked with Case before. The reason given
>> was that Dixie was a ROM construct. Of course, this is inconsistent with
>> the behavior exhibited when using the icebreaker on TA. Unless Dixie was
>> using Cyberspace as a sort of temporary storage area.
>>
>>
>> Jonathan A. Chandross
>> Internet: j...@paul.rutgers.edu
>> UUCP: rutgers!paul.rutgers.edu!jac
>
> If I recall correctly, case "copied" Dixie into the RAM memory of his
> Hitachi, thus letting Dixie get sort of a "life" again. Of course, what
> Dixie REALLY wanted, he got later from Neuromancer itself.
>
> DDA
Sorry guys, but I think you both missed something. If you think of Dixie
as just a big ROM, then the first two times that Case slotted the Dix is
equivalent to two reboots. Each time Case gave Dixie the same input - i.e.
asked him if he knew who Case was - and each time Dix responded with the
same answer. So far so good. Then Case asks Dix if "he" can have the
equivalent of memory/experience if he some some RAM to work with. Dix says
maybe so Case tells the Hosaka to start keeping a record of what Dixie
does. Natch, the Dix gets to have some memories. This was not in
Cyberspace, in the same sense that the Dix is not in Cyberspace. The Dix
is just a very complex program. I guess the $2 word to use here is
"deterministic". The Dix can't be truely creative. The RAM just gives him
a reference point in time.
Of course, this is not at all the same as what Case goes through when he
flatlines. The question you have to decide on first is whether or not
Gibson depends on the existence of the Soul. Assuming that he does, and
that the soul is indivisible, then the soul is what makes the difference
between Dix and Case important to Neuromancer. You have to remember that
simstim is sophisticated enough for one person to completely inhabit
another's sensorium. Just remember Molly's rig. Cyberspace is, in one
sense a much less sophisticated version of a full, human sensorium; but
they grew out of the same technology.
When someone jacks in, they are (IMHO) experiencing the matrix in the same
way that a computer would do so, through the paradigm (sp?) of pure logic
and geometry. The deck translates this into a visual format which a person
can grasp. In order for this to happen, there must have been some major
breakthrough in terms of understanding the brain at the biochemical as well
as the neurological level. Note that in _Count Zero_, Rudy (Turner's
brother) wanted to get his hands on a full function brain analyzer to look
at Angie. Given that a person's brain can be mapped out in this manner,
there is no reason why Neuromancer cannot also do this through Case's deck.
This is where it starts to get sticky. We go back to the concept of souls.
If you postulate that a soul can inhabit an electrical pattern in silicon
as well as in carbon, then everything makes sense. Case's EEG goes flat
because his soul went into the matrix (more specifically, Neuromancer's
part of it). This question gets a little tougher to answer when you turn
to Linda Lee. It's possible that Linda was completed pulled into the
matrix, and Neuromancer just left an autonomous program running in Linda's
body (the ultimate post-hypnotic suggestion), knowing that she (at least
her body) will die soon. Wintermute probably has the same ability, at
least on the personality level. If you look at the different way that the
two AI's respond to Case's questions, you can see the difference between
them. Whereas Wintermute is very procedural, Neuromancer is pure reaction,
improvizational.
One of the ideas I like to fool around with is that souls also mate and
procreate. This is almost the only way to explain what happened to the
matrix between _Neuromancer_ and _Count Zero_. The original synthesis
between Neuromancer and Wintermute resulted in a "super-soul" which broke
down into lesser parts as it filled the matrix, seeking experience.
In _Mono Lisa Overdrive_ this is extended to acquiring more souls. Aleph
is the ultimate storage device. As long as it had power, it can simulate
anything that anyone would desire. Bobby, Angie, the Finn, and any number
of "legba" (I can almost see the Wintermute in this) in residing in it, and
not just in simulation, because I believe that their souls inhabit it.
Kinda makes you wonder what the next book could be like. No wonder Gibson
wants to stop.
****************************************************************************
Paul Tien-Shih Lee |cth...@claris.com
Claris Corporation, SQA Division|{ames,apple,sun,portal,voder}claris!cthulhu
Disclaimer: Dis is my claimer. |AppleLink PE:Paul Lee
If Claris wants one, it can get |AppleLink: D0667
its own. All hail Discordia! |(coming soon to a network near you)
****************************************************************************
BTW, the Hitachi is his deck. The Hosaka is his computer/TV.
Paul T.S. Lee
> j...@paul.rutgers.edu (Jonathan A. Chandross) writes:
>>You can't point to 1 part of the brain and say - that piece stores memory.
>>Memory is a distributed holographic process. Check out a basic neurology
>>book.
>
> cr...@com2serv.C2S.MN.ORG (Craig S. Wilson)
>> movie in school, eons ago, that showed electric stimuli being applied
>> to a guy's brain. Depending upon where they applied the probe, the
>> guy re-experienced the memory stored there. He didn't just recall it,
>> he experienced it like the first time. Sights, sounds, smells, etc.
>
> NO. NO. NO.
>
> What happened was that neural firing was induced in one spot, in a
> pattern of spreading activation, caused other firings. Memory is
> *NOT* localized to specific neurons. It is holographic and distributed.
> You can't point to 1 neuron and say ``that stores the fact that you
> like tomato soup.'' It just doesn't work that way.
No. No. No. (Didn't someone just say that?)
*You* are now bringing the idea of "judgement" into it. I believe that we
were originally concerned with only the concept of "experience" or
"memory", which is spotty at best for most people. I have no problems with
the holographic memory model. It explains very nicely how we can store the
amount of data we have in the brain and still retrieve most of it quickly.
However, just because a particular memory (meme?) is stored as a pattern
over the entire brain, it's retrival is still something of a mystery to
most scientists. The current ideas of "associative" memory seems to work
fairly well, so much so that I think whatever we discover the mechanism to
be, it will be closed to that model. If that is the case, there is no
reason why the brain has a "map" of these trigger zones which are wired up
in some bizarre way. Accessing one of these "zones" could bring about full
recall.
> Secondly, you don't know that it was just as good as the original.
> There is significant, well, digitization error in memory acquisition.
> Furthermore, humans are incapable of remembering pain and can only
> remember colors poorly. So it is a dubious assertion, at best to
> insist that it was as real as the original experience. After all,
> there is absolutely no sound basis for any comparison.
That's because we haven't designed an experiment which will test for it.
It means being able to tap into someone's sensorium at birth and record
that person's life. That way, when we trigger a particular memory, we can
record the "rerun" and compare it to the original and see how close the
reproduction is. Any other way would involve judgement on the part of the
subject, which means the application of an non-objective filter over the
experience. However, for the person experiencing the replay, it could seem
as real as the original, regardless of any measurement we may attempt to
make. As much as we would like to avoid it, we are our own ultimate judge
of reality.
> Why don't you go off to your library and check out some basic
> neurological textbooks. If you don't want to read the hard
> stuff, you should check out Ulric Neisser's book called something
> like _Memory Observed: Memory in Natural Contexts_.
Thanks for the info. I'm interested in memory and neurological models.
> Jonathan A. Chandross
> Internet: j...@paul.rutgers.edu
> UUCP: rutgers!paul.rutgers.edu!jac
****************************************************************************
Marc W. Mengel
> I find the idea that somehow the local end (human in this case)
>could be killed in the way they describe a little hard to believe. It
>supposes that you have no outside control, andmust somehow return to a
>set location in order to re-enter your body.
>someone at your physical location remove your 'trodes and thereby snap you back
>into your body. In fact, in one of the other stories, someones box begins to smoke
>and a third party shuts it off and the person in cyberspace pops right
>back...
I am reminded of a program a friend of mine (hi ksb) wrote
when he was younger and more obnoxious, which smoked TRS-80s
by turning the tape recorder power relay on and off faster and
faster and faster (RadioShack salesman "don't worry, nothing you
type on the keyboard can hurt the computer", suddenly minutes later
a whine of increasing pitch, culminating in a puff of black smoke...)
The sensory apparatus could be used to create the equivalent of
an epilleptic sesiure if it were used to send signals which could
not be generated by actual nervous system parts; i.e. trigger on
and off so rapidly the neurons cannot manufacture enough
neurotransmitters, etc.
--
Marc Mengel mme...@cuuxb.att.com
attmail!mmengel
...!{lll-crg|att}!cuuxb!mmengel
Jonathan A. Chandross
> The sensory apparatus could be used to create the equivalent of
> an epilleptic sesiure if it were used to send signals which could
> not be generated by actual nervous system parts; i.e. trigger on
> and off so rapidly the neurons cannot manufacture enough
> neurotransmitters, etc.
The problem is not manufacturing neurotransmitters at all.
Drugs like cocaine work by causing intense neural firing. After a
while the supply of neurotransmitters is depeleted and the firing
dies down. Of course, the user's brain is now functioning poorly,
due to a lack of neurotransmitters, and the user seeks out more
cocaine in attempt to feel better. The process is then repeated.
After a several days binge, the brain's supplies are thoroughly
exhausted, and the classic cocaine psychosis manifests itself.
Epilepsy, on the other hand, is caused by synchronous neural firing,
not chaotic. This is why severing the corpus collosum works - signals
from one side of the brain must now travel through the back of the brain
to get to the other side. The delay induced is sufficiently large that
sympathetic oscillation does cannot occur. (Individuals treated in
this way also have perceptual difficulties from the surgery.) Milder
cases are treated using drugs which help to cut down on the firing
rate. Manic depressives and schizophrenia are treated in much the
same way.
Rapidly flashing lights will induce epileptic seizures in those
susceptible. So will certain audible frequencies, although this
is less common.
Neither cocaine nor flashing lights will induce ``flatlining'',
that is, a flat EEG. If your EEG goes flat, you're in serious
trouble, son, because it isn't at all likely to come back. Going
into a coma isn't like going to the local 7-11.
Gibson writes mean prose, but his scientific knowledge isn't much
beyond 4th grade. (Which he even admits.) In fact, every hacker
knows it's:
``when counter decrements to zero generate an interrupt,''
not
``upon receiving an interrupt decrement counter to zero.''
John Mackin
(Pete DiMarco and his pal Michiko) writes:
> In article <21...@com50.C2S.MN.ORG> cr...@com2serv.c2s.mn.org
(Craig S. Wilson) writes:
> >I also remember a
> >movie in school, eons ago, that showed electric stimuli being applied
> >to a guy's brain. Depending upon where they applied the probe, the
> >guy re-experienced the memory stored there. He didn't just recall it,
> >he experienced it like the first time. Sights, sounds, smells, etc.
> The human experiments were probably performed by a particular
> neurosurgeon (his name escapes me) during the 50s and 60s. He became
> rather famous for these experiments, but unfortunately they wound up
> in the irreproducible results bin over time.
The scientist's name was Wilder Penfield. Michael Crichton made
use of his alleged results as a basis for his novel `The Terminal
Man'. It is quite correct that no one has ever been able to
reproduce Penfield's results, and that work is in fact thoroughly
discredited.
John Mackin, Basser Department of Computer Science,
University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
jo...@basser.oz.AU (john%basser...@UUNET.UU.NET)
{uunet,mcvax,ukc,nttlab}!munnari!basser.oz!john
Jason Asbahr
"Giant leap for mankind..."
Not exactly cyberpunk, but...
Space colonization is the next step for humanity. The "Mayflower analogy"
is an old idea for us, but it seems that most Americans think of space as
little more than a waste of tax dollars.
(Or the source of alien Elvis impersonaters!)
I think we ought to put more energy into space station Freedom and a moon
base than on the Mars exploration. Bush is looking for another "first"
for the American side of the space race, when we really need a permanent
off-world "biosphere". (Maybe a "biocube" - heh)
At the last tech symposium at UH Clear Lake, the very last speaker from
NASA talked (for quite a long time) about the hazards of space travel.
He discussed radition risks and the necessity of shielded moon bases. I
didn't know that astronauts could only take part in a very limited number
of flights before they have been exposed to a high level of cosmic
radiation. And what a gamble it is to have a manned shuttle in orbit!
If they were unlucky enough to be outside during a suddenly solar flare,
they might not even survive! (Levels of radiation is the problem...)
We should use the station as a permanent life settlement and as a
mid-point stop on the way to the moon. After a few years of
experimentation and learning, we should use the gathered knowledge to
build a scientific base on the moon. Set up networks, grow plants, work
on making the biosphere completely self-sustaining!
We need a satellite workshop... We need atmosphere-free telescopes...
We need to reap the benefits of zero-gravity technology!
We need to break the shackles that limit human expansion!
And as for the "Exploratation Earth" idea, let the collective users fund
it.
-Jason Asbahr
Today, the world. Tomorrow, the stars!
Frank Salerno
->From: SML...@PSUVM.BITNET
->Organization: Penn State University - Center for Academic
->
->reasonable to assume that
->a "flatlined" brain is in a sort of stasis with the body
->being maintained
Just noticed this thread on flatlining. Thought I could clear it up
using a quote from the horse's mouth... William Gibson describes, in a
interview with "Mississippi Review", "'Flatlining' is ambulance-driber slang
for death. I heard it in a bar maybe twenty years ago, and it stuck with
me. A drunken, crying ambulance driver saying, 'She flatlined.' I used a
lot of phrases that seem exotic to everyone but the people who *use* them."
So when he says flatlined it simply means their heart stopped beating. The
line of on the EKG became flat. Anyway, just because your heart stops
beating it certainly doesn't mean your brain stops thinking, not at least
for another 4 minutes or so.
This was found in a interview collage in the latest issue of "Whole Earth
Review" (An issue I recommend to you all, Summer 1989). The main focus of
this issue is "Is the Body Obsolete?" with several different people's
opinions, starting with Stelarc, the man who likes to stick hooks through
his skin and hang himself from them over cities. It's very Cyberpunk
related, as Whole Earth has been becoming recently.
Frank
--
Fidonet: Frank Salerno via 1:363/9
Internet: Frank....@f17.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Usenet: ...!peora!rtmvax!libcmp!mamab!17!Frank.Salerno
David R. Shook
>"Giant leap for mankind..."
>
>Not exactly cyberpunk, but...
No, but close enough. After all, they had space stations
in Neuromancer, right? :^)
>Space colonization is the next step for humanity.
>... it seems that most Americans think of space as
>little more than a waste of tax dollars.
Very narrow minded of them. At the *very* least, they should think of it as
a low priority use of tax dollars.
>I think we ought to put more energy into space station Freedom and a moon
>base than on the Mars exploration. Bush is looking for another "first"
>for the American side of the space race, when we really need a permanent
>off-world "biosphere". (Maybe a "biocube" - heh)
As I understand it, Mars is a very far off, romantic kinda arbitrary goal
to set our sights on and Bush plans on building the space station, etc.
first. I expect that the republican rational for this is that "if you
can't have a war to boost the economy and make the numbers look good,
you might as well conquor space; that requires lots of industry and makes
lots of jobs. Looks good on the resume, too."
> ... stuff about radiation in space ...
Just use lots of sunscreen... :^)
>We should use the station as a permanent life settlement and as a
>mid-point stop on the way to the moon. After a few years of
>experimentation and learning, we should use the gathered knowledge to
>build a scientific base on the moon. Set up networks, grow plants, work
>on making the biosphere completely self-sustaining!
More or less what Bush is planning, though he does seem to be in a bit of a
hurry to get to Mars, doesn't he?
>We need a satellite workshop... We need atmosphere-free telescopes...
> We need to reap the benefits of zero-gravity technology!
>
> We need to break the shackles that limit human expansion!
>
>And as for the "Exploratation Earth" idea, let the collective users fund
>it.
What exactly do we "need" all this stuff for? Because it's neat? To advance
Science (said with a loud, deep voice...)? Because it's going to make lots
of money so's everyone will be rich? I dunno...
Don't get me wrong, I think we need to explore space and build a space
station and all that. But I think it's very important that we understand
why we're doing it. Otherwise it won't sell and it won't have a proper
"direction" or "theme" or something, which may sound vauge but I think is
very important; If we're going to do this, we should do it right and
efficiently, rather than bumbling around, doing things for political or other
stupid reasons.
I mean, Jason here says "let the collective users fund 'Exploration
Earth'". Frankly I don't know too much about "Exp. Earth", but I get the
idea that it involves solving problems on earth first. Whatever.
But who does he think is going to fund the space station? The collective
users of earth, that's who! And why should they spend money on a space
station, when there are so many problems to solve down here? I mean,
we're on the verge of destroying our planet, environmentaly if not atomicly,
we're going to run out of oil sooner or later, there are lots of homeless,
hungry people running around, and Ignorance
abounds. (IMHO, Ignorance is our #1 problem and education should be
our #1 priority.) Not to mention the national debt, etc. It (a space
station) certainly isn't going to solve
the problems directly and it sure ain't gonna solve the national debt.
So what it comes down to is we have X amount of money/resources; how
can we best spend them to solve our problems and make life in the future
better for all?
So why build a space station? Self sufficient and all that? So when we
destroy Earth, we won't be wiped out as a species? Is it really that
hopeless down here? And if we can't survive on earth, what makes
you think we can survive in space? Whatever. Maybe we fucked up
and we'll do better next time. Still not the best of reasons, IMHO.
So how DO we justify it? Can we say that it will give the economy a
boost (via new jobs/new technology)? But will that buy us more time
to solve our problems down here or will it just hasten our end?
(I mean we do have FINITE resources...) No one's come up with much
convincing evidence that low grav tech is going to be all that valuable.
Actually, I do think we stand to
learn a lot by taking on a new chalenge of conquering the unknown and new
technology almost allways proves valuable in the long run, but do we
need this knowledge right now, and
at what cost? Then again, who knows, maybe republican economics will work out
after all (see above). And what the hell good is peering into the depths
of the cosmos going to do us? I know we're all curious, but how much
are we going to spend to satisfy our curiosity? And are we going to get
more value for our money, in the long run, by sending humans or robots
into space? And are we going to be able to support ANYTHING, ANYWHERE, if
we don't solve our problems here on earth?
But going out and exploring space does "feel right" to me. At least, if we're
going to build truely self-sufficient colonies in space, we're going to have to
learn a lot of environmental science to make it work, and we're going to
have to develop a near-utopic micro-community, or things could get out of
hand REAL fast. And I'd be the first to say that Knowledge is good stuff.
Exploring space is also certainly a better way of "investing" our earnings
than building bombers and fighting wars.
I just think we need to figure out our priorities, figure out why we're
doing things, and balance our spending accordingly. And, oddly enough,
I'd much rather have the government spending money on space
stations than bombers; it's the only
thing that Bush has actually DONE (sorta) so far that's made me happy.
All right, enough blather. What do y'all think? Follow-ups to
alt.cyberpunk, or e-mail me directly. I don't follow sci.space, just wanted
some more feed back.
> -Jason Asbahr
>
>Today, the world. Tomorrow, the stars!
Funny, I think that's what I was trying to say...
Dave. (sh...@boulder.colorado.edu)
Joe Horowitz
(Frank Salerno) writes:
>
>
>Just noticed this thread on flatlining. Thought I could clear it up
>using a quote from the horse's mouth... William Gibson describes, in a
>interview with "Mississippi Review", "'Flatlining' is ambulance-driber slang
>for death. I heard it in a bar maybe twenty years ago, and it stuck with
>me. A drunken, crying ambulance driver saying, 'She flatlined.' I used a
>lot of phrases that seem exotic to everyone but the people who *use* them."
>So when he says flatlined it simply means their heart stopped beating. The
>line of on the EKG became flat. Anyway, just because your heart stops
>beating it certainly doesn't mean your brain stops thinking, not at least
>for another 4 minutes or so.
For Gibson to say that the term 'flatlining' refers to death doesn't
necessarily mean that "it simply means their (sic) heart stopped beating".
That's one (clinical) definition of death, but not the only thing generally
meant by 'death'. Besides, I hate to burst your bubble, but in _Neuromancer_
Gibson more than once specifically refers to the *EEG* going flatline in these
cases. I don't believe he ever mentions EKG. So it sounds suspiciously like
he's talking about *braindeath*, which isn't normally considered to be a
temporary phenomenon.
"Do you *really* imagine, even in your wildest dreams, that a girl like this
could possibly be interested in an aging, brilliantined stick insect like
you?" --Sybil to Basil, _Fawlty Towers_
**********************************************************************
jhor...@bbn.com / Joe N. Horowitz /
**********************************************************************
Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ
>
> So why build a space station? Self sufficient and all that? So when we
> destroy Earth, we won't be wiped out as a species?
Are you sure this is a bad thing? I would think that destroying
Earth is a sufficient reason for wiping us out as a species.
> Is it really that
> hopeless down here? And if we can't survive on earth, what makes
> you think we can survive in space? Whatever. Maybe we fucked up
> and we'll do better next time.
Yes it's really that hopeless down here. No, we're not likely to do
better next time.
> I just think we need to figure out our priorities, figure out why we're
> doing things, and balance our spending accordingly. And, oddly enough,
> I'd much rather have the government spending money on space
> stations than bombers; it's the only
> thing that Bush has actually DONE (sorta) so far that's made me happy.
There's something wrong with your priorities. If you believe that we
are destroying Earth, you should be in favor or bombers so we can
get those guys in Brazil who are burning down the rain
forests. (Also so we can get those guys in the US who are destroying
the ozone, those guys in the Phillipines who are destroying the
reefs with cyanide, those guys in Japan who are killing the oceans
with nets miles long, those guys in New York who are dumping sledge
in the ocean, those guys in the Gulf Coast who are killing sea
turtles, etc.) Clearly, bombers would be much more useful.
Jim Winer ..!lzfme!jwi (Please don't email, unable to reply.)
Those persons who advocate censorship offend my religion.
Upuaut: a wolf-headed Egyptian deity | Voodoo: the art of sticking ideas
assigned as Guidance System | into people and watching
for the Barque of Ra. | them bleed.
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily
John Windmueller
->meant by 'death'. Besides, I hate to burst your bubble,
->but in _Neuromancer_
->Gibson more than once specifically refers to the *EEG*
He makes the reference to the EEG at the very end of chapter nine. However,
I think Frank is right and it's a misprint for two reasons:
1) When Case "flatlines" he still has thoughts. This happened both with
Wintermute as well as Neuromancer. Althought the brain still functions with
thought when the heart stops, if the EEG readings were flat he would NOT
have had the experienced that he did.
2) Frank's quote from the author himself if very clear in its deffinition
of flatlining.
3) In the adventure game Neuromancer (produced with the Gibson's assistance)
"flatlining" is listed as EKG and is used by the AI (or black ice) to stop
the users heart until he dies.
If I'm correct there is even a reference in Neuromancer to that extent.
I'll see what I can dig up.
--John
--
Don't trust that map entry. Try "...peora!tarpit!libcmp!mamab" first.
Fidonet: John Windmueller via 1:363/9
Internet: John.Win...@f17.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Usenet: ...!peora!tarpit!libcmp!mamab!17!John.Windmueller
Peter da Silva
> Yes it's really that hopeless down here. No, we're not likely to do
> better next time.
See "The Helix and the Sword", by John McLauchlin (spelling optional). Wake
you up, it will. There's more to SF than Cyberpunk.
Richard Threadgill
Simple: We're now at the Mad Tea Party. While there's lots of space left
here on Earth, there isn't anywhere for people to go AWAY. The land area on
the planet which has not been touched by humans is samll; The land area where
you can go to be outside of any current gov't doesn't exist.
As well, we have a very real too many eggs in too small a basket problem.
If we throw the species to space, there is no guarantee that we won't kill
the next planet we alight on... and the next, and the next. But there is a
much higher chance that we'll eventually get it right than there is here,
where the actions of a very small number of people can destroy the planet.
If George Bush goes nuts tomorrow, we'll still be stranded _On The Beach_.
Admittedly unlikely... but not a bet I want to take. I'm all for getting
the hell out. Which is precisely what I'm working on.
So, would any of the "Fix Earth first" contigent like to stop me? I'm
not asking for your help. I'm just going to go my merry way...
Up.
RichardT
"If you have one problem you can't solve, get another just like it.
Maybe they'll solve each other."
David R. Shook
>So whyinthehell should we go to space?
>Simple: We're now at the Mad Tea Party.
>the hell out. Which is precisely what I'm working on.
>
>So, would any of the "Fix Earth first" contigent like to stop me? I'm
>not asking for your help. I'm just going to go my merry way...
>Up.
What makes you so sure you can do it without the help of the "Fix Earth First"
contingent? All I'm saying is, let's make sure the old Earth lasts (at least)
long enough for us to escape, preferably in style.
>RichardT
>"If you have one problem you can't solve, get another just like it.
>Maybe they'll solve each other."
Just so; Self-sustaining space colonies <==> Earth.
Dave.
David R. Shook
-> David R. Shook writes:
->
-> So why build a space station? Self sufficient and all that? So when we
-> destroy Earth, we won't be wiped out as a species?
>Are you sure this is a bad thing? I would think that destroying
>Earth is a sufficient reason for wiping us out as a species.
Why? We make one little mistake and you want to forget the whole game?
-> Is it really that
-> hopeless down here? And if we can't survive on earth, what makes
-> you think we can survive in space? Whatever. Maybe we fucked up
-> and we'll do better next time.
>
>Yes it's really that hopeless down here. No, we're not likely to do
>better next time.
Again, why? You think we have no capacity to learn from our mistakes?
We may be slow, but we do usually get a clue once it hits us in the
face a few hundred times.
-> I just think we need to figure out our priorities, figure out why we're
-> doing things, and balance our spending accordingly. And, oddly enough,
-> I'd much rather have the government spending money on space
-> stations than bombers; it's the only
-> thing that Bush has actually DONE (sorta) so far that's made me happy.
>
>There's something wrong with your priorities. If you believe that we
>are destroying Earth, you should be in favor or bombers so we can
>get those guys in Brazil who are burning down the rain
>forests. (Also so we can get those guys in the US who are destroying
>the ozone, those guys in the Phillipines who are destroying the
>reefs with cyanide, those guys in Japan who are killing the oceans
>with nets miles long, those guys in New York who are dumping sledge
>in the ocean, those guys in the Gulf Coast who are killing sea
>turtles, etc.) Clearly, bombers would be much more useful.
This is, like, satire, right? If so it's not very imaginative.
If not, ... no it's gotta be satire.
You *are* quite the pessimist though, aren't you?
>Jim Winer ..!lzfme!jwi (Please don't email, unable to reply.)
>
>Those persons who advocate censorship offend my religion.
Yeah, mine too. And I'd like to *censored* those guys with their fucking
anti-flag-burning bill. But that IS another news group...
Dave.
Gary Gray
>A good reason mankind should try getting out to space is that we need a
>FRONTIER!
>
>Somewhere for all the malcontents to go and start up their own societies.
>
Hmmm... do you think that this is the reason for the concept of cyberspace?
If you can't find a frontier, make one.
or....
Ocean bottoms, anyone?
I think the major problem, though, is that any frontier HAS to be outside
of the communication network of the society. Otherwise, They know where you
live, and They know what you're doing. Perhaps space IS the only frontier...
fortunatly, it's infinite... (or so it seems)
-----
WARNING!! the opinions expressed above can be HAZARDOUS or FATAL if swallowed!
>> this space unintentionally left blank <<
Gary Gray - inet gg...@wpi.wpi.edu - bitnet gg...@wpi.bitnet - GEnie G.GRAY6
Roger Lewis
>In article <94...@venera.isi.edu> rle...@venera.isi.edu.UUCP (Roger Lewis) writes:
>>A good reason mankind should try getting out to space is that we need a
>>FRONTIER!
>>
>>Somewhere for all the malcontents to go and start up their own societies.
>>
>
>Hmmm... do you think that this is the reason for the concept of cyberspace?
>
>If you can't find a frontier, make one.
Right. But if they can shoot you (in their reality) for not being a good
little citizen, spending ones time in the net or cyberspace isn't a
physical escape from the 'crats.
>or....
>Ocean bottoms, anyone?
Ocean bottom colonies are too easily loacted and destroyed by 'crats who don't
approve of your activities.
The nice thing about space (especially if the malcontents can achieve a
technological edge over the 'crats) is that one can ESCAPE.
The government will set up colonies dependent on supply ships.
If I go, I'll go with people who plan on outracing "civilization",
and we will *NOT* leave a forwarding address. (Which, of course,
requires a self sufficient biosphere).
>I think the major problem, though, is that any frontier HAS to be outside
>of the communication network of the society. Otherwise, They know where you
>live, and They know what you're doing. Perhaps space IS the only frontier...
It also has to be out of reach of those who'd destroy you. Space can offer
that distance. England had more military might than the American colonies.
It was just too difficult to get it across the ocean.
>fortunatly, it's infinite... (or so it seems)
>-----
>WARNING!! the opinions expressed above can be HAZARDOUS or FATAL if swallowed!
>
> >> this space unintentionally left blank <<
>
>Gary Gray - inet gg...@wpi.wpi.edu - bitnet gg...@wpi.bitnet - GEnie G.GRAY6
--
Roger Lewis rle...@venera.isi.edu "Go with a smile."
Roger Lewis
FRONTIER!
Somewhere for all the malcontents to go and start up their own societies.
We've run out of places to escape the 'crats. (bureaucrats)
Of course, there will be those who want to bring the 'crats along.
But those of us who want to should be able to "outrun" civilization
if we try hard enough. Imagine .... no speed limits......
Of course the reason our country is rushing to build SDI so quickly is so
that they can shoot down anyone trying to take off from this planet
without having a political officer aboard, and filing an emigration form,
and having a writ of colonization, and liability insurance covering the
spacecraft, it's crew, passengers, and anyone possibly impacted by it.
And of course to ensure that everyone aboard has provided a "clean"
urine sample.
Haven't you read the DSV (Department of Space Vehicles) handbook?
"Space travel is a privelege, not a right."
David J Rostcheck
>FRONTIER!
>
>Somewhere for all the malcontents to go and start up their own societies.
>
>We've run out of places to escape the 'crats. (bureaucrats)
>
>Of course, there will be those who want to bring the 'crats along.
>But those of us who want to should be able to "outrun" civilization
>if we try hard enough. Imagine .... no speed limits......
Very true! There was an article in Analog a while ago that talked about
population pressure and showed from historical analogs (colonization of
America, Australia, etc) that societies tended to become unstable when
a certain social pressure was reached and that a frontier was necessary
NOT to remove a sizable chunk of the population and provide more settling
room as such (people always point out that space travel is too expensive to
remove worthwhile numbers of the populations that suffer the most pressure
(3's world)) but to give the malcontents a way out so they expend energy
hammering (new) civilization from chaos as opposed to bombing the tax
collectors' offices and insurance companies (sorry; live in Mass.) of their
current society. We really have run out of places to run. I hate to think
about the # of times I have to give my social security number out to get an
all-essential credit card or id or such. Heck, I'd better be a good little
boy or they'll have no trouble at all finding me.
>Of course the reason our country is rushing to build SDI so quickly is so
>that they can shoot down anyone trying to take off from this planet
>without having a political officer aboard, and filing an emigration form,
>and having a writ of colonization, and liability insurance covering the
>spacecraft, it's crew, passengers, and anyone possibly impacted by it.
>And of course to ensure that everyone aboard has provided a "clean"
>urine sample.
Funny; almost any competent physicist will tell you (IMHO) SDI is a
boondoggle. Improving weapons technology is cheap and easy; defense
is expensive and difficult. If the Soviets were to spin their rockets and
paint them silver we have to direct much more energy at them so they'll
absorb enough. If we do that they just build three times as many. We've
only been doing that on both sides for fifty years...
But some of them still support SDI - in the hopes that more funding will
spill over to research and technology.
Whaddya think? Make a fake play for SDI and try to pick up a space program
before it crashes? Sick. Might even work (sigh)
>Haven't you read the DSV (Department of Space Vehicles) handbook?
>"Space travel is a privelege, not a right."
>
>--
>Roger Lewis rle...@venera.isi.edu "Go with a smile."
I wanna go! (T-shirt at Alabama Space & Rocketry Center)
--
================================================================================
Geniuses and supergeniuses always make their own rules on sex as on everything
else; they do not accept the monkey customs of their lessers.
- Robert Heinlein in Friday
cal0...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
The plight of the sociopath in a red tape society is an
oft lamented one. With rules and regulations filling every
perceivable course of action a new frontier would be a great
escape. 'Til then, find holes and exploit them a la Harrison's
Stainless Steel Rat. Chalker's "Four Lords of the Diamond"
also offers tips for suffocated rebels.
Knives
Mac Druaidh
I'm afraid I can't agree with your above statement regarding the lack of
speed limits. One fundamental one comes to mind:
299,792 Km/sec - it's not just a good idea, it's the Law.
--
Don't trust that map entry. Try "...peora!tarpit!libcmp!mamab" first.
Fidonet: Mac Druaidh via 1:363/9
Internet: Mac.D...@f69.n363.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Usenet: ...!peora!tarpit!libcmp!mamab!69!Mac.Druaidh
Jason Asbahr
>The nice thing about space (especially if the malcontents can achieve a
>technological edge over the 'crats) is that one can ESCAPE.
>
>If I go, I'll go with people who plan on outracing "civilization",
>and we will *NOT* leave a forwarding address. (Which, of course,
>requires a self sufficient biosphere).
I can see a new group forming, slightly more credible than the Mutual UFO
Network (MUFON)... "Escape From Earth Now"...EFEN.....yeah...
Sounds nice, Roger. We will need that self-sufficient biosphere, a means
to get it (or at least the parts) into space, and a destination.
What about a good gene pool? Contacts with Mother Earth? What about tech
upgrades? Metal and plastic supplies?
Anyone have details on the "Biosphere II" project?
-Jason Asbahr (Looking up...)