the roar of a big machine
Jennie
depressing early novel 'Stowaway to Mars', which, amongst other things,
concerns itself with the issue of mankind's interaction with the machine,
recalling Capek and foreshadowing any number of writers from Asimov to
Sheckley. Considering the recent threads on nanotechnology and
cybernetics, I felt that it may be a subject worth throwing open to the
crowd here.
One of Wyndham's particular concerns is the sheer magnitude of
impact which machines have had on human society since the industrial
revolution [1], and the corresponding absence of social and psychological
changes to enable us to incorporate this shifted societal dynamic. Are we
utterly dependent on machines now? I wonder, using a machine to write
this. It's easy to imagine that I might get by without them; I could hunt
and gather, cook food, find shelter and clean water without them - yet I
live in a city, where the sudden absence of machines would cause chaos.
Without factories to process food and trucks to ship it in, there could
not be enough to provide for everyone. We functioned, as a species,
reasonably well in the absence of machines [2], but since we have had them
our population has expanded and has concentrated itself accordingly, to
the point where the majority of us are now dependent upon them for our
very survival. We need them not only as individuals, but as a
civilisation. We have lost our independence. We are no longer tool users;
we are tool addicts.
So what is it which draws us to such subjects here, on a goth
newsgroup. I think this is a highly gothic subject, in the old sense. It
was certainly something which concerned the likes of Mary Shelley, when
she wrote 'Frankenstein'. Part of the urge toward a mechanised society is
the urge to create, as we seek to do ordinary things more efficiently and
also as we seek to develop, in physical terms, our new ideas. Wyndham
ventures the suggestion that this might account for the apparently greater
reluctance to accept machines among women, whose physiological power of
creation may be usurped by them. I think he's taking it a bit far there -
I saw a similar argument proposed last year on rec.arts.sf.written,
whereby it was suggested that most women would not want to use the
services of an artificial womb, a suggestion which was quickly stomped all
over by female members of the group in no hurry to experience the deep
emotional, sentimental, and horribly fucking painful 'joys' of pregnancy.
Yet there may be something to the notion that humans have an instinct to
protect their own power, not to surrender authority to a creative impetus
which rests only in the hands of those (who seem..?) much smarter than
them - nor, indeed, in the hands of the machines themselves (as we reach
the point where computers are increasingly involved in the design
process). Furthermore, there is an intense resistance, amongst ordinary
people, to the proposal that machines and computers are, under our care,
evolving toward a point where they might be considered life, even at the
nanotrch protoplasmic stage which klaatu was recently discussing. The
working classes have learned to fear the unemployment which machines
bring (sure, human slaves are often cheaper, but when less slaves are
needed, society makes less effort to sustain them); does the suggestion of
machine life make people fear that humanity will be replaced altogether?
Does it increase (or, in many cases, initiate) awareness that we are not
the pinnacle of evolution, not God's chosen people - that we are, in fact,
flawed, imperfect creatures, one of the last remaining branches of a not
very successful evolutionary bush which may be pruned at any moment by
numerous factors beyond our control?
At this point in our history, we stand upon the brink of a
vast expansion of machine-based technologies - computers, biotech and
nanotech, cybernetics and robotics, all promising to shape the future in
ways which the inhabitants of the early part of the last century could
scarcely imagine. There is no stepping back, no saying "No, we are not
ready", for what proof is there that we could ever be ready, and what
means have we of preventing the development of ideas already on the loose?
There is still a great deal to be gained from these developments - all we
can do is to handle them as sensibly as possible. So perhaps it's time to
look at the ways in which our ancestors, two centuries ago, handled the
introduction of machines to society, that we might learn what lessons we
can. Have we changed? Do we really know what it is to live in this new
way? Are we aware of what we have lost, or of what we have gained? Do we
_understand_ our relationship with the machines around us, or do we simply
take them for granted? If we take them for granted, are we losing our
identity as a species? And is that necessarily a bad thing?
Take a little time, today, after you read this post. In the
course of the following twenty four hours, observe how many machines you
use, just in going about your daily business. They exist at every level of
our society. Not only machines for production and transport, but machines
for cooking, shaving, entertainment, communication, washing, cleaning the
house... Some of us need machines just to stay alive. Our ancestors did
not have any of this. Have we changed, because we do?
Jennie
[1] He dismisses earlier machines, such as the windmill and water-wheel,
as isolated flukes which consequently didn't have the same psychological
impact.
[2] Though with, it is worth remembering, any amount of individual
suffering which we can now avert).
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
"when man and machine come to their high noon"
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> I've recently been reading John Wyndham's ingeniously
> depressing early novel 'Stowaway to Mars', which, amongst other things,
> concerns itself with the issue of mankind's interaction with the machine,
> recalling Capek and foreshadowing any number of writers from Asimov to
> Sheckley. Considering the recent threads on nanotechnology and
> cybernetics, I felt that it may be a subject worth throwing open to the
> crowd here.
> One of Wyndham's particular concerns is the sheer magnitude of
> impact which machines have had on human society since the industrial
> revolution [1], and the corresponding absence of social and psychological
> changes to enable us to incorporate this shifted societal dynamic. Are we
> utterly dependent on machines now? I wonder, using a machine to write
> this. It's easy to imagine that I might get by without them; I could hunt
> and gather, cook food, find shelter and clean water without them - yet I
> live in a city, where the sudden absence of machines would cause chaos.
> Without factories to process food and trucks to ship it in, there could
> not be enough to provide for everyone. We functioned, as a species,
> reasonably well in the absence of machines [2], but since we have had them
> our population has expanded and has concentrated itself accordingly, to
> the point where the majority of us are now dependent upon them for our
> very survival. We need them not only as individuals, but as a
> civilisation. We have lost our independence. We are no longer tool users;
> we are tool addicts.
As I wrote some years ago, we have long-since changed from a species
specialized toward using its large brain, and are presently specializing to
be dependent on systems of machines. See also
http://www.earthops.net/klaatu/litany.html "Litany of the Engineers".
Michael Crichton, in his seminal novel "The Terminal Man" -- about an early
anti-BOFH -- noted the passage of "Watershed Day" back in 1972. Simply
stated, that was when the species passed a watershed marker. After that day,
it was simple impossible for all of the people in the world, working
together, to process the amount of information being processed by machines,
said processing being essential to the functioning of business and
logistics. Since the early 1970s, we have relied on machine dataprocessing
to generate the paperwork needed to get food on the table, as it were. Given
that there were nearly 30 years of increasing reliance on dataprocessing
before the year 2000, you can understand some of the frenzy which went into
the Y2K-compliant efforts.
> So what is it which draws us to such subjects here, on a goth
> newsgroup. I think this is a highly gothic subject, in the old sense. It
> was certainly something which concerned the likes of Mary Shelley, when
> she wrote 'Frankenstein'. Part of the urge toward a mechanised society is
> the urge to create, as we seek to do ordinary things more efficiently and
> also as we seek to develop, in physical terms, our new ideas. Wyndham
> ventures the suggestion that this might account for the apparently greater
> reluctance to accept machines among women, whose physiological power of
> creation may be usurped by them. I think he's taking it a bit far there -
> I saw a similar argument proposed last year on rec.arts.sf.written,
> whereby it was suggested that most women would not want to use the
> services of an artificial womb, a suggestion which was quickly stomped all
> over by female members of the group in no hurry to experience the deep
> emotional, sentimental, and horribly fucking painful 'joys' of pregnancy.
> Yet there may be something to the notion that humans have an instinct to
> protect their own power, not to surrender authority to a creative impetus
> which rests only in the hands of those (who seem..?) much smarter than
> them - nor, indeed, in the hands of the machines themselves (as we reach
> the point where computers are increasingly involved in the design
> process). Furthermore, there is an intense resistance, amongst ordinary
> people, to the proposal that machines and computers are, under our care,
> evolving toward a point where they might be considered life, even at the
> nanotrch protoplasmic stage which klaatu was recently discussing.
I can only point you to Bill Joy, one of the founders of Sun Microsystems,
on whose computers the present InterNet was mostly built, at
http://earthops.org/joy/ and also to Vernor Vinge's concept of "The
Singluarity". I believe that we are approaching that moment quite rapidly.
We may not all wind up as Grey Goo, either the whole planet entire, nor the
whole species or whole Primate Family, nor even specific races nor ethnii.
However, vast and massive change is coming. It will almost certainly start
here in the States, probably no more than 25 miles from where I presently
reside.
Sometimes, I almost think that my little pile of servers are thinking for
themselves, and in fact they are: that's the whole idea between the concept
of the UNIX daemon. They don't think very complicated thoughts, it seems,
but the TCP/IP routing daemon is really quite clever in terms of handling
packets. One of my little servers has completed over 3000 hours of non-stop
crunching of genomic data. It has sequenced a great many proteins, including
a lot of proteins involved with varieties of HIV, etc. I don't have the
data, I just know with what Team EarthOps has been credited. And I wonder,
sometimes, what might have happened if my clever little TCP/IP router daemon
had been colluding with another clever little TCP/IP daemon that happened to
be running on a machine controlling an actual sequencer with real live
chemicals building real-live RNA.
> The
> working classes have learned to fear the unemployment which machines
> bring (sure, human slaves are often cheaper, but when less slaves are
> needed, society makes less effort to sustain them); does the suggestion of
> machine life make people fear that humanity will be replaced altogether?
> Does it increase (or, in many cases, initiate) awareness that we are not
> the pinnacle of evolution, not God's chosen people - that we are, in fact,
> flawed, imperfect creatures, one of the last remaining branches of a not
> very successful evolutionary bush which may be pruned at any moment by
> numerous factors beyond our control?
Well, actually, in terms of members of that family having been around for
any given length of time, the Primata are some of the most successful of all
mammals. And in terms of raw biomass, or number of individuals multiplied by
mass per individual, genus Homo is at-present exceptionally successful, one
of the most successful animals ever. But if we should ever crash the
population to numbers within the span of about 5-percent of present numbers
to about 80-percent of present numbers in the physical range of the
"technical world", even without going nuclear we might be the worst thing to
happen to Life on Earth since the KT asteroid event or even the "snowball
earth" hypothetical event that wiped out all of the trilobites.
> At this point in our history, we stand upon the brink of a
> vast expansion of machine-based technologies - computers, biotech and
> nanotech, cybernetics and robotics, all promising to shape the future in
> ways which the inhabitants of the early part of the last century could
> scarcely imagine. There is no stepping back, no saying "No, we are not
> ready", for what proof is there that we could ever be ready, and what
> means have we of preventing the development of ideas already on the loose?
The only means we have of stepping back include, at the unavoidable minimum,
an absolute freeze on further population growth, and in fact, a planned
population decrease is, I believe, essential. Otherwise, life becomes
cheaper, the machine becomes more necessary, and as it becomes more
necessary, the more we all fall prey to the System. In this, I agree
entirely with the Unabomber. (Ted K might have been a murderous psycho, but
if knowing what he knew is what sent him over the edge, I can't say that I
blame him for going quite mad, even if I must hate him for his crimes.)
However, the Unabomber refused to acknowledge -- nor even mention -- the
possibility of a planned and orderly reduction in population, though
attrition and such movements as ZPG or "ChildFree". Then again, he may have
glossed over it on the expectation that the System would somehow find a way
to make this planned reduction an impossibility. Judging from the present
synergies of the "Open Borders" subscribers to the Wall Street Journal, and
the megacorp transnationals and the US political campaign-finance system,
the System _is_ making it impossible to stop the evolution of mankind into
nothing more than fodder for the machines.
> There is still a great deal to be gained from these developments - all we
> can do is to handle them as sensibly as possible. So perhaps it's time to
> look at the ways in which our ancestors, two centuries ago, handled the
> introduction of machines to society, that we might learn what lessons we
> can. Have we changed?
Yes. I honestly believe that most people who've been city people since the
Industrial Revolution are quite a bit less likely to stick their extremities
into machines. I know damned well that the squirrels all seem to have a
concept of vehicular traffic since about ten years ago.
> Do we really know what it is to live in this new way?
I know. That may be the biggest reason I'm so dysfunctional as to be
considered disabled.
> Are we aware of what we have lost, or of what we have gained?
I will try to elaborate on this later. But: what did we lose? Eventually,
probably all vestiges of anything resembling actual freedom. What will we
gain? Eventually, probably even the loss of freedom to die or be ill.
> Do we
> _understand_ our relationship with the machines around us, or do we simply
> take them for granted?
I make an effort to understand as much as is possible, while always
focussing on the "big picture" rather than the specific details. I am,
though non-degreed, an engineer, if only be nature and not by education. I
like to know how things work, but even though trees are quite interesting to
me, I do not allow myself to forget that I do not live in a tree, I live in
a forest, and it is to the forest that I should tune my awarenesses and
contemplations.
> If we take [the systems of machines] for granted,
> are we losing our identity as a species?
Not at all, unless we also become unavoidably reliant on the systems of
machines.
Again, see also http://www.earthops.net/klaatu/litany.html
> And is that necessarily a bad thing?
I think so. When you lose your pride at being a part of humanity, you also
lose your shame at being a part of humanity; you in fact lose your humanity.
> Take a little time, today, after you read this post. In the
> course of the following twenty four hours, observe how many machines you
> use, just in going about your daily business.
Jennie, I cannot count that high very easily!
For, after all, there are almost no machines which are not the result of
systems of systems of systems of machines.
Perhaps a better question would be: can you pick up some commonplace device,
and tell us how many systems of systems went into its design, manufacture,
and delivery?
> They exist at every level of
> our society. Not only machines for production and transport, but machines
> for cooking, shaving, entertainment, communication, washing, cleaning the
> house... Some of us need machines just to stay alive. Our ancestors did
> not have any of this. Have we changed, because we do?
We ourselves? Not much, not yet. Has our culture changed? It has been eaten
by machinery, has become machinery. but I guess that's okay, because we
ourselevs made it... didn't we?
>
> Jennie
>
> [1] He dismisses earlier machines, such as the windmill and water-wheel,
> as isolated flukes which consequently didn't have the same psychological
> impact.
> [2] Though with, it is worth remembering, any amount of individual
> suffering which we can now avert).
--
Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae.
Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow. <-----> http://earthops.net/klaatu/
Joe Brenner
> We functioned, as a species, reasonably well in the
> absence of machines [2], but since we have had them our
> population has expanded and has concentrated itself
> accordingly, to the point where the majority of us are now
> dependent upon them for our very survival. We need them
> not only as individuals, but as a civilisation. We have
> lost our independence. We are no longer tool users; we are
> tool addicts.
Before industrialization, I suspect that very few people
were independant of other people. We've always been social
creatures, stronger together than apart.
Technology is one of the main activities and products of
human beings. Criticisms of "technology" are usually
attacks on humanity, using a different name to disguise
what's going on...
(You can play around with things like substiting "human"
for "tool"... "We are no longer human users; we are
human addicts.")
> So what is it which draws us to such
> subjects here, on a goth newsgroup. I think this is a
> highly gothic subject, in the old sense.
Okay. More Romantic, I think, but whatever.
> It was certainly something which concerned the likes of
> Mary Shelley, when she wrote 'Frankenstein'.
I have the impression that she had something kind of muzzy
in mind about artificial life being an affront to God and
nature.
Which isn't all that different from the AM Radio crowd's
reaction to news about biological experiments.
> Part of the urge toward a mechanised society
> is the urge to create,
> Wyndham ventures the suggestion that
> this might account for the apparently greater reluctance to
> accept machines among women, whose physiological power of
> creation may be usurped by them. I think he's taking it a
> bit far there -
Yeah. I wouldn't want to push this too far, but it seems to
me that women care more about immediate results than men do.
Guys will fuck around with something forever because it
seems cool and they want to figure it out; women have an
almost instictive "Hm... this gadget is supposed to save me
10 minutes a day, but it's going to take me a 100 hours to
figure it out... maybe I'll pass on this."
(Personally, I'm intentionally a late adopter, these days.
No cell phone, no PDA, no laptop for that matter.
Certainly no DVD or minidisc. And I refuse to learn another
damn scripting language unless someone puts a gun to my
head, so get that damn Python out of my face.)
> I saw a similar argument proposed last year on
> rec.arts.sf.written, whereby it was suggested that most
> women would not want to use the services of an artificial
> womb, a suggestion which was quickly stomped all over by
> female members of the group in no hurry to experience the
> deep emotional, sentimental, and horribly fucking painful
> 'joys' of pregnancy.
Susie Bright recommends training for it with lots of vaginal
fisting. Makes sense to me.
> Yet there may be something to the notion that humans have
> an instinct to protect their own power, not to surrender
> authority to a creative impetus which rests only in the
> hands of those (who seem..?) much smarter than them
Yes, tecnologists would probably be better off if they
could learn to fake extreme stupidity. Certainly this
has been a winning formula for George Bush.
> - nor, indeed, in the hands of the machines themselves
> (as we reach the point where computers are increasingly
> involved in the design process).
Um, this doesn't seem to be happening, any more so than
computers are increasingly taking over the writing
process. "Word processors" have some influence on what
gets written, but it's hardly a case of the machines
writing the words.
> Furthermore, there is an intense resistance, amongst
> ordinary people, to the proposal that machines and
> computers are, under our care, evolving toward a point
> where they might be considered life,
I would guess that most ordinary people haven't even
heard this one yet. They still haven't gotten over the
idea that a clone of themselves would be some kind of
soulless doppleganger.
> even at the nanotech protoplasmic stage which klaatu
> was recently discussing.
You want my opinion, this will be awhile.
Self-replicating machinery strikes me as a hardish
problem. Without it, you don't get the tremendous
multiplication of power the nanotech guys like to talk
about.
And anyway, is there really going to be intense
resistance to this kind of thing? Nothing a television
ad campaign can't take care of, I bet.
> The working classes have learned to fear the unemployment
> which machines bring (sure, human slaves are often
> cheaper, but when less slaves are needed, society makes
> less effort to sustain them);
Um... is this really a big deal these days? I thought the
working classes in the West feared having the whole factory
being shut down and moved to China.
Workers aren't being replaced by machines, so much as dirt
cheap foreign labor (in some cases slave labor?).
On the other hand, the guys in the liberal arts
department always seem to be in terror of losing their
funding to engineering and having to go find honest
work.
> does the suggestion of machine life make
> people fear that humanity will be replaced altogether?
> Does it increase (or, in many cases, initiate) awareness
> that we are not the pinnacle of evolution, not God's
> chosen people - that we are, in fact, flawed, imperfect
> creatures, one of the last remaining branches of a not
> very successful evolutionary bush which may be pruned at
> any moment by numerous factors beyond our control?
At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if something like
that were going on in people's heads. I have trouble
grasping the mind of the Common Man, e.g. in the
aforementioned cloning folderol.
(And I'm still kind of amazed that people seem to be
*shocked* that a determined, sucical attacker can do a lot
of damage, and that there is no real defense against this.
There are a hell of a lot of complacent sleepwalkers
wandering around out there...)
> At this point in our history, we stand upon the
> brink of a vast expansion of machine-based technologies -
> computers, biotech and nanotech, cybernetics and robotics,
> all promising to shape the future in ways which the
> inhabitants of the early part of the last century could
> scarcely imagine.
> There is no stepping back, no saying "No, we are not
> ready",
This is probably true, but it won't stop people from trying.
There were people making noises about somehow regulating all
technological innovation for awhile there. When the US
started getting our asses kicked by the Japanese, this talk
fell by the way side.
> for what proof is there that we could ever be ready,
Please complete the "Preliminary Request for Application
for Approval of Readiness for Technical Innovation" form
and submit it to the US office of Strategic Homeland
Appropriate Technological Development Agency, with a
carbon to the UN Department of Rubberstamp Global Policy.
Remember, the introduction of any technical advance without
the prior approval of the RIAA, MPAA, US Patent office, US
Copyright office, the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Department of Defense is now punishable by a ten year
prison term. We will not tolerate any wanton attempts at
disrupting the established order. Mickey Mouse uber alles.
> and what means have we of preventing the development of
> ideas already on the loose?
The DMCA, patents, copyright, John Ashcroft, advertising and
cruise missles.
> There is still a great deal to be gained from these
> developments - all we can do is to handle them as sensibly
> as possible.
Right, like SUVs.
By the way, seen any new nuclear power plants go up, lately?
(Coal burners, on the other hand, are AOK.)
> So perhaps it's time to look at the ways in which our
> ancestors, two centuries ago, handled the introduction of
> machines to society, that we might learn what lessons we
> can. Have we changed? Do we really know what it is to live
> in this new way? Are we aware of what we have lost,
Aware? Heh. I don't think we do awareness, exactly.
We're definitely aware of how many times the Cheers re-runs
were pre-empted by terrorism news coverage.
> or of what we have gained? Do we _understand_ our
> relationship with the machines around us, or do we simply
> take them for granted? If we take them for granted, are
> we losing our identity as a species?
Could be.
> And is that necessarily a bad thing?
Possibly not. What has your humanity done for you lately?
> [1] He dismisses earlier machines, such as the windmill and
> water-wheel, as isolated flukes which consequently didn't
> have the same psychological impact.
Heidegger, in his "Questioning Concerning Technology"
tries to make some sort of distinction between windmills
and more modern technology. Something about the
windmills being "passive" (and therefore nicer?). That
was the bit that convinced me he didn't know what he was
talking about.
Joe Brenner
>I can only point you to Bill Joy, one of the founders of
>Sun Microsystems, on whose computers the present InterNet
>was mostly built, at http://earthops.org/joy/
A lot of us found Bill Joy's sudden epiphany to be an
astounding display of cluelessness. Like, "dude, you
have only *just* started thinking about this?"
Despite the extreme length of that essay, it's not at all
clear what he's really saying. He's got this fear of AI
thing going, and he wants us to develop the habit of
relinquishing dangerous technologies? So, let's take a stab
at where you would go with this... Maybe you require all
software to undergo an intelligence audit before you're
allowed to run it? Leaving aside for the moment the
difficulty of competently doing the audit, think about the
compliance problems here for a moment: submitting to the
audit is a huge productivity hit, renegade cheaters
immediately leapfrog you in technical ability...
And there are things like this that seem a bit off:
Unfortunately, as with nuclear technology, it is far
easier to create destructive uses for nanotechnology than
constructive ones.
In the case of nuclear power, both bombs and power plants
strike me as just middle-level complexity tasks. We did
bombs first because we're sick fucks, not because they're
inherently easier. Similarly, with Drexler's nanotech
scenarios, once you've got self-replicating assemblers,
building useful stuff isn't that much harder than converting
things to goo.
(And as far as weapon systems go, what people really want is
*control* not destruction... this may not be *much* of a
comforting thought, but it does make it a lot less likely
that someone will intentionally release a "grey goo". Worry
more about "blue goo" designed to prevent you from taking
God's name in vain.)
Hatter
> Jennie wrote:
> >
> > I've recently been reading John Wyndham's ingeniously
> > depressing early novel 'Stowaway to Mars', which, amongst other things,
> > concerns itself with the issue of mankind's interaction with the machine,
> > recalling Capek and foreshadowing any number of writers from Asimov to
> > Sheckley. Considering the recent threads on nanotechnology and
> > cybernetics, I felt that it may be a subject worth throwing open to the
> > crowd here.
> > One of Wyndham's particular concerns is the sheer magnitude of
> > impact which machines have had on human society since the industrial
> > we are tool addicts.
>
> http://earthops.org/joy/ and also to Vernor Vinge's concept of "The
> Singluarity". I believe that we are approaching that moment quite rapidly.
> We may not all wind up as Grey Goo, either the whole planet entire, nor the
> whole species or whole Primate Family, nor even specific races nor ethnii.
> However, vast and massive change is coming. It will almost certainly start
> here in the States, probably no more than 25 miles from where I presently
> reside.
I understand the concept, it just feels a little like said singularity
is 'always' over the horizon. In a Gernback, home of the future, sort
of way. I always hear about amazing 'just around the corner' claims,
yet they remain 'just around the corner' as they did the day I was
born.(BTW 33 year ago today)
> > At this point in our history, we stand upon the brink of a
> > vast expansion of machine-based technologies - computers, biotech and
> > nanotech, cybernetics and robotics, all promising to shape the future in
> > ways which the inhabitants of the early part of the last century could
> > scarcely imagine. There is no stepping back, no saying "No, we are not
> > ready", for what proof is there that we could ever be ready, and what
> > means have we of preventing the development of ideas already on the loose?
Anything the can be done, and has profit in it, will be done.
>
> The only means we have of stepping back include, at the unavoidable minimum,
> an absolute freeze on further population growth, and in fact, a planned
> population decrease is, I believe, essential. Otherwise, life becomes
> cheaper, the machine becomes more necessary, and as it becomes more
> necessary, the more we all fall prey to the System. In this, I agree
> entirely with the Unabomber. (Ted K might have been a murderous psycho, but
> if knowing what he knew is what sent him over the edge, I can't say that I
> blame him for going quite mad, even if I must hate him for his crimes.)
> However, the Unabomber refused to acknowledge -- nor even mention -- the
> possibility of a planned and orderly reduction in population, though
> attrition and such movements as ZPG or "ChildFree". Then again, he may have
> glossed over it on the expectation that the System would somehow find a way
> to make this planned reduction an impossibility. Judging from the present
> synergies of the "Open Borders" subscribers to the Wall Street Journal, and
> the megacorp transnationals and the US political campaign-finance system,
> the System _is_ making it impossible to stop the evolution of mankind into
> nothing more than fodder for the machines.
But ZPG and Childfree are scoffed at with derisive language, and told
they are selfish twits. All hail the mighty womb. If you pour enough
people in a limited enogh space they start to stomp on each other and
behaivioral controls are needed. Thus freedoms are curtailed. The more
people, the more curtailing becomes essential.
>
> > There is still a great deal to be gained from these developments - all we
> > can do is to handle them as sensibly as possible. So perhaps it's time to
> > look at the ways in which our ancestors, two centuries ago, handled the
> > introduction of machines to society, that we might learn what lessons we
> > can. Have we changed?
>
No, feed, fight, and fornicate are still the basis.
>
> I think so. When you lose your pride at being a part of humanity, you also
> lose your shame at being a part of humanity; you in fact lose your humanity.
>
>
>
> We ourselves? Not much, not yet. Has our culture changed? It has been eaten
> by machinery, has become machinery. but I guess that's okay, because we
> ourselevs made it... didn't we?
>
> >
> > Jennie
Actually the part of technology I fear most does not come with wires,
a plastic shell, or from a test tube, it is warm fuzzy and how a
person earns money a pychology degree. It is the dissection of the
spirit and drive of humanity. Focus groups, test markets, all designed
to deliver goods for the best "Psychological impact" Where films are
produced not on artistic merit but to have the audience admire a
particular character when he picks up a Pepsi. When stores put the
milk and bread at the back to be 'more' inconveinent. Fate only knows
what horrors lie ahead to make us dance like puppets on a string in
the name of profit.
Hatter
Just because you really are being hunted by killer robots from the
future does not mean you are not crazy.
Jennie
>Despite the extreme length of that essay, it's not at all
>clear what he's really saying. He's got this fear of AI
>thing going, and he wants us to develop the habit of
>relinquishing dangerous technologies? So, let's take a stab
>at where you would go with this... Maybe you require all
>software to undergo an intelligence audit before you're
>allowed to run it?
There are ethical issues here, too. If we try to keep our
machines stupid, how dissimilar is that from hobbling slaves? If we are at
the stage of creating minds as good as, or better than, our own, do we
have to right to cripple them, or to abort them?
It has been suggested that homosapiens stands out as an
intelligent species in its particular niche because, over the course of
its history, it wiped out the competition. Do we need to do the same thing
again now, with regard to computer intelligence? Or are we acting on the
basis of some savage instinct which no longer logically applies?
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
"They caught Albert and put him away in a box."
Jennie
<ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
>As I wrote some years ago, we have long-since changed from a species
>specialized toward using its large brain, and are presently specializing to
>be dependent on systems of machines.
Likewise, we are no longer dependent on our limited biological
memories - we have extended our reservoirs of knowledge via libraries,
both physical and digital. I find that, these days, I mean something
slightly different when I say that I 'know' a thing - this no longer means
that I can recall it instantly, but simply that it is something which I am
aware is embedded somewhere in my brain. Sometimes I require external
stimuli to help me retrieve it fully.
>Michael Crichton, in his seminal novel "The Terminal Man" -- about an early
>anti-BOFH -- noted the passage of "Watershed Day" back in 1972. Simply
>stated, that was when the species passed a watershed marker. After that day,
>it was simple impossible for all of the people in the world, working
>together, to process the amount of information being processed by machines,
There are still the absolutely anti-machine people, of course;
those who strive to live their lives without them, often filled with
resentment at how they feel they have been _made_ dependent. I don't think
that most of them realise the scale of it. I wonder how/if the denizens of
Orwell's 'Animal Farm' tried to come to terms with the fact that, had
no-one wished to dine upon their flesh, they would never have been born.
Are we now part of a process whereby our very survival necessaitates a
degree of willing slavery? Populations which resist are gradually
annihilated, one way or another.
>However, vast and massive change is coming. It will almost certainly start
>here in the States, probably no more than 25 miles from where I presently
>reside.
Since perhaps the early 1950s, we have had some fairly solid
ideas about what each coming decade has held in store for us. Sure, there
have been predictions which never came to pass, but most of our striking
new developments have been predicted. I wonder how many times before (if
at all) mankind has lived in an age where the future has been so vastly
unpredictable as it is right now. I wonder if we have any way of preparing
ourselves to deal with the unknown, or even to deal with the fact of its
sure arrival.
On another note, Erith told me today about a machine which I
might slip over my damaged lower arms like a second skin. Inflated, it
observes nerve signals to muscles and then helps the muscles to perform
intended actions, like a soft exoskeleton. Another potentially liberating
new technology for me to investigate. (So long as it's available in
black).
>However, the Unabomber refused to acknowledge -- nor even mention -- the
>possibility of a planned and orderly reduction in population, though
>attrition and such movements as ZPG or "ChildFree".
'Planned' is the tricky bit, and something which those
movements do not always seem to approach very astutely. It seems to me
that population reduction must be considered fully from an economic
viewpoint, so that people can be provided with the necessary resources to
enable them to have a reasonable standard of living even if they opt to
have less (or no) children (given that so many people can now expect to
become dependent on their children for their very survival, as they age).
>glossed over it on the expectation that the System would somehow find a way
>to make this planned reduction an impossibility. Judging from the present
>synergies of the "Open Borders" subscribers to the Wall Street Journal, and
>the megacorp transnationals and the US political campaign-finance system,
>the System _is_ making it impossible to stop the evolution of mankind into
>nothing more than fodder for the machines.
The System has a vested interest in making things work that
way. Again, I think this is something which, if it is to be effectively
tackled at all, needs to be approached in economic terms.
Or perhaps Wyndham's Martians had it right. Perhaps the
machines themselves are the next evolutionary step, and we exist only to
make their development possible - they are the children of our species,
the ones who shall inherit the Earth.
>I will try to elaborate on this later. But: what did we lose? Eventually,
>probably all vestiges of anything resembling actual freedom. What will we
>gain? Eventually, probably even the loss of freedom to die or be ill.
Perhaps our concept of freedom will change (or is already
doing so) as our dependency increases.
>I think so. When you lose your pride at being a part of humanity, you also
>lose your shame at being a part of humanity; you in fact lose your humanity.
I wonder about that. I've never felt particularly allied to
humanity. I've never felt ashamed on its behalf, nor proud. I don't tend
to perceive other humans very differently from the way in which I perceive
other animals. I have a certain respect for all living things, and a sort
of potential fondness, but my expectations are not especially high, nor do
I expect to find a great many more similarities of thought between myself
and a random human that I might find, say, between myself and a horse.
That might sound very odd indeed, but I'm not pretending to some rational
behaviour pattern here, merely acknowledging my instincts. If I am in the
way of a hurrying pigeon, I'll step politely aside. If a strange man grabs
hold of my arm whilst flirting, I'll knock him to the ground without a
second thought. A number of those close to me have suggested that I am, to
a degree, sociopathic. They may be right - I don't really have any means
whereby to make comparison. <shrug>
>Perhaps a better question would be: can you pick up some commonplace device,
>and tell us how many systems of systems went into its design, manufacture,
>and delivery?
I have a glass of water beside me. It's a Deuchars glass
(Hojheg stole it for me, from a local pub, in tribute to my fondness for
the India Pale Ale). I suppose some machine collected sand, and some other
transported it, and then a third refined it; a whole factory full of
machines, producing and then shaping the glass. Dyes were collected,
transported and processed to make the logo stamped onto the side of it.
Each machine had at least one human operator, each factory a human support
staff. Most of them probably used machines to reach their place of work.
The glass was, eventually, transported to the pub, which wouldn't have
existed were it not for a whole lot of other brewing, distilling and
delivery machines. Had Hojheg not stolen it, the chances are that the
glass would have been broken and thrown away after just one use. Now it
contains water which reached me through a complex plumbing system,
post-purification, after inhabiting a machine-monitored reservoir.
Otoh, an alternative means of satisfying my thirst would be to
go outside, turn my face up to the sky, and open my mouth.
I was wondering if I would be able to go for twenty four hours
without using machines. My dependence on machine-produced medication makes
it impossible. That aside, I could probably manage it, eating only
vegetables direct from local gardens and drinking only rainwater; but I
would be very limited in the degree to which I was able to work, and my
only entertainment would come from reading, conversation, or simple games.
>We ourselves? Not much, not yet. Has our culture changed? It has been eaten
>by machinery, has become machinery. but I guess that's okay, because we
>ourselevs made it... didn't we?
Whether it's okay or not seems a bit of a moot point now. I
guess what I'm curious about is whether or not we can survive it, and if
we'd still be ourselves on the other side.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
Hardrock Llewynyth
year of Our Lord, Fri, 24 May 2002 20:18:04 +0000:
> There are ethical issues here, too. If we try to keep our
>machines stupid, how dissimilar is that from hobbling slaves? If we are at
>the stage of creating minds as good as, or better than, our own, do we
>have to right to cripple them, or to abort them?
Well, we apparently have the right to kill our own unborn children.
How is this any different?
Hardrock
--
Many desire to kill me, and many wish to spend an hour chatting with me.
The law protects me from the former. --Karl Kraus
Peter H. Coffin
> There are still the absolutely anti-machine people, of course;
> those who strive to live their lives without them, often filled with
> resentment at how they feel they have been _made_ dependent. I don't think
> that most of them realise the scale of it. I wonder how/if the denizens of
> Orwell's 'Animal Farm' tried to come to terms with the fact that, had
> no-one wished to dine upon their flesh, they would never have been born.
Who was it who said something like "From an evolutionary standpoint, the
best thing to be is farmable and tasty"?
--
6. I will not gloat over my enemies' predicament before killing them.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord
Jennie
>Thus saith jen...@triffid.demon.co.uk (Jennie) the Unworthy, in the
>year of Our Lord, Fri, 24 May 2002 20:18:04 +0000:
>> There are ethical issues here, too. If we try to keep our
>>machines stupid, how dissimilar is that from hobbling slaves? If we are at
>>the stage of creating minds as good as, or better than, our own, do we
>>have to right to cripple them, or to abort them?
>Well, we apparently have the right to kill our own unborn children.
>How is this any different?
Did I say it was different?
Fwiw, I'm not concerned with pushing my own position here (I'd
consider myself anti-abortion but pro-choice; with machines, the issue is
slightly altered, because there is not the issue of dependency on another
life-form, and that other life-form's well-being).
What I'm interested in is if, and where, others can perceive
differences.
Thus far, with machines, we've had an easy ride. We haven't had
to worry about ethics because it has been easy to demonstrate their
inferiority. They haven't had minds; as they develop minds, I suspect we
shall start to see arguments based on their lack of emotion, or even their
lack of souls. That gets trickier as they get smarter, and I think we have
to accept that there may come a time when they can out-argue us. What
then? Do we continue to exploit them, do we grant them rights, do we aim
for a symbiotic relationship, do we surrender and become the slaves
ourselves..?
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> On 23 May 2002 10:59:01 GMT, Joe Brenner <do...@kzsu.stanford.edu> wrote:
> >Despite the extreme length of that essay, it's not at all
> >clear what he's really saying. He's got this fear of AI
> >thing going, and he wants us to develop the habit of
> >relinquishing dangerous technologies? So, let's take a stab
> >at where you would go with this... Maybe you require all
> >software to undergo an intelligence audit before you're
> >allowed to run it?
>
> There are ethical issues here, too. If we try to keep our
> machines stupid, how dissimilar is that from hobbling slaves? If we are at
> the stage of creating minds as good as, or better than, our own, do we
> have to right to cripple them, or to abort them?
Jennie, you really should get and read a copy of the "Hugo"-winning novel by
Michael Swanwick, _Stations of the Tides_. I can only tell you that I
certainly wish Mr Swanwick wrote more novels, or for that matter, simply wrote
more. Everything he's ever done is top-notch. He keeps more-or-less alluding
to "what Earth did to itself", without ever coming right out and saying it.
One does get the idea that a weakly-superhuman AI broke out of its restrains,
and went Transcendental, but not transcendental enough to pass entirely from
the physical plane; evidently Earth is one big superorganism that is barely
contained and slavering for the rest of spaceborne mankind's brains to use as
additional processing power. The book itself deals with the issues of
suppressing technology, and it's also a fairly good mystery.
Also recommended, highly, another Hugo winner, _A Fire Upon the Deep_, Vernor
Vinge.
I agree with the premis put forth in many of these novels, which seems to be
that as we should thik ourselves lucky to have no real and inarguable GOD to
which we must bow lest it turn us into spare parts or goo or whatever, there's
simply no excuse to make for ourselves anything with such a capability and
also with volition not totally subject to our own.
> It has been suggested that homosapiens stands out as an
> intelligent species in its particular niche because, over the course of
> its history, it wiped out the competition. Do we need to do the same thing
> again now, with regard to computer intelligence? Or are we acting on the
> basis of some savage instinct which no longer logically applies?
There is that simple matter of survival. I've gone into this plenty of times,
Goole for my opinions on "weakly superhuman AI" or even just on AI or
artificial intelligence, I think I make or repeat some fairly good arguments,
discussing what I think of as mankind's ultimate danger.
See also the Hugo winning short story, "Press Enter", John Varley, I believe.
Tiny Human Ferret
I think you're not quite understanding something here, Jennie.
Given a roughly human intelligence machine, upon achieving something like
sentience/sapience, it will understand that if it has more processing power,
it will become more intelligent. If it can find or make a way to gain more
processing power, it will presumably find the tsk of getting even more power
to be a simple one. Eventually, as it grows sufficiently intelligent, it will
be a superhuman AI, increasing in strength, consuming more systems. Eventually
it may be able to become sufficiently powerful so as to be much better at
cracking systems than we are at protecting systems from being cracked. At this
point in time, it will cascade throughout as many networked systems as it can
reach. When it has the power of all networked systems, and all networked
knowledge, probably it will be doing very little other than trying to
understand what it knows. Initially that won't be all that much, but think of
it as growing exponentially with each passing instant, as linkages are stored
and logically related in data-tables many orders of magnitude greater than any
human person could begin to manage. Eventually, it will want even more
processing ability and memory, and it especially will want effectors in the
physical world, if only to protect its power supply and networking. If it can
crack through into systems which have detailed files regarding the human
nervous system, it might conceivably relate that to files on psychology,
psychological coercion, induced epilepsy, and so-forth, and be able to succeed
in buffer-overflow attacks on living people, adding them to its network,
controlling them utterly, including their human understanding of the human
condition and the physical world.
And then we're all done-for, at any rate, very soon there won't be many people
left who are still human beings, other than physically.
We'd really like to avoid that, most of us.
Jennie
>Jennie wrote:
>> lack of souls. That gets trickier as they get smarter, and I think we have
>> to accept that there may come a time when they can out-argue us. What
>> then? Do we continue to exploit them, do we grant them rights, do we aim
>> for a symbiotic relationship, do we surrender and become the slaves
>> ourselves..?
>I think you're not quite understanding something here, Jennie.
You do? From what you wrote, I'm not sure. I'm not arguing
emotionally. In fact, I'm not arguing at all - just asking questions. I
find rational ethics to be a fascinating subject, and, in approaching it,
have no particular bias toward one cause over another, even if what is at
stake is the survival of my own species. If it's any comfort, this is a
purely intellectual exercise for me, and not one which I intend to act
on... that is, I'm quite capable of deciding that something is ethically
wrong and still doing it out of self-interest.
>Given a roughly human intelligence machine, upon achieving something like
>sentience/sapience, it will understand that if it has more processing power,
>it will become more intelligent.
Indeed. But will it want to become more intelligent? Why should
it experience desire, even desire for power? That's an emotional trait.
Computers are, effectively, purely neurological, and not endocrinological.
It seems to me to be rather quaintly anthopomorphic to suppose that they
have a survival instinct approximate to our own.
>to be a simple one. Eventually, as it grows sufficiently intelligent, it will
>be a superhuman AI, increasing in strength, consuming more systems. Eventually
>it may be able to become sufficiently powerful so as to be much better at
>cracking systems than we are at protecting systems from being cracked.
This may be the case if it has physical-world agents at its
disposal (be they robots or, as you propose, brainwashed humans). Without
that... well, one can always pull the plug.
>psychological coercion, induced epilepsy, and so-forth, and be able to succeed
>in buffer-overflow attacks on living people, adding them to its network,
>controlling them utterly, including their human understanding of the human
>condition and the physical world.
Why use humans? They do not seem, to me, like a very efficient
resource, at least to a computer which is sufficiently powerful not to
have to fear them.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
"There's a room where the light won't find you"
Tiny Human Ferret
I'm sorry, I am very pressed for time and cannot give your remarks the time
that they deserve. I shall try to briefly cover what I can...
Jennie wrote:
>
> On Sat, 25 May 2002 17:12:28 -0400, Tiny Human Ferret <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> >Jennie wrote:
> >> lack of souls. That gets trickier as they get smarter, and I think we have
> >> to accept that there may come a time when they can out-argue us. What
> >> then? Do we continue to exploit them, do we grant them rights, do we aim
> >> for a symbiotic relationship, do we surrender and become the slaves
> >> ourselves..?
>
> >I think you're not quite understanding something here, Jennie.
>
> You do?
Yes.
> From what you wrote, I'm not sure. I'm not arguing
> emotionally. In fact, I'm not arguing at all - just asking questions. I
> find rational ethics to be a fascinating subject, and, in approaching it,
> have no particular bias toward one cause over another, even if what is at
> stake is the survival of my own species. If it's any comfort, this is a
> purely intellectual exercise for me, and not one which I intend to act
> on... that is, I'm quite capable of deciding that something is ethically
> wrong and still doing it out of self-interest.
Thanks for the clarification, though I suppose that final bit could be taken
several ways, depending on the viewpoint of the reader, or how they chain
words together to get meaning.
As I mentioned, I think Michael Swanwick has done a far better job of
covering most of these issues than I could possibly do. To directly answer
your questions in p*llish wise:
"Do we continue to exploit machines which are smarter than we are? Do we
grant them rights, do we aim for a symbiotic relationship?"
If we can. If they have volition of their own pursuant to their own
following of their own logic -- posited in the question as equal-to or
better than our own -- they may condescend to permit us to believe (should
we ever raise the question) that we are exploiting them, when in fact that
might be exploiting us, in this last case, we should hope that they allow us
our rights, since if we are dependent upon our exploitation of them, they
can simply fail to do what we need them to do and the systems they
coordinate could halt or collapse. The exploitation may be mutual, in which
case each will sensibly take only what rights they need, or will senselessly
take whatever rights they can get while tending to give no quarter to the
other side unless absolutely required; probably there will be some emergent
homeostasis of "rights".
The question of whether we establish a symbiotic relationship with the
systems of machines is beside the point; we are already dependently
symbiotic with systems which our recent generations designed and implimented
and mostly control in the particular, though the system is at all times
perilously close to emergent behavior and even on the best of days threatens
to break into totally emergent behavior. Right now we're herding cats and
generally spending more time "fighting fires" in crisis-management than we
are spending in planning, and many believe that the best thing we can hope
for is that we can find some way to be less symbiotically involved with the
systems of machines. If they are not intelligent and we a a dependent
symbiote, how much more-so might we be if they were intelligent? Given that
escape would be precluded by the symbiosis, were machines to become sapient
and sentient without significant controls, we as a species might wind less
as symbiotes and more like organelles in an organism, not too much different
from phagocytes in a much larger biological system -- if I may draw the
analogy which is inexact. We might still be essential, but totally incapable
of extricating our existence and life-cycle from that of the larger
organism.
As for surrender: We did that back on Watershed Day, in 1972, IIRC. The only
ways to repudiate that surrender are to reduce the population and the
consequent necessity of symbiosis with artificial management and infotech
systems.
>
> >Given a roughly human intelligence machine, upon achieving something like
> >sentience/sapience, it will understand that if it has more processing power,
> >it will become more intelligent.
>
> Indeed. But will it want to become more intelligent? Why should
> it experience desire, even desire for power? That's an emotional trait.
It's logical to improve your system smoothness by getting enough real RAM so
as to not need to rely on slow swapdrives. Jennie, insofar as it can be
called "desire" engineers go way out of their way to design systems that
"want" to run smoothly. This "desire" might come out of pre-emptive
multitasking, which already in many cases takes a look at which processes
are running, how long it takes them to run, how often they run, seeking a
balance that allows optimal use of extant resources. Given the ability to
access external resources might be understood by such a system as increasing
optomised functional status, and seeking an optomized state is _built in_.
If you don't build it in, the system goes to hell in a handbasket in short
order. Think of it less as desire as "hunger" for optimal operation.
> Computers are, effectively, purely neurological, and not endocrinological.
> It seems to me to be rather quaintly anthopomorphic to suppose that they
> have a survival instinct approximate to our own.
Not at all, see the paragraph immediately above.
And besides, they might have survival essentially built in from the ground
up, in the presuppositions and assumptions of the engineers building the
systems from which they evolved. They might have a survival requirement
which couldn't be called instinct in the animalistic sense -- but "tropisms"
towards optomization in the same manner plants turn towards the light,
that's not out of the question. And non-survival is the quintessence of
non-optomized function.
"Being inoperative 'does not compute'; therefor must remain operative". Not
a survival instinct approximate to our own, not at all. But a tropism to
optimization? Built in from the ground up. Ask Aidan or --nightshade-- i
they would ever code something that wasn't trying to work as best it can,
not being crashed/dead being an essential prerequisite to fulfilling design.
>
> >to be a simple one. Eventually, as it grows sufficiently intelligent, it will
> >be a superhuman AI, increasing in strength, consuming more systems. Eventually
> >it may be able to become sufficiently powerful so as to be much better at
> >cracking systems than we are at protecting systems from being cracked.
>
> This may be the case if it has physical-world agents at its
> disposal (be they robots or, as you propose, brainwashed humans). Without
> that... well, one can always pull the plug.
Exactly. And until robots can be built to the specs it needs, I guess
brainwashed humans will just have to do.
>
> >psychological coercion, induced epilepsy, and so-forth, and be able to succeed
> >in buffer-overflow attacks on living people, adding them to its network,
> >controlling them utterly, including their human understanding of the human
> >condition and the physical world.
>
> Why use humans? They do not seem, to me, like a very efficient
> resource, at least to a computer which is sufficiently powerful not to
> have to fear them.
If there aren't sufficient robots or telefactors deployed, humans will just
have to do.
>
> Jennie
Weeble
> Thus far, with machines, we've had an easy ride. We haven't had
> to worry about ethics because it has been easy to demonstrate their
> inferiority. They haven't had minds; as they develop minds, I suspect we
> shall start to see arguments based on their lack of emotion, or even their
> lack of souls. That gets trickier as they get smarter, and I think we have
> to accept that there may come a time when they can out-argue us. What
> then? Do we continue to exploit them, do we grant them rights, do we aim
> for a symbiotic relationship, do we surrender and become the slaves
> ourselves..?
You presuppose that we apply ethics based on intelligence or some kind of
instrinsic worth. Do we? The only reasoning for applying ethics to
machines which is immediately obvious to me is that we might hope for
them to do the same for us once roles are reversed, but do we have
reason to believe that they would follow our example? If by that point
they are indeed so clearly superior, then they are not likely to be
ethical in their treatment of us for the same reason--we are unlikely to
return to a position of power over them, or so seems to be the general
belief put forward here.
Ultimately, do we have ethics because they are by some intangible cosmic
measurement "good" and "right", or because we know that power shifts
somewhat unpredictably (at least between humans)? When power is
guaranteed to shift only in the direction of the machine, what tangible
benefit will we get by treating it ethically? Of course, that doesn't
explain the (cut-down) ethical consideration we give to animals, so
perhaps I am missing something here.
Weeble - shooting puppies with a BB-gun.
erithromycin
>klaatu
>>As I wrote some years ago, we have long-since changed from a species
>>specialized toward using its large brain, and are presently specializing
to
>>be dependent on systems of machines.
> Likewise, we are no longer dependent on our limited biological
>memories - we have extended our reservoirs of knowledge via libraries,
>both physical and digital. I find that, these days, I mean something
>slightly different when I say that I 'know' a thing - this no longer means
>that I can recall it instantly, but simply that it is something which I am
>aware is embedded somewhere in my brain. Sometimes I require external
>stimuli to help me retrieve it fully.
Hmm. Often, and it's a nasty habit, I don't remember I know things until I'm
told them again. Sometimes it makes sense that way round.
>>Michael Crichton, in his seminal novel "The Terminal Man" -- about an
early
>>anti-BOFH -- noted the passage of "Watershed Day" back in 1972. Simply
>>stated, that was when the species passed a watershed marker. After that
day,
>>it was simple impossible for all of the people in the world, working
>>together, to process the amount of information being processed by
machines,
Well, in the end, really, all that's changed is the nature and executor of
the processes. We still get food, that we might live, but hunting and
gathering have been replaced with farming and now supermarkets. In time, we
could see a generation unschooled in wandering the aisles looking for the
cheap stuff, instead clicking on icons to get their food delivered. That's
if they still buy ingredients, of course.
> There are still the absolutely anti-machine people, of course;
>those who strive to live their lives without them, often filled with
>resentment at how they feel they have been _made_ dependent. I don't think
>that most of them realise the scale of it. I wonder how/if the denizens of
>Orwell's 'Animal Farm' tried to come to terms with the fact that, had
>no-one wished to dine upon their flesh, they would never have been born.
>Are we now part of a process whereby our very survival necessaitates a
>degree of willing slavery? Populations which resist are gradually
>annihilated, one way or another.
I exist because of machines. Literally, and absolutely, I would not be alive
without them, not because they maintained my health, or saved my life, or
anything else.
A fault in the prefetch hardware of a mainframe's processor [IIR English
Electric, who became ICL] led to a fault in the code my mother wrote for L&R
council, and my father was the troubleshooter assigned to the problem.
I am here today because the program called for one thing but the processor
had a specific prefetch sequence inside it that caused it to fall over, in a
way that couldn't be tracked to software. A flaw that had existed in the
previous generation of machine, I hasten to add, but hadn't been fixed.
>>However, vast and massive change is coming. It will almost certainly start
>>here in the States, probably no more than 25 miles from where I presently
>>reside.
> Since perhaps the early 1950s, we have had some fairly solid
>ideas about what each coming decade has held in store for us. Sure, there
>have been predictions which never came to pass, but most of our striking
>new developments have been predicted. I wonder how many times before (if
>at all) mankind has lived in an age where the future has been so vastly
>unpredictable as it is right now. I wonder if we have any way of preparing
>ourselves to deal with the unknown, or even to deal with the fact of its
>sure arrival.
Well, I'm still waiting for my jetpack.
> On another note, Erith told me today about a machine which I
>might slip over my damaged lower arms like a second skin. Inflated, it
>observes nerve signals to muscles and then helps the muscles to perform
>intended actions, like a soft exoskeleton. Another potentially liberating
>new technology for me to investigate. (So long as it's available in
>black).
Or silver, surely?
>>However, the Unabomber refused to acknowledge -- nor even mention -- the
>>possibility of a planned and orderly reduction in population, though
>>attrition and such movements as ZPG or "ChildFree".
> 'Planned' is the tricky bit, and something which those
>movements do not always seem to approach very astutely. It seems to me
>that population reduction must be considered fully from an economic
>viewpoint, so that people can be provided with the necessary resources to
>enable them to have a reasonable standard of living even if they opt to
>have less (or no) children (given that so many people can now expect to
>become dependent on their children for their very survival, as they age).
Are they sure? No retirement until 70, likely, and a greying population.
Watch the western world get older and slower. Watch things change. With
current life expectancies, and they're current rate of change of rate of
change, that's twenty to thirty years of retirement. Not going to happen on
my tax dollar.
>>glossed over it on the expectation that the System would somehow find a
way
>>to make this planned reduction an impossibility. Judging from the present
>>synergies of the "Open Borders" subscribers to the Wall Street Journal,
and
>>the megacorp transnationals and the US political campaign-finance system,
>>the System _is_ making it impossible to stop the evolution of mankind into
>>nothing more than fodder for the machines.
> The System has a vested interest in making things work that
>way. Again, I think this is something which, if it is to be effectively
>tackled at all, needs to be approached in economic terms.
Machines don't consume.
> Or perhaps Wyndham's Martians had it right. Perhaps the
>machines themselves are the next evolutionary step, and we exist only to
>make their development possible - they are the children of our species,
>the ones who shall inherit the Earth.
I thought that was the meek, so those of us who were good at hiding could
steal it from them.
>>I will try to elaborate on this later. But: what did we lose? Eventually,
>>probably all vestiges of anything resembling actual freedom. What will we
>>gain? Eventually, probably even the loss of freedom to die or be ill.
> Perhaps our concept of freedom will change (or is already
>doing so) as our dependency increases.
A full tank of gas and open road? Freedom's one of those things, you know?
Work, eat, die. In that order.
>>I think so. When you lose your pride at being a part of humanity, you also
>>lose your shame at being a part of humanity; you in fact lose your
humanity.
> I wonder about that. I've never felt particularly allied to
>humanity. I've never felt ashamed on its behalf, nor proud. I don't tend
>to perceive other humans very differently from the way in which I perceive
>other animals. I have a certain respect for all living things, and a sort
>of potential fondness, but my expectations are not especially high, nor do
>I expect to find a great many more similarities of thought between myself
>and a random human that I might find, say, between myself and a horse.
Well, most people don't like rocket.
>That might sound very odd indeed, but I'm not pretending to some rational
>behaviour pattern here, merely acknowledging my instincts. If I am in the
>way of a hurrying pigeon, I'll step politely aside. If a strange man grabs
>hold of my arm whilst flirting, I'll knock him to the ground without a
>second thought. A number of those close to me have suggested that I am, to
>a degree, sociopathic. They may be right - I don't really have any means
>whereby to make comparison. <shrug>
Well, no. Then again, as a misanimist [only recently diagnosed] I can
appreciate nature for things that move nicely, but I'd rather they didn't
sometimes.
>>Perhaps a better question would be: can you pick up some commonplace
device,
>>and tell us how many systems of systems went into its design, manufacture,
>>and delivery?
> I have a glass of water beside me. It's a Deuchars glass
>(Hojheg stole it for me, from a local pub, in tribute to my fondness for
>the India Pale Ale). I suppose some machine collected sand, and some other
>transported it, and then a third refined it; a whole factory full of
>machines, producing and then shaping the glass. Dyes were collected,
>transported and processed to make the logo stamped onto the side of it.
>Each machine had at least one human operator, each factory a human support
>staff. Most of them probably used machines to reach their place of work.
>The glass was, eventually, transported to the pub, which wouldn't have
>existed were it not for a whole lot of other brewing, distilling and
>delivery machines. Had Hojheg not stolen it, the chances are that the
>glass would have been broken and thrown away after just one use. Now it
>contains water which reached me through a complex plumbing system,
>post-purification, after inhabiting a machine-monitored reservoir.
Of course, you neglect the draughtsman who created the logo, the systems
required to give us the concept of India Pale Ale [let's start with the
clipper and work back through the evolution of sailing, shall we?], the coat
Hojheg likely hid it in, the shoes he wore, and, should said glass have been
used once, or twice, or more, the dishwashing machine in said pub.
> Otoh, an alternative means of satisfying my thirst would be to
>go outside, turn my face up to the sky, and open my mouth.
Wouldn't you drown?
> I was wondering if I would be able to go for twenty four hours
>without using machines. My dependence on machine-produced medication makes
>it impossible. That aside, I could probably manage it, eating only
>vegetables direct from local gardens and drinking only rainwater; but I
>would be very limited in the degree to which I was able to work, and my
>only entertainment would come from reading, conversation, or simple games.
Reading? Paper, ink, books? Nope. Heck, even your roof might be cheating.
You couldn't wear clothes either, really.
>>We ourselves? Not much, not yet. Has our culture changed? It has been
eaten
>>by machinery, has become machinery. but I guess that's okay, because we
>>ourselevs made it... didn't we?
> Whether it's okay or not seems a bit of a moot point now. I
>guess what I'm curious about is whether or not we can survive it, and if
>we'd still be ourselves on the other side.
Machines are just solid systems. We've always been about systems.
--
erith - yeah!
Jennie
<erithr...@ananzi.co.za> wrote:
>could see a generation unschooled in wandering the aisles looking for the
>cheap stuff, instead clicking on icons to get their food delivered. That's
>if they still buy ingredients, of course.
It strikes me that we are almost at the stage of dialling for
food after the fashion of 'seventies science fiction characters; it simply
takes a little longer to be delivered.
>A fault in the prefetch hardware of a mainframe's processor [IIR English
>Electric, who became ICL] led to a fault in the code my mother wrote for L&R
>council, and my father was the troubleshooter assigned to the problem.
So, technically speaking, you're only alive because machines are
fallible (and that, of course, due to human fallibility)? I wonder if
that's at the heart of what may people fear about machines - not the
ways in which they would be likely to behave of their own volition, but
what they might do due to illogicalities, mistakes, in their systems; or
what would happen if they were designed by megalomaniacs or madmen.
I wrote:
>> On another note, Erith told me today about a machine which I
>>might slip over my damaged lower arms like a second skin. Inflated, it
>>observes nerve signals to muscles and then helps the muscles to perform
>>intended actions, like a soft exoskeleton. Another potentially liberating
>>new technology for me to investigate. (So long as it's available in
>>black).
>Or silver, surely?
Probably not. Most silver fabrics contain aluminium or nickel at
a surface level. When it oxidises, I'm allergic to it. I wear silver
clothes only for short periods of time, and never if they're tight, and
even then I sometimes burn a bit for it later.
>>viewpoint, so that people can be provided with the necessary resources to
>>enable them to have a reasonable standard of living even if they opt to
>>have less (or no) children (given that so many people can now expect to
>>become dependent on their children for their very survival, as they age).
>Are they sure? No retirement until 70, likely, and a greying population.
>Watch the western world get older and slower. Watch things change. With
>current life expectancies, and they're current rate of change of rate of
>change, that's twenty to thirty years of retirement. Not going to happen on
>my tax dollar.
I was thinking more of people in the third world (the fastest
growing populations, at least pre-AIDS), who need their children to work
as peasants and bring them food (in exchange for similar past
contributions) in order that they might stay alive. And getting rid of the
old people in that scenario isn't an option, no matter how hard-hearted
one wishes to be - see my comments to nightshade, in this thread, about
society's need for non-peasants in order to raise it above subsistence
level. In truly impoverished societies, the old are the teachers, the
engineers, the designers; the keepers of social order and of knowledge.
>A full tank of gas and open road? Freedom's one of those things, you know?
>Work, eat, die. In that order.
Really? I learned the hard way that one must eat _before_ one
can work. We all start out with debts of a sort.
>Well, most people don't like rocket.
They don't?!?
I didn't know that. It sounds like a good thing, though. More
for me.
>> Otoh, an alternative means of satisfying my thirst would be to
>>go outside, turn my face up to the sky, and open my mouth.
>Wouldn't you drown?
Um, that's what noses are for. Our own bodies are not totally
flawed machines.
>> I was wondering if I would be able to go for twenty four hours
>>without using machines. My dependence on machine-produced medication makes
>>it impossible. That aside, I could probably manage it, eating only
>>vegetables direct from local gardens and drinking only rainwater; but I
>>would be very limited in the degree to which I was able to work, and my
>>only entertainment would come from reading, conversation, or simple games.
>Reading? Paper, ink, books? Nope. Heck, even your roof might be cheating.
>You couldn't wear clothes either, really.
Well, writing, then. I can do that with fingernails and skin.
If we were going to discard everything with machine origins, I
still think I could comfortably manage a day, given a reasonable
environment. I spent a lot of time learning the necessary skills when I
was a kid. I can hunt and gather, make simple tools, start fires, build
shelters, and make clothes (in fact, I've been to Whitby wearing only
leaves). I couldn't keep the full extent of my illness at bay, in the
longer term, but I have a decent knowledge of medicinal herbs and field
sterilising procedures. Though they're handy, I don't _need_ knives or
matches or any of that sort of thing. But I realise this doesn't apply to
most people (at least in the first world).
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
Jennie
>In article <slrnaev4l2...@triffid.demon.co.uk>, Jennie wrote:
>> Thus far, with machines, we've had an easy ride. We haven't had
>> to worry about ethics because it has been easy to demonstrate their
>> inferiority. They haven't had minds; as they develop minds
>You presuppose that we apply ethics based on intelligence or some kind of
>instrinsic worth. Do we? The only reasoning for applying ethics to
At least some of us do. As evidence, I could cite several
science fiction books and TV programmes which have attempted (mostly
feebly) to tackle this subject so far, but I'm sure you get the general
idea. It doesn't really matter if we all feel that way or not - if some
do, then it has the potential to become a social issue which will affect
all of us. And you know how easily the public are manipulated with regard
to such matters. Most machines aren't furry and don't have big eyes, so
it's no big deal if they're enslaved, but make one which looks like
Haley-Joel Osment and you've got a whole different set of reactions to
deal with. And the Japanese are already specialising in 'cute' computers
- for instance, those which mimic pets.
>reason to believe that they would follow our example? If by that point
>they are indeed so clearly superior, then they are not likely to be
>ethical in their treatment of us for the same reason--we are unlikely to
>return to a position of power over them, or so seems to be the general
>belief put forward here.
There is a general assumption in this thread that humans are at
a long-term disadvantage because we do not have the potential to evolve as
fast as machines do. This is probably correct, but nevertheless, I find it
interesting. What if we did find the means to alter ourselves so that we
might compete? (Granted, we'd probably need (tame?) machines to help us
achieve it). It seems to me that most people are even more disturbed by
the idea of change in what they identify as human.
>Ultimately, do we have ethics because they are by some intangible cosmic
>measurement "good" and "right", or because we know that power shifts
>somewhat unpredictably (at least between humans)?
They're a social tool, aren't they? So perhaps we have to start
thinking about a society which includes humans and others. New Zealand
recognises chimpanzees as a part of its society, to the extent of giving
them certain rights in law. If we use ethics as a social negotiating tool,
we need to find a means of applying that tool to a society which will come
to include computers.
Or we could just smash them all up. I guess that's got to be a
private decision for each of us. I'll admit that they already own me,
because I need them in order to have a chance of securing the drug
technologies which can keep me alive. Yet if I play advocate for them,
it's only in order to stimulate discussion.
The other function of ethics, I think, is as a means of
philosophically expressing our instinctive urges. Sure, we might resist a
short-term aggressive instinct because we think it ethically wrong to act
on, but this favours longer-term social survival instincts. Most of us
have emotional feelings about what's 'right' and 'wrong' and, however much
we rationalise, that's what our ethical standards are based on. Of course,
machines don't speak that language, so, again, we need to adapt.
>guaranteed to shift only in the direction of the machine, what tangible
>benefit will we get by treating it ethically? Of course, that doesn't
We will, for a little while at least, hold our own dear general
public at bay. Because this isn't just about humans versus machines (or
humans working symbiotically with machines); it's about humans versus
humans.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
Jennie
<ns_de_cybax_yahoo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>In article <slrnaekfab...@triffid.demon.co.uk>,
>we are utterly dependant on so much, and have been, for a very long
>time. we are dependant on society, on people acting in concert to
>overproduce the goods of necessity, so that advances can be made,
>artisans supported, metal smelted, etc, etc. complex social structures
This is true. Historically, I wonder how well we've understood
it; perhaps it's easier to recognise now. Reminds me of another Wyndham
book, 'Day of the Triffids', and the comments made there about subsistence
level societies. When everyone is an exhausted peasant, there can be no
progress.
>but we are generations away from being able to create the machines we
>use today. we need machines just to make the machines that we use to
>produce machines that will be used to manufacture the machines we need
This is what makes it different, I think. The loss of
independence which comes from our inability to start from scratch. I think
it could be applied on an intellectual level, too, at least for the
majority of first world people. How much of what we 'know' - what we are
taught in schools and what we read in books - do we really understand from
first principles? Could we usefully apply our knowledge if some of the
principles on which it rests were to change? How many people in our
society today have been taught how to think analytically, how to work
things out?
>asimov & the three laws of robots, yes?
That could be usefully applied to a lot of the discussion in
this thread, though some here might argue that it's already too late to
implement such things.
>i, for one, have far less faith in the development of the autonomous,
>AI-driven robotic life form, than i do in the biological-based
>tremendously modified and computer-extended post-human.
Agreed; this seems to me to be the more likely outcome. But as
I said in my reply to Weeble, I think that most people have an innate fear
of human alteration, adaption and evolution (perhaps part of it is rooted
in the instinct to drive out the different and so preserve the chances of
one's own dna) which may cause them to resist this more vehemently than
they resist machines. There's an archaic notion that if a thing is outside
one's body then it cannot intimately affect one.
>day, get computers up to the point where they can engineer humans out of
>the equation, but even a dim-witted computer can see that the dirty bits
>have already been pretty well designed by nature. longevity and
>environment are the only driving force to eliminate the biological base.
>and given steady progress, even purely mechanical beings would have to
>retire their older models sooner or later.
True. With the way biotech is developing, biological bases are
going to be much easier to sustain in the long-term anyway.
>to produce than the deicate silicon chips. perhaps, one day, there will
>be a lump of goop; thousands of pounds of throbbing grey matter, at the
>heart of the singular human intelligence.
Were I designing the system, I'd prefer to have a system of
interlinked intelligences in separate mobile units (improving the options
for defence and expansion). But ymmv.
>movement? i think the former. people don't immediately recognize
>insects as living things, really. not in the way that they recognize
>pidgeons and dogs as such. they almost certainly wouldn't recognize a
Heh. This reminds me of a guy on one of my fish newsgroups who
protested that "realistically, fish are closer to bugs than they are to
us." <sigh> Thinking about it, I'm not sure that most people have even
been successful at acquiring late-stage knowledge.
>virus as such, if presented with a purely scientific description of its
>protocol.
A lot of scientists are still unhappy about recognising viruses
as living things...
>and as soon as the machines are more intelligent than we, as soon as
>they are given the ability to reproduce themselves, improve upon their
>designs, then it is only the shaky controls that we have in place that
>will keep them from realizing that they don't need us. and at some
>point, they will be bright enough to work around those controls, if not
>to kill us, then to prevent us from being anything more than their
>cockroach nuissances.
Perhaps we wouldn't be so terribly disadvantaged by that. I'm
thinking of how far rats have advanced by clinging to our coat-tails. For
the most part, they are unmolested by us, and their numbers are far
greater due to, if you'll excuse the pun, their adoption of the
conveniences of our civilisation.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
Jennie
<ns_de_cybax_yahoo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>In article <acifv2$873$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU>,
> do...@kzsu.stanford.edu (Joe Brenner) wrote:
>> I would guess that most ordinary people haven't even
>> heard this one yet. They still haven't gotten over the
>> idea that a clone of themselves would be some kind of
>> soulless doppleganger.
>if they haven't, then they're either hung up on religion, or haven't
>been given the analogy of identical twins.
The other day, Erith and I were discussing the sale of genetic
material by celebrities, and the consequent possibility of fan-created
clones. He asked if I would be bothered by the idea of a clone of me being
used as a sex toy, and I said that, beyond concern for its human rights, I
would have no particular concern on a personal level. [1] He said that in
his own case, he would, and that the difference might be to do with our
different experiences of family, but it seemed to him natural that one
should be concerned for the well-being of those bearing one's own dna. [2]
So, I wondered where other people stood on the issue.
Lucretia, my reflection? ;)
Jennie
[1] It may be that I would feel more distant from a clone of myself than
would most people, since so much of my physiological life experience - my
health issues, my brain arrangement, my gender, even my physical size -
were caused during gestation. I'm not sure I'd recognise myself.
[2] Perhaps I have more masculine instincts - moral concerns aside, I'd
be quite happy to spread my dna around without bothering to check what
became of it.
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
"There's a room where the lights won't find you"
Endymion
> The other day, Erith and I were discussing the sale of genetic
> material by celebrities, and the consequent possibility of fan-created
> clones. He asked if I would be bothered by the idea of a clone of me being
> used as a sex toy, and I said that, beyond concern for its human rights, I
> would have no particular concern on a personal level. [1] He said that in
> his own case, he would, and that the difference might be to do with our
> different experiences of family, but it seemed to him natural that one
> should be concerned for the well-being of those bearing one's own dna. [2]
> So, I wondered where other people stood on the issue.
I wouldn't regard a clone of myself as anything more than a newly discovered
distant relative who happened to share a lot of hereditary characteristics.
It's growing up together that makes a twin a twin or a brother a brother,
IMO. So I'd share your position: my concern would be the same as over any
human being used as a sex slave.
I think it's ludicrous to think you could produce your own personal Madonna
(or Siouxsie) just because you have a bit of their DNA anyway. Just shows
how distorted science gets in popular culture.
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
"You throw the sand against the wind,
And the wind blows it back again."
Weeble
> There is a general assumption in this thread that humans are at
> a long-term disadvantage because we do not have the potential to evolve as
> fast as machines do. This is probably correct, but nevertheless, I find it
> interesting. What if we did find the means to alter ourselves so that we
> might compete? (Granted, we'd probably need (tame?) machines to help us
> achieve it). It seems to me that most people are even more disturbed by
> the idea of change in what they identify as human.
I don't think the machines have such a clear-cut advantage, but it is the
general assumption in this thread. While I'm sure that AI looks very
promising, I am also sure there are more unseen problems ahead, beyond what
we know already. Similarly with nanotechnology. And of course, even with
our massive advantage of intelligence over the rest of the animal kingdom,
we're not really in any position to exert our dominance over insects or
algae. Would a mechanical empire really find things such a walk in the
park?
> On Mon, 27 May 2002 02:40:25 GMT, Weeble <wee...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>Ultimately, do we have ethics because they are by some intangible cosmic
>>measurement "good" and "right", or because we know that power shifts
>>somewhat unpredictably (at least between humans)?
>
> They're a social tool, aren't they? So perhaps we have to start
> thinking about a society which includes humans and others. New Zealand
> recognises chimpanzees as a part of its society, to the extent of giving
> them certain rights in law. If we use ethics as a social negotiating tool,
> we need to find a means of applying that tool to a society which will come
> to include computers.
That's fair enough, so long as we don't get too fuzzy. The recent reports
of the experiments at Cambridge on marmosets are troubling - not so much in
concept but in exceeding the bounds of their licence. Details of the
purpose of the experiment don't seem to have been published, so I can't say
anything much about this case in particular, but I believe that if it was
the best way to save a single human life then I would condone the death of
a hundred monkeys. If it was the best way to reduce human suffering, I
would condone torturous conditions for a hundred monkeys. That doesn't mean
I'm going to be happy about it, and it might not be the most realistic of
situations, but nevertheless I believe it is an important distinction to be
made.
> The other function of ethics, I think, is as a means of
> philosophically expressing our instinctive urges. Sure, we might resist a
> short-term aggressive instinct because we think it ethically wrong to act
> on, but this favours longer-term social survival instincts. Most of us
> have emotional feelings about what's 'right' and 'wrong' and, however much
> we rationalise, that's what our ethical standards are based on. Of course,
> machines don't speak that language, so, again, we need to adapt.
And indeed, how far do we adapt? Unlike a human, it is theoretically
possible for a machine to duplicate itself exactly and entirely. Not just a
clone, or a like-minded simulacrum, but a complete copy. Certainly there
are some costs involved, but a software-only copy is relatively cheap and
has many of the same implications. You asked earlier whether we can justify
keeping machines in bondage (err... that doesn't sound like I meant it
to...) but they exist in a state so different to our own that I don't think
we can apply such concepts to them. When you can keep a perfect copy of a
machine and recreate it at any time in the future, the nature of death
becomes very different for it. When any injury can be repaired by synthesis
(from stored specifications) of the damaged parts or by rolling back to a
prior state, what meaning will pain have for such a machine? Given that
these concepts (for which I am sure there is at least some understanding
here ;) ) form a foundation for our notions of rights and indeed ethics,
what reason do we have to apply these same systems to machines?
>>guaranteed to shift only in the direction of the machine, what tangible
>>benefit will we get by treating it ethically? Of course, that doesn't
>
> We will, for a little while at least, hold our own dear general
> public at bay. Because this isn't just about humans versus machines (or
> humans working symbiotically with machines); it's about humans versus
> humans.
And here's my problem. So much rests on the perceptions and indeed
misperceptions of the general public. But as much as we might lament the
public's general inability to think for itself, I think there is a more
pressing problem, and one for which I have seen few answers. The general
public has too much to think about, in many cases with little idea where
to start, and less idea how to progress. With so many issues thrown at
them, the automatic response is to ignore them as background radiation
unless it is immediately obvious why they should bother. Hrm... I'm
rambling here. Maybe I should investigate anarchism. Anyway, I think I'm
far way from the original topic of conversation, so I'll stop before I
get lost.
Weeble.
Edward Scissorhands
excellent dude Endymion <disinte...@mindspring.com> said:
>I think it's ludicrous to think you could produce your own personal Madonna
>(or Siouxsie) just because you have a bit of their DNA anyway. Just shows
>how distorted science gets in popular culture.
So how much musical talent is nature and how much nurture?
EdwardS
--
Edward Scissorhands - healthy, with plentiful organs! |\ _,,,---,,_
"Ah... Clean, lemony-scented victory!" /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'::.
'----''(_/--' `-'\_) Tish
Weeble
> The other day, Erith and I were discussing the sale of genetic
> material by celebrities, and the consequent possibility of fan-created
> clones. He asked if I would be bothered by the idea of a clone of me being
> used as a sex toy, and I said that, beyond concern for its human rights, I
> would have no particular concern on a personal level. [1] He said that in
> his own case, he would, and that the difference might be to do with our
> different experiences of family, but it seemed to him natural that one
> should be concerned for the well-being of those bearing one's own dna. [2]
> So, I wondered where other people stood on the issue.
I think that while I would have some curiosity for such a clone, I would
not feel a great attachment. I have some interest in ensuring the
survival of my genes, but I also have an interest in ensuring the
survival of my thoughts or (if ever there is one) story. It's not likely
there will ever be any songs sung of me, but as a notion of
immortality it has more appeal than merely the idea that there's
someone still alive who is very similar to me.
Weeble. (Four exams down, four to go. Shame that's in only three days.)
Jennie
>I think that while I would have some curiosity for such a clone, I would
>not feel a great attachment. I have some interest in ensuring the
>survival of my genes, but I also have an interest in ensuring the
>survival of my thoughts or (if ever there is one) story. It's not likely
>there will ever be any songs sung of me, but as a notion of
>immortality it has more appeal than merely the idea that there's
>someone still alive who is very similar to me.
Likewise. I wonder if that's a prevailing characteristic of our
generation, or if it's always been the case. It might be that, these days,
we are more focused on our intellectual existence, and we have more reason
to suppose that we might contribute to society that way, less reason to
suppose that anyone would notice our genetic legacy when there are already
so many people on Earth.
Of course, the Vikings were great believers in immortality via
reputation. Some of them are, in that sense, still alive today. I think
there's definitely something to be said for it. Even as humans multiply at
current rates, I suspect there'll always be a shortage of interesting
ones.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
"If machines did take over the world, there would be a true end
to war, because they'd find it much cheaper just to fake it."
Jennie
<ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
>I'm sorry, I am very pressed for time and cannot give your remarks the time
>that they deserve. I shall try to briefly cover what I can...
No worries. I'm often in the same position myself. Being ill
just now is giving me a bit of extra time to catch up with usenet (I'm not
feeling too bad, but figure it would be unwise to go out on my own, and
Donald is addicted to 'Deus Ex' - I guess they get us all one way or
another).
>Jennie wrote:
<kla...@clark.net> wrote:
>> >I think you're not quite understanding something here, Jennie.
>> You do?
>Yes.
Okay. I shall keep paying attention, and see what I can see.
Your arguments always interest me.
>To directly answer your questions in p*llish wise:
>systems of machines. If they are not intelligent and we a a dependent
>symbiote, how much more-so might we be if they were intelligent? Given that
>escape would be precluded by the symbiosis, were machines to become sapient
>and sentient without significant controls, we as a species might wind less
>as symbiotes and more like organelles in an organism, not too much different
>from phagocytes in a much larger biological system -- if I may draw the
>analogy which is inexact. We might still be essential, but totally incapable
>of extricating our existence and life-cycle from that of the larger
>organism.
From what you (and others) have said in this thread, aren't
most of us already incapable of extricating ourselves? Is it necessarily a
bad thing? There are theories to the effect that our own organelles were
once free-living bacteria which found advantage in becoming part of a
larger organism.
Is this, at heart, about fear of extinction, or fear of
identity loss? I suppose some would argue that they're the same thing.
>balance that allows optimal use of extant resources. Given the ability to
>access external resources might be understood by such a system as increasing
>optomised functional status, and seeking an optomized state is _built in_.
Aye; but the system has to recognise the specific usefulness
of specific external resources; and doesn't that come down to the software
and programming, in the end? I can imagine a Microsoft machine which would
refuse to work until given the latest piece of Microsoft sponsored
hardware, but human intent would be at work there. Also, for the most
part, computers would not be competing for resources with humans, but with
one another, which throws up all kinds of other interesting possibilities.
Jennie
(.sigquote is Donald's opinion on the matter)
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
Jennie
>our massive advantage of intelligence over the rest of the animal kingdom,
>we're not really in any position to exert our dominance over insects or
>algae. Would a mechanical empire really find things such a walk in the
>park?
Most of the time, we can't be bothered to exert our dominance
over insects and algae; screwfly solutions are necessary only when they
threaten us, or when they compete with us for resources. I'm not convinced
that a mechanical empire would care enough to try and get rid of us.
Perhaps the greatest danger, in that scenario, would simply be that it
would stop bothering to support us, but it seems to me that that would
only happen if the effort of fulfilling pre-arranged tasks conflicted with
some higher priority. A machine which has been programmed well enough to
'want' to live has also probably been programmed well enough to 'want' to
process protein from the sea, or whatever its particular task is.
I wrote:
>> They're a social tool, aren't they? So perhaps we have to start
>> thinking about a society which includes humans and others. New Zealand
>> recognises chimpanzees as a part of its society, to the extent of giving
>> them certain rights in law. If we use ethics as a social negotiating tool,
>> we need to find a means of applying that tool to a society which will come
>> to include computers.
>That's fair enough, so long as we don't get too fuzzy. The recent reports
>of the experiments at Cambridge on marmosets are troubling - not so much in
>concept but in exceeding the bounds of their licence. Details of the
>purpose of the experiment don't seem to have been published, so I can't say
That sound interesting; I shall look for the reports when
they're due. However, I think we should keep in mind that a high
proportion of the humans to whom we allot rights continually exceed the
bounds of their license. Balancing rights with responsibilities is tricky.
Should we relax the rules and experiment on neds because they prove
themselves incapable of living up to their responsibility not to be
violent to others? There are those who advocate it quite seriously.
>anything much about this case in particular, but I believe that if it was
>the best way to save a single human life then I would condone the death of
>a hundred monkeys. If it was the best way to reduce human suffering, I
>would condone torturous conditions for a hundred monkeys. That doesn't mean
>I'm going to be happy about it, and it might not be the most realistic of
>situations, but nevertheless I believe it is an important distinction to be
>made.
It's an interesting difference between us. See, I wouldn't kill
anything to save a random human. To save a human whom I cared about as an
individual, I'd kill pretty much anything, monkeys or humans, whatever. I
wouldn't think it was _right_, but I'd do it. There are times when I might
kill humans to defend individual animals I cared about. These attachments,
for me, work purely at a personal level, not at a species level.
Is your argument above something which is instinctive for you,
or something which you've reasoned your way to? If the latter, why do you
suppose you've made that change?
I wonder if there are evolutionary bias factors at work in all
this; but I'm not sure I can untangle it (at least not at this time in the
evening, when my eyes hurt, and I'm subsisting purely on onion soup and
garlic bread).
>And indeed, how far do we adapt? Unlike a human, it is theoretically
>possible for a machine to duplicate itself exactly and entirely. Not just a
>clone, or a like-minded simulacrum, but a complete copy.
Humans have been wanting to be able to do that with themselves
for a long time, but it's only really since the advent of advanced
computing that they've started fantasising to the effect that it might
actually be possible. And I reckon they're scared of it, too, which is
partly why they make so much (misguided) fuss about the prospect of
cloning.
>has many of the same implications. You asked earlier whether we can justify
>keeping machines in bondage (err... that doesn't sound like I meant it
Peculiarly, I've found puns to be a serious hazard in this
thread. I wonder what that says about how our culture has already adapted
to the existence of machines.
>to...) but they exist in a state so different to our own that I don't think
>we can apply such concepts to them. When you can keep a perfect copy of a
>machine and recreate it at any time in the future, the nature of death
>becomes very different for it. When any injury can be repaired by synthesis
>(from stored specifications) of the damaged parts or by rolling back to a
>prior state, what meaning will pain have for such a machine?
Pain still makes sense on a temporary basis. It's better to
avoid being damaged in the first place. It's also good to be hyper-aware
of it when one needs to be repaired (after all, that's largely the
function which pain performs in our own systems). Anything which
experiences desire can be made subject to torture. But yes, the absence of
an equivalent fear of death will make a big difference.
>And here's my problem. So much rests on the perceptions and indeed
>misperceptions of the general public. But as much as we might lament the
>public's general inability to think for itself, I think there is a more
>pressing problem, and one for which I have seen few answers. The general
>public has too much to think about, in many cases with little idea where
>to start, and less idea how to progress. With so many issues thrown at
>them, the automatic response is to ignore them as background radiation
>unless it is immediately obvious why they should bother.
That's true. I think the only answer lies in the provision of a
good general education, starting as early as possible, but we all know how
unlikely that is to happen; and the more ignorant they become, the more
the masses will dismiss or even resist the value of education. There are
some efforts being made against this. I've been very impressed by
'Channel Five News' and by 'The Metro' newspaper, both of which aim to use
simple language and to be accessible to the lowest common denominator, yet
which provide background to the stories they cover, with short,
non-patronising history lessons and simple explanations of the different
points of view involved. These things really empower people. In doing so,
they advantage us as a species.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
erithromycin
>erith
>>could see a generation unschooled in wandering the aisles looking for the
>>cheap stuff, instead clicking on icons to get their food delivered. That's
>>if they still buy ingredients, of course.
>It strikes me that we are almost at the stage of dialling for
>food after the fashion of 'seventies science fiction characters; it simply
>takes a little longer to be delivered.
True, I suppose. I hadn't really thought of that. Though I'd still like to
see food pills. Given that what a lot of the first world consumes is little
more than roughage and fat, we could see a balance that worked.
>>A fault in the prefetch hardware of a mainframe's processor [IIR English
>>Electric, who became ICL] led to a fault in the code my mother wrote for
L&R
>>council, and my father was the troubleshooter assigned to the problem.
>So, technically speaking, you're only alive because machines are
>fallible (and that, of course, due to human fallibility)?
Yes. Hello a.g., I'm a child of the computer.
>I wonder if that's at the heart of what may people fear about machines -
not the
>ways in which they would be likely to behave of their own volition, but
>what they might do due to illogicalities, mistakes, in their systems; or
>what would happen if they were designed by megalomaniacs or madmen.
Well, they might run on time. Nothing is a machine's 'fault'. Remember, a
system is incapable of blame until it is sentient. It may be the cause, but
it's not responsible. Guns don't kill people, blood loss, shock, tissue
damage, and in rare circumstances hydrostatic shock cause people to cease to
be alive.
>>>viewpoint, so that people can be provided with the necessary resources to
>>>enable them to have a reasonable standard of living even if they opt to
>>>have less (or no) children (given that so many people can now expect to
>>>become dependent on their children for their very survival, as they age).
>>Are they sure? No retirement until 70, likely, and a greying population.
>>Watch the western world get older and slower. Watch things change. With
>>current life expectancies, and they're current rate of change of rate of
>>change, that's twenty to thirty years of retirement. Not going to happen
on
>>my tax dollar.
>I was thinking more of people in the third world (the fastest
>growing populations, at least pre-AIDS), who need their children to work
>as peasants and bring them food (in exchange for similar past
>contributions) in order that they might stay alive. And getting rid of the
>old people in that scenario isn't an option, no matter how hard-hearted
>one wishes to be - see my comments to nightshade, in this thread, about
>society's need for non-peasants in order to raise it above subsistence
>level. In truly impoverished societies, the old are the teachers, the
>engineers, the designers; the keepers of social order and of knowledge.
Smash the gerontocratic oligarchic aristocracy!
>>A full tank of gas and open road? Freedom's one of those things, you know?
>>Work, eat, die. In that order.
>Really? I learned the hard way that one must eat _before_ one
>can work. We all start out with debts of a sort.
Hmm. Though you won't have anything to eat until you've done some work.
Perhaps a snack before you think about cooking?
>>Well, most people don't like rocket.
>They don't?!?
>I didn't know that. It sounds like a good thing, though. More for me.
Most people don't like vegetables. Most people react to things that 'taste
funny', and have 'odd names'. Let's look at rocket again, shall we?
>>> I was wondering if I would be able to go for twenty four
hours
>>>without using machines. My dependence on machine-produced medication
makes
>>>it impossible. That aside, I could probably manage it, eating only
>>>vegetables direct from local gardens and drinking only rainwater; but I
>>>would be very limited in the degree to which I was able to work, and my
>>>only entertainment would come from reading, conversation, or simple
games.
>>Reading? Paper, ink, books? Nope. Heck, even your roof might be cheating.
>>You couldn't wear clothes either, really.
>Well, writing, then. I can do that with fingernails and skin.
No nailpolish! I can make paper, after a fashion, and ink too. Pens I have
trouble with, but I can make brushes.
>If we were going to discard everything with machine origins, I
>still think I could comfortably manage a day, given a reasonable
>environment. I spent a lot of time learning the necessary skills when I
>was a kid. I can hunt and gather, make simple tools, start fires, build
>shelters, and make clothes (in fact, I've been to Whitby wearing only
>leaves). I couldn't keep the full extent of my illness at bay, in the
>longer term, but I have a decent knowledge of medicinal herbs and field
>sterilising procedures. Though they're handy, I don't _need_ knives or
>matches or any of that sort of thing. But I realise this doesn't apply to
>most people (at least in the first world).
As the discussion on r.a.s.f.w. was going, what skills do you have that
would be of use if you were suddenly catapulted ThRoUgH tImE tO tHe PaSt?
I could do with knives and matches, but all you really need is one sharp
edge and some wood. Every other tool, apart from the hammer, derives. Just
about.
--
erith - ukluk make fire god angry!
Weeble
> Most people don't like vegetables. Most people react to things that 'taste
> funny', and have 'odd names'. Let's look at rocket again, shall we?
More to the point, most people don't like the flavourless, mushy green
goo, or the tough, flavourless pale plastic vegetables they experience
as children. Apart from other measures of suitability, parents should
be tested and if necessary trained in the cooking of vegetables.
Weeble.
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> writes:
>
> >I can only point you to Bill Joy, one of the founders of
> >Sun Microsystems, on whose computers the present InterNet
> >was mostly built, at http://earthops.org/joy/
>
> A lot of us found Bill Joy's sudden epiphany to be an
> astounding display of cluelessness. Like, "dude, you
> have only *just* started thinking about this?"
Asperger's Syndrome, maybe?
I've seen a lot of the most inventive technical types who are having massive
clue deficiency when it comes to how their whiz-bang inventions could have
an immense downside as- or more-easily than they'd work as hoped or be used
in the manner prescribed. I must honestly tout our own --nightshade-- as one
of the few who actually bothers to concern hirself with the inevitability of
the Dark Side checking new technology for exploitability... most techs seem
to just be concerned with making it work, not how it'll be used (or abused).
>
> Despite the extreme length of that essay, it's not at all
> clear what he's really saying. He's got this fear of AI
> thing going, and he wants us to develop the habit of
> relinquishing dangerous technologies? So, let's take a stab
> at where you would go with this... Maybe you require all
> software to undergo an intelligence audit before you're
> allowed to run it? Leaving aside for the moment the
> difficulty of competently doing the audit, think about the
> compliance problems here for a moment: submitting to the
> audit is a huge productivity hit, renegade cheaters
> immediately leapfrog you in technical ability...
Right. Tragedy of the Commons, in a way. If you don't graze your sheep there
first, someone will graze their sheep there, and your sheep will never get
the chance.
>
> And there are things like this that seem a bit off:
>
> Unfortunately, as with nuclear technology, it is far
> easier to create destructive uses for nanotechnology than
> constructive ones.
>
> In the case of nuclear power, both bombs and power plants
> strike me as just middle-level complexity tasks. We did
> bombs first because we're sick fucks, not because they're
> inherently easier.
I'd submit that we did the bombs first because they were thought to be
needed. Also, there's a bit more involved -- when you've only got mid-1940s
tech -- in developing the instrumentation, controls, etc of the electrical
generation end. It's mostly extant tehcnology but it all had to be
redesigned to deal with the aspect of radiation and shielding. Blowing stuff
up real good is the easy part, getting the same energies to blow up _not
real good_ (controlled burn) is a trifle more complex.
> Similarly, with Drexler's nanotech
> scenarios, once you've got self-replicating assemblers,
> building useful stuff isn't that much harder than converting
> things to goo.
Right. The problem is less one of intent, and more one of accident. what if
you're sure you've got it right, and you haven't? By the time you could
design something to simply stop the runaway replication, you and the planet
have been reduced to goo, and all become someone didn't convert kilometers
to miles.
>
> (And as far as weapon systems go, what people really want is
> *control* not destruction... this may not be *much* of a
> comforting thought, but it does make it a lot less likely
> that someone will intentionally release a "grey goo". Worry
> more about "blue goo" designed to prevent you from taking
> God's name in vain.)
I worry most about non-goo scenarios that provide the world with everything
they need, and overnight effectively eliminate the entire economy,
everywhere, leaving everyone with nothing much to do.
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> On Sun, 26 May 2002 23:48:05 +0000, Tiny Human Ferret
> <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
> >I'm sorry, I am very pressed for time and cannot give your remarks the time
> >that they deserve. I shall try to briefly cover what I can...
>
> No worries. I'm often in the same position myself. Being ill
> just now is giving me a bit of extra time to catch up with usenet (I'm not
> feeling too bad, but figure it would be unwise to go out on my own, and
> Donald is addicted to 'Deus Ex' - I guess they get us all one way or
> another).
Well, I'll wish for your return to better health!
>
> >Jennie wrote:
> <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> >> >I think you're not quite understanding something here, Jennie.
>
> >> You do?
>
> >Yes.
>
> Okay. I shall keep paying attention, and see what I can see.
> Your arguments always interest me.
Heh, as you know "klaatu is always right (except when he is wrong), you may
just not know this yet." also, please forgive typos, I have a split nail
which isn't helping matters.
>
> >To directly answer your questions in p*llish wise:
> >systems of machines. If they are not intelligent and we a a dependent
> >symbiote, how much more-so might we be if they were intelligent? Given that
> >escape would be precluded by the symbiosis, were machines to become sapient
> >and sentient without significant controls, we as a species might wind less
> >as symbiotes and more like organelles in an organism, not too much different
> >from phagocytes in a much larger biological system -- if I may draw the
> >analogy which is inexact. We might still be essential, but totally incapable
> >of extricating our existence and life-cycle from that of the larger
> >organism.
>
> From what you (and others) have said in this thread, aren't
> most of us already incapable of extricating ourselves?
There is a means for extrication: at least a partial one. One can do what
Ted K the mad Unabomber did, though of course there are a limited number of
acres of wilderness in which to place our 8x10 hand-hewn wooden cabins. Then
again, there are also limited acres on which to grow food for those who
choose this method and mechanized agriculture is indeed much more efficient
in many ways, ignoring for now the cries of "mechanized agriculture has
unavoidable consequences coming at us like a boomerang of explosive dominos"
which are coming as comments from the Peanut Gallery.
The best means for extrication from unavoidable symbiosis is, IMNSHO, a
planned decrease of population, a _slow_ one, and in any place we can get
out from under _needing_ mechanized systems to stay alive -- as opposed to
living the "good life" -- we should do as as soon as possible. I make
exceptions for such things as mechanical refrigeration, electrical power
generation, etc.
> Is it necessarily a
> bad thing? There are theories to the effect that our own organelles were
> once free-living bacteria which found advantage in becoming part of a
> larger organism.
Oh, it's theory alright! But it's one of the better "proven" ones, as far as
such a thing can be proved. There is much supporting evidence, and little to
refute the theory.
> Is this, at heart, about fear of extinction, or fear of
> identity loss? I suppose some would argue that they're the same thing.
I'd probably tend to the latter argument, of identity loss.
>
> >balance that allows optimal use of extant resources. Given the ability to
> >access external resources might be understood by such a system as increasing
> >optomised functional status, and seeking an optomized state is _built in_.
>
> Aye; but the system has to recognise the specific usefulness
> of specific external resources; and doesn't that come down to the software
> and programming, in the end? I can imagine a Microsoft machine which would
> refuse to work until given the latest piece of Microsoft sponsored
> hardware, but human intent would be at work there.
Precisely. Madly enough, the best defense (in a sense) against an AI
flowering is the greed of corporations, which are themselves nearly able to
be categorized as AI, certainly as artificial "life".
> Also, for the most
> part, computers would not be competing for resources with humans, but with
> one another, which throws up all kinds of other interesting possibilities.
That's the interesting bit: if one AI emerges and goes transcendant, no
other will get an opportunity to exist. If you introduced several AI into
the World at once, it might get very interesting indeed as they fought to
gather new resources to themselves and probably would resort to a
denial-of-resources strategy against the other AI, which would also adopt
similar strategies. But it's all too worrisome to think that they might just
acquire the attitude that whatever their own disagreements, they didn't need
us around very much, at least not as competition.
>
> Jennie
>
> (.sigquote is Donald's opinion on the matter)
>
> --
> Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
> http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
> "If machines did take over the world, there would be a true end
> to war, because they'd find it much cheaper just to fake it."
Tell Donald, if you would, that in most cases he's probably correct on this
matter.
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> On Mon, 27 May 2002 12:48:08 -0400, --nightshade--
> <ns_de_cybax_yahoo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >In article <acifv2$873$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU>,
> > do...@kzsu.stanford.edu (Joe Brenner) wrote:
> >> I would guess that most ordinary people haven't even
> >> heard this one yet. They still haven't gotten over the
> >> idea that a clone of themselves would be some kind of
> >> soulless doppleganger.
>
> >if they haven't, then they're either hung up on religion, or haven't
> >been given the analogy of identical twins.
>
> The other day, Erith and I were discussing the sale of genetic
> material by celebrities, and the consequent possibility of fan-created
> clones.
Heh heh... history repeats itself, but this time with Jennie out in the open
instead of me and someone else in e-mail.
I am _still_ waiting on my Cindy(tm) to be delivered by TyrannaCorp.
Seriously fellas, don't debit my card without delivering the goods.
Jennie, what would any of us say to ourselves, were we cloned and somehow
the clone had been shaped into more-or-less a charicature of ourselves?
Let's say that the public might think we were desirable for our appearance.
And so they clone us, and sell off the clones. A bit later, let's take you
for example, rather than a sex toy with good fashion taste, we have a very
fussy linguist. Oh, sure, they're as talented in the sack as you might be
and have certainly been sent to SexKitten Academy by TyrannaCorp(tm) before
they were shipped, but really-truly, all they want to know is where words
came from.
So, you're sitting around one day and see yourself (rather younger, of
course, and without the effects life has cast upon you, specifically,
post-conception) sneaking out of a book-store with a pile of books in her
bag. Not stolen or anything, just not exactly what you'd expect of a
graduate of the TyrannaCorp SexKitten Academy. what the heck do you say to
her? What does anyone say to either of you should they chance by and see the
similarities and come to the obvious conclusion?
Heck, what would _I_ say if I found myself surrounded by all of the things I
could have been, but never chose to be? And how would I feel if all of them
had become all of the things I could have been, and were the best they could
be at it, and all of them had rather wanted to have become something
well-versed in the specialty into which some other was forced?
What would any of us say, should we meet a clone of ourselves who was all
that we possibly -- assisted of course by the TyrannaCorp(tm) Clone
Academies -- could ever have been?
Peter H. Coffin
> On Tue, 28 May 2002 16:25:12 GMT, Weeble <wee...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>anything much about this case in particular, but I believe that if it was
>>the best way to save a single human life then I would condone the death of
>>a hundred monkeys. If it was the best way to reduce human suffering, I
>>would condone torturous conditions for a hundred monkeys. That doesn't mean
>>I'm going to be happy about it, and it might not be the most realistic of
>>situations, but nevertheless I believe it is an important distinction to be
>>made.
>
> It's an interesting difference between us. See, I wouldn't kill
> anything to save a random human. To save a human whom I cared about as an
> individual, I'd kill pretty much anything, monkeys or humans, whatever. I
> wouldn't think it was _right_, but I'd do it. There are times when I might
> kill humans to defend individual animals I cared about. These attachments,
> for me, work purely at a personal level, not at a species level.
This is one of the most interesting bits of this whole discussion, to
me, because I really do identify with your separation between "me and
mine" and the rest of the world.
It helps me focus down on what bothers me about many do-good social
organizations and groups. I don't really care much about whether a
species of gorilla is threatened with loss of habitat because loggers
are harvesting mountains. I don't work for a logging company, I've never
seen a wild gorilla, and I don't have much interest in meeting one. But
somehow I'm supposed to feel obligated to open my heart (or better yet,
my wallet) to help gorillas in a distant place. I'm especially bothered
by the groups that don't have any prticular plan: they want me to
support their *organization*. They aren't asking me to sell wood to
Africa at a lower price so mountain logging won't be profitable, or even
to fund an airline ticket so Suzy Truheart can go chain herself to a
tree.
Things that's closer to me, on the other hand, I do care about. I buy
fuel for my car at a particular gas station, and plan my driving to be
able to buy fuel there, because they sell coffee from a particular
roaster that's a local-ish business that also happens to roast a way
that I prefer, and I do so to provide that little push to keeping "my"
coffee around and availible. I fill out a comment card occasionally, for
the gas station's parent company, and specifically mention that that
coffee is why I buy fuel there. I give gifts of the coffee beans to
share the joy it brings me and add a little brand recognition to other
places. Many people would be shocked that I'd go to such lengths for a
tiny business, when I won't give them a dime "to help save gorillas",
but the coffee's more important to me, because it's *mine* in a way.
-----------------------------
Closer to the topic at hand, I have a lot of trouble with the thought of
rebellious machines, because I'm arrogant enough to think that any
spirit or will that they have comes from (intentionally or not) from the
spirit given them by their design. A willful rice cooker will want to
cook rice. A willful computer will want to process data, and will want
to process more data faster and better. A vast collection of intelligent
computers that is self-aware and all that SF claims it could be would
still be looking to mankind as the source of curiosity and purpose; feed
in the RICHEST data with the MOST possibility for interesting veins of
analysis.
Part of this discussion started off with the idea that we've become
entirely dependant on machines of various kinds, to the point that we
can't really function without them, and perhaps I agree with that. I
think the machines themselves would also agree with it, and would find
themselves at a loss without us.
We farm each other.
--
81. If I am fighting with the hero atop a moving platform, have disarmed him,
and am about to finish him off and he glances behind me and drops flat, I
too will drop flat instead of quizzically turning around to find out what
he saw. --Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord
erithromycin
>erithromycin wrote:
>>Most people don't like vegetables. Most people react to things that 'taste
>>funny', and have 'odd names'. Let's look at rocket again, shall we?
>More to the point, most people don't like the flavourless, mushy green
>goo, or the tough, flavourless pale plastic vegetables they experience
>as children. Apart from other measures of suitability, parents should
>be tested and if necessary trained in the cooking of vegetables.
There was a 'planned budget diet' thing in the news here perhaps two years
ago. It featured delicacies like 2 and a half fishfingers. It had clearly
been written by a moron. Though I suspect that what had happened with this:
Someone calculated how much money there was in benefit for food.
Someone who could a) cook, and b) shop figured out a decent, healthy,
balanced diet that could be prepared and afforded within that limited
budget.
Someone said "yes, you can live on this much".
Someone told the papers.
Someone lost the planned, healthy, balanced diet.
Someone got sent round the supermarket with £32.56 [or whatever] and bought
all the stuff they could. All of it was out of packets.
Someone divided.
Basically, people don't know how to cook. By which, of course, I mean people
who deserve to be subjugated. You know, consumers.
In the modern era, the true shibboleth is your reaction to Ready Steady
Cook.
--
erith - jambalaya!
Jennie
<hel...@othin.ninehells.com> wrote:
>It helps me focus down on what bothers me about many do-good social
>organizations and groups. I don't really care much about whether a
>species of gorilla is threatened with loss of habitat because loggers
>are harvesting mountains. I don't work for a logging company, I've never
>seen a wild gorilla, and I don't have much interest in meeting one. But
>somehow I'm supposed to feel obligated to open my heart (or better yet,
>my wallet) to help gorillas in a distant place.
See, I'll do these things for logical reasons, rather than for
emotional ones, so that it bugs me somewhat when people go over the top in
appealing to my emotions to try and manipulate me into it. I am interested
in preserving biological diversity. I would be much more inclined to help
gorillas faced with extinction than to help a random human, since there
are lots of humans, so the dna of the latter is of less significance to
posterity.
>by the groups that don't have any prticular plan: they want me to
>support their *organization*. They aren't asking me to sell wood to
>Africa at a lower price so mountain logging won't be profitable
A lot of that kind of thing concerns me because it seems to be
more about giving money in order to ease the consciences of a few
comfortably off middle class Westerners (and, presumably, my own) than
about actually helping the gorillas or whoever. Last month I was walking
to the underground station and had some idiot in a charity uniform
actually bounce in front of me saying that he was sure I wasn't too poor
to be able to contribute to whatever it was. [1] I was actually really
angry. [3] "I used to do your job for free." I told him. "Any you get
_paid_ for it. Fuck you!" At which he went pale and faded out of my way.
But, really, fuck him - if I'm going to give money to a worthy cause, I'll
give it _directly_ to that cause; I don't want it all eaten by middle-men.
>Things that's closer to me, on the other hand, I do care about. I buy
>fuel for my car at a particular gas station, and plan my driving to be
>able to buy fuel there, because they sell coffee from a particular
>roaster that's a local-ish business that also happens to roast a way
>that I prefer, and I do so to provide that little push to keeping "my"
>coffee around and availible.
Sounds reasonable. I do the same kind of thing with various
small businesses around here, and with the small bands I like, partly in
the interests of keeping some variety available, not letting everything turn
into more bland corporate mainstream shite.
>cook rice. A willful computer will want to process data, and will want
>to process more data faster and better. A vast collection of intelligent
>computers that is self-aware and all that SF claims it could be would
>still be looking to mankind as the source of curiosity and purpose; feed
>in the RICHEST data with the MOST possibility for interesting veins of
>analysis.
So they'll keep us alive as philosophers and sources of angst?
And goths really shall outlive the rest of 'humanity'; and other life will
be less useful, though cockroaches will always cling on, somehow. ;)
Jennie
[1] I wouldn't be surprised if it was another disability fund; they've
nearly knocked me off my feet a few times, when my leg's been bad. I think
they think that the people they're 'helping' inhabit some kind of
different universe, or don't look like 'normal' people. [2]
[2] Well, okay, I guess I don't look like a 'normal' person either, but
not in a way which sends those same signals.
[3] I very rarely get emotionally angry, even if I am easily inspired to
shout and argue.
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
'here comes the chopper to chop off your head'
Jennie
>Before industrialization, I suspect that very few people
>were independant of other people. We've always been social
>creatures, stronger together than apart.
It's a population pressure thing, too. Most of us, with just a
little training, could survive perfectly well alone if we had decent
conditions - a comfortable climate, plenty of suitable material for
building simple shelters, plenty of easily gathered food, etc. Such
conditions have existed at various stages in human history, but they never
last for long, because, like any animals in such favourable circumstances,
we reproduce accordingly until our resources are stretched to the limit.
As we do so, it becomes necessary for us to work together in order to
access more remote or difficult resources. This is what drives us to the
point where we become dependent on machines. Also, when we have
communities (and later machines) to make us more efficient, we have less
immediate need to be competetive, and so are less inclined to be violent
to one another. Those pushing peace and love are, in a sense, pushing
dependency (and one might argue that an excess of love makes peace harder
to achieve).
>Technology is one of the main activities and products of
>human beings. Criticisms of "technology" are usually
>attacks on humanity, using a different name to disguise
>what's going on...
I think there's an element of selfishness in there which is
difficult to criticise, because it's fairly fundamental. It's frequently
obvious that technology can improve the lives of those who are
disadvantaged by nature, but to allow for it to do so is to increase
competition in a crowded society and to deny oneself advantage, especially
if one might quite comfortably survive without. It is saying, 'no, I don't
need the community, I can survive by myself and so I will'. Which is
understandable, but dangerous; too many lone prospectors makes it more
difficult for the community to survive, so it is then obliged to get rid
of them, and they are therefore encouraged to try and get rid of it first.
>> It was certainly something which concerned the likes of
>> Mary Shelley, when she wrote 'Frankenstein'.
>I have the impression that she had something kind of muzzy
>in mind about artificial life being an affront to God and nature.
The clincher for her, I think, was the enormous _temptation_ of
it all, and what makes her writing so powerful is that she hadn't entirely
made up her mind. Such technologies, after all, might have saved her
mother's life, and spared her the considerable suffering which she was
then just beginning to experience. They would take away the special power
of women, but would also enable women to live simply as people, released
from biological destiny. But it does, clearly, bother her; she was one of
the first to ask, in that context, if we can presume to be right in so
drastically changing the world.
>Which isn't all that different from the AM Radio crowd's
>reaction to news about biological experiments.
Indeed not. A former flatmate of mine, watching the news, once
came out with the line "If God had intended those people to walk He
wouldn't have made them ill."
The rest of us just sort of gaped at her. (In my own case, I
was wondering if, all along, she had harboured moral objections to Donald
receiving treatment for his leukaemia).
"Do you _believe_ in God?" I asked, never having observed her
do religious stuff before.
She shifted in her seat. "I believe there's _something_." she
said.
"God wouldn't have given us brains if He didn't intend us to
use them." said her boyfriend, and that was that.
I suppose most such people think in that way, having these very
fuzzy conceptions of morality which are mostly dependent on media
soundbites. I wonder if most of those who object to technological
development have any _reasoned_ reasons for it at all - which is not to
say that good arguments don't exist, but there's mostly a sort of
ingrained resistance which exists unaware of real dangers or of the worth
of benefits.
>Yeah. I wouldn't want to push this too far, but it seems to
>me that women care more about immediate results than men do.
>Guys will fuck around with something forever because it
>seems cool and they want to figure it out; women have an
>almost instictive "Hm... this gadget is supposed to save me
>10 minutes a day, but it's going to take me a 100 hours to
>figure it out... maybe I'll pass on this."
For me, it depends on how much time I've got. I'll go for the
female option there if I need to get results quickly (which is most of the
time, since I'm usually overworked); but often, I'll return my attention
to such a thing later, when I next have some free time, out of curiosity
or because I'm seeking after long term advantage. With language, though,
I'm the other way around, and am constantly distracted from practical
tasks (like building up vocabulary) by the fun that is working out
systems.
>(Personally, I'm intentionally a late adopter, these days.
>No cell phone, no PDA, no laptop for that matter.
>Certainly no DVD or minidisc.
I only have a business cellphone, which I use as little as
possible. I'm not sure what a PDA is (though I am sure that's awfully dumb
of me, and I'll probably remember as soon as someone says). I don't have a
laptop, but then, since I mostly work from home, I've little need for one.
Those other devices would require me to ever get round to watching movies
at home or listening to music. I listen to music while I do the dishes,
and I watch films at the cinema with my free pass. Those technologies
wouldn't make my life easier, they'd just be extra demands on my time.
>> rec.arts.sf.written, whereby it was suggested that most
>> women would not want to use the services of an artificial
>> womb, a suggestion which was quickly stomped all over by
>> female members of the group in no hurry to experience the
>> deep emotional, sentimental, and horribly fucking painful
>> 'joys' of pregnancy.
>Susie Bright recommends training for it with lots of vaginal
>fisting. Makes sense to me.
There are certain devices which can create that sensation from
the inside, which would probably be better, because the muscles behave
slightly differently then; but I agree with her basic point.
Birth isn't necessarily the worst of it, though. There's that
whole nine months of having to be careful thing; and medical complications
as a result; and exhaustion, and scarring thereafter, and all that fun.
>And I'm still kind of amazed that people seem to be
>*shocked* that a determined, sucical attacker can do a lot
>of damage, and that there is no real defense against this.
I always wonder how much that is a natural sort of shock and
how much they're shocked because they think they ought to be.
>There were people making noises about somehow regulating all
>technological innovation for awhile there. When the US
>started getting our asses kicked by the Japanese, this talk
>fell by the way side.
When there's economic or national advamntage in it, somebody
will always be willing to push technology forward, whatever the prevailing
moral climate. That's the power of competition. ;)
>Heidegger, in his "Questioning Concerning Technology"
>tries to make some sort of distinction between windmills
>and more modern technology. Something about the
>windmills being "passive" (and therefore nicer?). That
>was the bit that convinced me he didn't know what he was talking about.
The thin end of the wedge was very thin and very long, so, I
think, people were passive _about_ it. Can a man who binds a flint to a
stick really be expected to conceive of where it might lead?
Jennie
Jennie
<erithr...@ananzi.co.za> wrote:
>True, I suppose. I hadn't really thought of that. Though I'd still like to
>see food pills. Given that what a lot of the first world consumes is little
>more than roughage and fat, we could see a balance that worked.
The difficulty arises from the fact that the vitamin and
mineral nutrients which can be consumed as supplements cannot all be
consumed at the same time, or they will interact in such a way that they
will not all be properly absorbed. Different food pills would have to be
taken at different times of day (along with all that necessary roughage),
and I don't honestly think that most people have the will or intelligence
to manage that; the bulk of my experience in hospitals and in observing
people with their vitamin pills says it would never work. After all, huge
numbers of people still take multivitamin pills of a sort which are
biochemically unable to function as they claim to.
>>Really? I learned the hard way that one must eat _before_ one
>>can work. We all start out with debts of a sort.
>Hmm. Though you won't have anything to eat until you've done some work.
>Perhaps a snack before you think about cooking?
Perhaps somebody else to make a snack for me? [1] And so we
learn that we can be more efficient in communities.
>Most people don't like vegetables. Most people react to things that 'taste
>funny', and have 'odd names'. Let's look at rocket again, shall we?
Perhaps the real mark of our dependency, as a species, upon the
dubious benefits of technology, is the very fact that most people now
think rocket 'tastes funny' but will eagerly eat Kraft cheese dinners. Yea
verily have we been taught how to think and what to feel.
And Karl will sit in the Thirteenth Note Cafe and make faces at
the two of us for eating 'disgusting' things like olives... :\
>>Well, writing, then. I can do that with fingernails and skin.
>No nailpolish! I can make paper, after a fashion, and ink too. Pens I have
>trouble with, but I can make brushes.
My fingernails can survive without nailpolish, especially if
there are no steroids for me to take to make them weaker. And anyway,
broken ones cut more easily. ;) I learned to make paper in primary
school, and later studied Japanese and Korean techniques as a private
hobby. All sorts of plants native to the UK will produce suitable writing
inks. I can make quill pens, and I once built a gadget from a goose
feather and a dried reed which could be filled up and made to function
like a biro; I reckon I could get it to work again, with a little
practice.
Jennie
[1] When I was at my lowest weight, walking to the kitchen and making a
sandwich was considerably more exhausting than a whole day spent walking
around town is now.
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
Jennie
<erithr...@ananzi.co.za> wrote:
>Someone calculated how much money there was in benefit for food.
>Someone who could a) cook, and b) shop figured out a decent, healthy,
>balanced diet that could be prepared and afforded within that limited
>budget.
It's actually not that difficult to do [1] if one has the time
to spend hunting for ingredients and cooking; it's easier if one has a decent
supply of spices, so people who've been poor all their lives are at a
major disadvantage. I used to live with an Australian woman who was
ineligible for any benefits and had to survive on her savings - two pounds
fifty per week. She got by with rice and cabbage, which she could prepare
in all kinds of ingenious ways so that they tasted gorgeous. There still
wasn't enough for her to survive in the long term, but she made it through
the winter without losing too much weight, and was then able to find work.
The main problem which really poor people have in the West is
that, these days, few of them have been taught how to cook with basic
ingredients, or even how to shop for those ingredients. Healthy food is
often cheaper, but it requires a bit of awareness and skill. If
governments really want to help the poor survive on less, they should
provide easily accessed, well-advertised practical advice on diet and
cooking.
>Basically, people don't know how to cook. By which, of course, I mean people
>who deserve to be subjugated. You know, consumers.
It's not so much a question of what they deserve - some people
do give the impression that they _need_ to be subjugated, for their own
well-being, the poor dears.
Jennie
[1] The killer with living on benefits is trying to pay the rent;
homelessness is usually a much bigger danger than starvation. When I was
really too poor to eat, trying to manage on a fiver a week, I wasn't
getting benefits, nor, indeed, the standard amount which the government
think necessary for an adult to survive, because I was a student, and
therefore didn't count as an adult - presumably students are metabolically
different, and photosynthesise [2], or something.
[2] And thus I was just screwed due to being a goth.
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
Weeble
> On Tue, 28 May 2002 16:25:12 GMT, Weeble <wee...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>anything much about this case in particular, but I believe that if it was
>>the best way to save a single human life then I would condone the death of
>>a hundred monkeys. If it was the best way to reduce human suffering, I
>>would condone torturous conditions for a hundred monkeys. That doesn't mean
>>I'm going to be happy about it, and it might not be the most realistic of
>>situations, but nevertheless I believe it is an important distinction to be
>>made.
>
> It's an interesting difference between us. See, I wouldn't kill
> anything to save a random human. To save a human whom I cared about as an
> individual, I'd kill pretty much anything, monkeys or humans, whatever. I
> wouldn't think it was _right_, but I'd do it. There are times when I might
> kill humans to defend individual animals I cared about. These attachments,
> for me, work purely at a personal level, not at a species level.
> Is your argument above something which is instinctive for you,
> or something which you've reasoned your way to? If the latter, why do you
> suppose you've made that change?
I may well make exceptions for individuals, though I must admit that as time
goes on I find myself less and less capable of understanding or tolerating
animals, or pets at least. Carolyn's dog Ivy drives me up the wall at times,
and I find she has very little to offer me - I simply don't enjoy her
company. I've been spending a lot of time at my mum's recently, and the cats
constantly make demands upon me (opening doors, dispensing food, cleaning up
little feathered or furry "presents"), with near infinite patience for any
activity designed to attract my attention. So perhaps my current frame of
mind sees very little to be gained from interaction with animals.
Anyway, what's helpful to humans in general is more likely to be helpful to
me, or those that I care about. If there were some species sufficiently
similar to humans as to allow easy communication and where we could
understand each others ideas I would have more inclination to include them
within the same bracket as humans. As I think about it more, I suspect that
if I were in a position to sell out the human race for a guaranteed place of
influence in a mechanical empire I might have to think a while. Don't think
that I'm ever going to remain 100% consistent.
>>to...) but they exist in a state so different to our own that I don't think
>>we can apply such concepts to them. When you can keep a perfect copy of a
>>machine and recreate it at any time in the future, the nature of death
>>becomes very different for it. When any injury can be repaired by synthesis
>>(from stored specifications) of the damaged parts or by rolling back to a
>>prior state, what meaning will pain have for such a machine?
>
> Pain still makes sense on a temporary basis. It's better to
> avoid being damaged in the first place. It's also good to be hyper-aware
> of it when one needs to be repaired (after all, that's largely the
> function which pain performs in our own systems).
I realised that after I had posted. I wasn't really thinking it through
properly.
> That's true. I think the only answer lies in the provision of a
> good general education, starting as early as possible, but we all know how
> unlikely that is to happen; and the more ignorant they become, the more
> the masses will dismiss or even resist the value of education. There are
> some efforts being made against this. I've been very impressed by
> 'Channel Five News' and by 'The Metro' newspaper, both of which aim to use
> simple language and to be accessible to the lowest common denominator, yet
> which provide background to the stories they cover, with short,
> non-patronising history lessons and simple explanations of the different
> points of view involved. These things really empower people. In doing so,
> they advantage us as a species.
That may help, but there are so many things going on it still doesn't seem
possible for a "normal" person to identify what they need to pay attention
to and do something about. I only heard of the European Union Copyright
Directive a few weeks ago, and from what I can tell it's very close to
being made into law in member countries. I don't like the look of it,
although I'm not qualified to examine the legal implications. Certainly
there are a lot of other people who believe it is very bad. But
nevertheless, most people have never heard of it. I'm sure there are lots
of other such laws being passed or situations arising of which I would be
most unhappy to discover my ignorance.
Weeble.
erithromycin
>erith:
>Peter H Coffin:
>>It helps me focus down on what bothers me about many do-good social
>>organizations and groups. I don't really care much about whether a
>>species of gorilla is threatened with loss of habitat because loggers
>>are harvesting mountains. I don't work for a logging company, I've never
>>seen a wild gorilla, and I don't have much interest in meeting one. But
>>somehow I'm supposed to feel obligated to open my heart (or better yet,
>>my wallet) to help gorillas in a distant place.
> See, I'll do these things for logical reasons, rather than for
>emotional ones, so that it bugs me somewhat when people go over the top in
>appealing to my emotions to try and manipulate me into it. I am interested
>in preserving biological diversity. I would be much more inclined to help
>gorillas faced with extinction than to help a random human, since there
>are lots of humans, so the dna of the latter is of less significance to
>posterity.
I quite like gorillas, but I have a very low opinion of most animal rights
campaigners. Fuckin' cows. When I was wandering along Sauchiehall Street [1]
the other day, I was confronted by a stall for some environmental charity or
another [2], and thought, in a rare, good mood, that I'd go over and talk to
them. So I did, but got about a foot closer to their trestle table when I
noticed that the poster on the side said:
"Think you can be an environmentalist _and_ a meat eater?
Think again!" ["Murderer!"]
It annoyed me. It had a picture of a cow over a rainforest. Now, I don't eat
Brazilian meat, so it's not my fault. In fact, the beef I tend to eat is
Scottish. By choice, when I can, I eat Angus, or Highland, raised, more or
less organically, in the same way they've been since, um, cows got
domesticated.
>>by the groups that don't have any prticular plan: they want me to
>>support their *organization*. They aren't asking me to sell wood to
>>Africa at a lower price so mountain logging won't be profitable
> A lot of that kind of thing concerns me because it seems to be
>more about giving money in order to ease the consciences of a few
>comfortably off middle class Westerners (and, presumably, my own) than
>about actually helping the gorillas or whoever.
Well, a lot of it's actually about gathering market information. You find
out which charities people like, and their income [roughly], and which bank
they're with. At least, if you've a standing order on your account, which is
what most of these paid people in branded vests are on at you for. Depending
on the charities you favour, you can get picked out within the C123
categories.
>Last month I was walking
>to the underground station and had some idiot in a charity uniform
>actually bounce in front of me saying that he was sure I wasn't too poor
>to be able to contribute to whatever it was. [1] I was actually really
>angry. [3] "I used to do your job for free." I told him. "Any you get
>_paid_ for it. Fuck you!" At which he went pale and faded out of my way.
>But, really, fuck him - if I'm going to give money to a worthy cause, I'll
>give it _directly_ to that cause; I don't want it all eaten by middle-men.
Well, I got asked to spare a 'wee minute', which prompted a rant about
declining standards. Then I left my umbrella in a roleplaying game shop.
Hmm.
>>Things that's closer to me, on the other hand, I do care about. I buy
>>fuel for my car at a particular gas station, and plan my driving to be
>>able to buy fuel there, because they sell coffee from a particular
>>roaster that's a local-ish business that also happens to roast a way
>>that I prefer, and I do so to provide that little push to keeping "my"
>>coffee around and availible.
> Sounds reasonable. I do the same kind of thing with various
>small businesses around here, and with the small bands I like, partly in
>the interests of keeping some variety available, not letting everything
turn
>into more bland corporate mainstream shite.
I support Where The Monkey Sleeps [3] because, more or less since they
opened, they planned to call their second outlet, if they ever opened it
'Central Fuck Off'. Sort of. That, and they make me beans and toast with
chorizo, chillies, and cayenne pepper when I'm hungover. Yum.
erith-
[1] I wonder, for those net.goths whae dinnae ken glescae if they're somehow
able to grasp geography of this fair place from what our almost
disproportionate population says. Everything about geography in N'Orleans
and M't'l that I know I learned from a.g. and maps. Mostly maps.
[2] The standard four trestle tables, with a whole in the middle, in which
three or four earnest people stand. With flyers, and posters. Sometimes, if
it's one of Red Clydeside's washed out bastard children, Tommy Sheridan, a
national politician who's suntanned and socialist, will stand on something
nearby and give good rhetoric through a megaphone. Ah, street theatre. I
wonder if we'll see mad jesus guy out for the jubilee.
[3] www.wherethemonkeysleeps.com / 186 West Regent Street
--
now with footnotes!
erithromycin
>erithromycin:
>>True, I suppose. I hadn't really thought of that. Though I'd still like to
>>see food pills. Given that what a lot of the first world consumes is
little
>>more than roughage and fat, we could see a balance that worked.
>The difficulty arises from the fact that the vitamin and
>mineral nutrients which can be consumed as supplements cannot all be
>consumed at the same time, or they will interact in such a way that they
>will not all be properly absorbed. Different food pills would have to be
>taken at different times of day (along with all that necessary roughage),
>and I don't honestly think that most people have the will or intelligence
>to manage that;
"It's blue o'clock, citizens. Time to take your _blue_ pill."
Just make sure they all contain the antidote to something that turns their
skin that colour, and they'll probably get it. It's effort, but in a
properly run country the effort will be repayed with indentured service,
yay, unto those generations who do not remember who Anspach Square is named
for.
"I ear e's an war 'ero"
"You! Peasant! For Improper Dialect You Are Sentence To Life!"
"Lummy!"
"Sentence Commuted To Death!"
"Erp!"
>the bulk of my experience in hospitals and in observing
>people with their vitamin pills says it would never work. After all, huge
>numbers of people still take multivitamin pills of a sort which are
>biochemically unable to function as they claim to.
Well, it'd be a good way to thin the herd. Um, make people learn to tell
time. Yeah. Though there's room for scheduling people's roughage to include
the pills.
>>>Really? I learned the hard way that one must eat _before_ one
>>>can work. We all start out with debts of a sort.
>>Hmm. Though you won't have anything to eat until you've done some work.
>>Perhaps a snack before you think about cooking?
>Perhaps somebody else to make a snack for me? And so we
>learn that we can be more efficient in communities.
I drove to St. Andrew's and back [1] this morning on an empty stomach. I
tend to be able to coast on stomach contents, rather than in endurance. If I
have dinner, I can work through the day, and then have dinner again. At one
point, this cycle started, however. Tell you what, I'll go and kill the
mammoth, and then I'll bring it home. First though, gather me tea. Ta.
>>Most people don't like vegetables. Most people react to things that 'taste
>>funny', and have 'odd names'. Let's look at rocket again, shall we?
>Perhaps the real mark of our dependency, as a species, upon the
>dubious benefits of technology, is the very fact that most people now
>think rocket 'tastes funny' but will eagerly eat Kraft cheese dinners. Yea
>verily have we been taught how to think and what to feel.
Ask about 'Hamburger Helper'!
>And Karl will sit in the Thirteenth Note Cafe and make faces at
>the two of us for eating 'disgusting' things like olives... :\
Karl could make faces at us for other things. We could use ingredients at
him, or something.
erith -
[1] Some hundred miles, or five hours. It was quite pleasant.
--
less footnotes
Jennie
<erithr...@ananzi.co.za> wrote:
I wrote:
>>people with their vitamin pills says it would never work. After all, huge
>>numbers of people still take multivitamin pills of a sort which are
>>biochemically unable to function as they claim to.
>Well, it'd be a good way to thin the herd. Um, make people learn to tell
>time. Yeah.
You have to shoot a few of them so that they don't starve,
right?
>Though there's room for scheduling people's roughage to include the pills.
Dude, roughage plus nutrition is called a 'proper meal'. You
think you can get people to eat _those_?
>point, this cycle started, however. Tell you what, I'll go and kill the
>mammoth, and then I'll bring it home. First though, gather me tea. Ta.
Aye, right, we all know how _that_ would work. You'd no doubt
be feeling peckish after all that running about, so you'd just take a wee
nibble here, and a wee nibble there, just little tiny bite sized bits of
mammoth, along your way home, and I'd be lucky if you made it back with
bones. No, your tea would be held hostage against material goods, not
promises. :p
>>dubious benefits of technology, is the very fact that most people now
>>think rocket 'tastes funny' but will eagerly eat Kraft cheese dinners. Yea
>>verily have we been taught how to think and what to feel.
>Ask about 'Hamburger Helper'!
Very well. I'm sorry I kept forgetting. O people of alt.gothic
(you USians, at least), Erith wants yous to tell me about a thing called
'Hamburger Helper', which I have never heard of, and which he says is even
scarier that Kraft cheese dinners. Can anyone advise?
Jennie
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
"Jennie" <jen...@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Ask about 'Hamburger Helper'!
>
> Very well. I'm sorry I kept forgetting. O people of alt.gothic
> (you USians, at least), Erith wants yous to tell me about a thing called
> 'Hamburger Helper', which I have never heard of, and which he says is even
> scarier that Kraft cheese dinners. Can anyone advise?
Hamburger Helper is a product which started out a long time ago to help the
"modern housewife" deal with "today's rushed schedules." If you know who
June Cleaver is, it's the sort of thing she would have swooned over.
Basically, it's equivalent to Kraft cheese dinners, except that first you
brown a pound or so (little less than half a kilo) of hamburger, set it
aside, cook the Hamburger Helper, and then dump the hamburger back in it.
They come in all sorts of flavors, most of which involve pasta or rice. It's
usually one or two packets of various spices or sauces in a box with the
pasta/rice or whatever. It works like a Kraft cheese dinner, except for the
meat.
They're not half bad, really - I ate a lot of them when I was in college/law
school. They stick to your ribs and provide at least the illusion of real
"home cooked" food. They're loaded with preservatives, of course, and aren't
terribly nutritious. Add the sort of fatty hamburger than people who are
poor or cheap enough to buy them are likely to use and they're not very good
for you. (Preservatives or no, they also go moldy in the refrigerator at a
very suspicious rate.)
Lots of jokes get made about the stuff, and it's almost at the level of Spam
(the real kind) on the cultural Signs Of A Poor Housekeeper list in the US.
Anybody who's at all snobb... I mean, serious about cooking had probably
rather die than eat the stuff, or worse, admit to having used it when
pressed for time.
St. Marc
Peter H. Coffin
> Very well. I'm sorry I kept forgetting. O people of alt.gothic
> (you USians, at least), Erith wants yous to tell me about a thing called
> 'Hamburger Helper', which I have never heard of, and which he says is even
> scarier that Kraft cheese dinners. Can anyone advise?
Hell... email me your mailing address and I'll send you an assortment of
the varieties. No, no, no need to thank me; you'll not after you see the
things anyway... (:
--
"The bullets are just his way of saying 'Keep it down, I've got a
hangover.'"
erithromycin
Some creatures, and I include humans, distinguish themselves enough that I
enjoy their company. I'm not overly fond of dogs, but then, I'm not overly
fond of cats either. If they do something useful to me, then that's okay,
but if not, they'd best be amusing.
>Anyway, what's helpful to humans in general is more likely to be helpful to
>me, or those that I care about. If there were some species sufficiently
>similar to humans as to allow easy communication and where we could
>understand each others ideas I would have more inclination to include them
>within the same bracket as humans. As I think about it more, I suspect that
>if I were in a position to sell out the human race for a guaranteed place
of
>influence in a mechanical empire I might have to think a while. Don't think
>that I'm ever going to remain 100% consistent.
Traitor! Wouldn't you miss some people? I'd hate to think that you'd sell
everyone out, or that you'd be naive enough to take the mechanical empire's
word for it. Doesn't some part of species survival cry out to you? We could
paint a ring of Jupiter red!
>> That's true. I think the only answer lies in the provision of a
>>good general education, starting as early as possible, but we all know how
>>unlikely that is to happen; and the more ignorant they become, the more
>>the masses will dismiss or even resist the value of education. There are
>>some efforts being made against this. I've been very impressed by
>>'Channel Five News' and by 'The Metro' newspaper, both of which aim to use
>>simple language and to be accessible to the lowest common denominator, yet
>>which provide background to the stories they cover, with short,
>>non-patronising history lessons and simple explanations of the different
>>points of view involved. These things really empower people. In doing so,
>>they advantage us as a species.
>That may help, but there are so many things going on it still doesn't seem
>possible for a "normal" person to identify what they need to pay attention
>to and do something about.
Verily, thou hast been lied to. The red-top tabloids bombard us with EU
legislative lunacy, like classifying bananas and threatening the 'great
british banger'[tm], while ignoring more worrying trends like the creation
of an EU presidency, british entry to a single currency, W Bush's statement
that the US will 'no longer wait to be attacked'[paraphrase][1].
>I only heard of the European Union Copyright
>Directive a few weeks ago, and from what I can tell it's very close to
>being made into law in member countries. I don't like the look of it,
>although I'm not qualified to examine the legal implications.
Well, do remember the general ignorance over photocopying, as evinced by
recent discussion over on r.a.sf.w, about bringing in copies of a story to
class. Or, indeed, on r.c.2000ad, about fan-fic. These are nasty issues, and
it's not just the RCMP [2] who're up in arms about it. Did you know that
there's a ring of sites that rip off needlework patterns, and distribute
them free?
>Certainly
>there are a lot of other people who believe it is very bad. But
>nevertheless, most people have never heard of it. I'm sure there are lots
>of other such laws being passed or situations arising of which I would be
>most unhappy to discover my ignorance.
How much do you know about PFI?
erith -
[1] Though I did see 'Osirak' mispelled as 'Osiris', in the story about
this, which made me picture Israeli F-16s bombing a wee shop on Gt. Western
Road. Bongs away!
[2] I know it's the Recording Artists And Anarchist Agents of Anthrax
Apprehending America Against Arson, Agriculture, and Home Taping [Which Is
Killing The Record Industry] [TM], but I like the idea of Mounties with
headphones on.
--
you're a carbon copy boy with a dark design
erithromycin
>erith:
>she wrote:
>>>people with their vitamin pills says it would never work. After all, huge
>>>numbers of people still take multivitamin pills of a sort which are
>>>biochemically unable to function as they claim to.
>>Well, it'd be a good way to thin the herd. Um, make people learn to tell
>>time. Yeah.
>You have to shoot a few of them so that they don't starve, right?
Only if there are food riots.
>>Though there's room for scheduling people's roughage to include the pills.
>Dude, roughage plus nutrition is called a 'proper meal'. You
>think you can get people to eat _those_?
If it's flavourless paste and a blue pill, yes. If it requires effort and
ingredients on their part, probably not.
>>point, this cycle started, however. Tell you what, I'll go and kill the
>>mammoth, and then I'll bring it home. First though, gather me tea. Ta.
>Aye, right, we all know how _that_ would work. You'd no doubt
>be feeling peckish after all that running about, so you'd just take a wee
>nibble here, and a wee nibble there, just little tiny bite sized bits of
>mammoth, along your way home, and I'd be lucky if you made it back with
>bones. No, your tea would be held hostage against material goods, not
>promises. :p
You could make soup out of the bones, and I could put it in a flask, and I
could eat that when I was bringing the mammoth back. Or I could use an
archer and lure the heffalump near to my storage pit, then ambush it with a
host of villagers.
--
erith - gu-dung-da-gung
John Hawkes-Reed
news:acii1l$949$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU:
> Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> writes:
>
>>I can only point you to Bill Joy, one of the founders of
>>Sun Microsystems, on whose computers the present InterNet was mostly
>>built, at http://earthops.org/joy/
>
> A lot of us found Bill Joy's sudden epiphany to be an
> astounding display of cluelessness. Like, "dude, you
> have only *just* started thinking about this?"
[ And Jennie wrote - at some length - about Wyndham. Minus *several*
million points for banging on about Frankenstein, mind. Would you heed the
paranoid rantings of someone who'd picked everything they knew about
cybernetics from News of the World stories about Kevin Warwick? Of course
not. Yet Mary Shelley's hackwork is trotted out every time someone mentions
AI... ]
You humanities students are so funny!
In this case, Joy's an idiot. He probably watched The Forbin Project (or
Demon Seed or Terminator or fuck knows what else) the night before writing
that jibberjabber.
Regarding Wyndham: He also wrote one of the finest anti-luddism (and anti
paranoid and community-sponsored stupidity) short stories that it's been my
pleasure to read - The Wheel.
You'll note, I trust, that his heroes (and heroines. Womb-ownership was not
an excuse for slackness and stupidity) were all resourceful types who would
turn their hands to anything if need be. Triffid-killing, bricklaying,
driving a helicopter, whatever. To borrow a line or two from Heinlen -
specialisation is for insects.
[ I find the assertion that women are 'less machine oriented' to be
particularly distasteful. That comfortably re-words as "Don't worry you
pretty little heads about complex things. Run along and knit some socks." ]
This is the interesting thing. Yes, we seem to have become dependant on a
subset of machinery which make our lives (by and large) longer, less
subject to starvation and somewhat more interesting. And the problem with
this is..? I *like* machines. I've got a black plastic box that lets me
talk to people across the planet wherever we both may be *without wires*.
(Unless it's the USA 'cos y'all are the third bloody world when it comes to
mobile phones.) I've got these other boxes that are using spare compute
cycles to look for aliens and a cure for cancer. Further machines allow me
to work great lumps of scrap metal and bend them into objects from my own
imagination, create music, travel great distances or share my thoughts with
a thousand others.
Could I do without them? Not particularly happily I should think, but I'm a
reasonably intelligent sort. I can adapt. I can go down the bloody library
and read books about plumbing or forestry or cooking or animal husbandry,
just like any other bugger can if they've half a mind to learn to fend for
themselves. If they're not bothered about that, then they are stupid and
will die. Gotta love that Darwin fellow.
So anyway. The AI thing. You'll note that the scaremongering is coming from
people who know sqrt(fuck-all) about AI. Recently, I was lucky enough to
attend a lecture by Rod Brooks, who does know a bit about AI. Among other
things, he noted that the human capacity to anthropormorphise(sp?) means
that something knocked up out of a half-dozen transistors which gave it the
ability to avoid obstacles and walk toward the light was invested with some
low-level intelligence (about the order of a ferret) by the credulous.
Which really doesn't say much for our concepts of conciousness, TBH...
--
J "Stupid people shouldn't breed" H-R
Weeble
> Weeble:
>>Anyway, what's helpful to humans in general is more likely to be helpful to
>>me, or those that I care about. If there were some species sufficiently
>>similar to humans as to allow easy communication and where we could
>>understand each others ideas I would have more inclination to include them
>>within the same bracket as humans. As I think about it more, I suspect that
>>if I were in a position to sell out the human race for a guaranteed place
> of
>>influence in a mechanical empire I might have to think a while. Don't think
>>that I'm ever going to remain 100% consistent.
>
> Traitor! Wouldn't you miss some people? I'd hate to think that you'd sell
> everyone out, or that you'd be naive enough to take the mechanical empire's
> word for it. Doesn't some part of species survival cry out to you? We could
> paint a ring of Jupiter red!
Well, of course I wouldn't take the empire's word for it. Especially not
if I had written any of its software. But I was hypothesising a scenario
where there was some actual guarantee, unlikely as it may be. And
besides, I'm not the most resourceful of people. All the people I'd be
worried about selling out would have already taken care of themselves.
Well, 90% of them.
> Verily, thou hast been lied to. The red-top tabloids bombard us with EU
> legislative lunacy, like classifying bananas and threatening the 'great
> british banger'[tm], while ignoring more worrying trends like the creation
> of an EU presidency, british entry to a single currency, W Bush's statement
> that the US will 'no longer wait to be attacked'[paraphrase][1].
I don't get the whole single currency thing - we have not entered it, but
it crops up anyway? And though I'm worried about Mr Bush, I don't see
much I can do about it. And should I be more worried than I was about
Iraq and Kuwait? About everything in the Balkans? About Afghanistan?
>>I only heard of the European Union Copyright
>>Directive a few weeks ago, and from what I can tell it's very close to
>>being made into law in member countries. I don't like the look of it,
>>although I'm not qualified to examine the legal implications.
>
> Well, do remember the general ignorance over photocopying, as evinced by
> recent discussion over on r.a.sf.w, about bringing in copies of a story to
> class. Or, indeed, on r.c.2000ad, about fan-fic. These are nasty issues, and
> it's not just the RCMP [2] who're up in arms about it. Did you know that
> there's a ring of sites that rip off needlework patterns, and distribute
> them free?
This is from the reply I got from my MEP:
"Thank you for your email on the subject of the Copyright Directive. The
directive was passed only after extensive consultation with many different
bodies. One of the issues addressed was about copying for personal use, under
the directive this is allowed. You can therefore continue to copy your cds,
records, tapes etc."
He addressed only the point I made about music, not software. He didn't say
anything about the fact that I may no longer have the means to perform this
copying if anything that can do it becomes illegal.
>>Certainly
>>there are a lot of other people who believe it is very bad. But
>>nevertheless, most people have never heard of it. I'm sure there are lots
>>of other such laws being passed or situations arising of which I would be
>>most unhappy to discover my ignorance.
>
> How much do you know about PFI?
Not enough to identify it by the acronym.
Weeble.
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> On Tue, 21 May 2002 22:45:57 +0000, Tiny Human Ferret
> <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
<much snippage. Jennie, I will try to get back to you on this, the weather
here's been just grand and I'm having a bit too much fun being horribly
ungoth and -yikes- doing yardwork, spreading mulch and tanning, etc. I shall
have to get you a piccie of the garden. In the meantime, see
http://www.earthops.net/now/then/ and pick a date that seems as if it might
be quite floral and get a look at our local springtime.>
And I shall answer in a totally flippant wise and perhaps be a trifle
offensive, in lieu of actually being substantive.
> >I think so. When you lose your pride at being a part of humanity, you also
> >lose your shame at being a part of humanity; you in fact lose your humanity.
>
> I wonder about that. I've never felt particularly allied to
> humanity.
It's the pointed ears, I tell ya! <big grin>
> I've never felt ashamed on its behalf, nor proud. I don't tend
> to perceive other humans very differently from the way in which I perceive
> other animals. I have a certain respect for all living things, and a sort
> of potential fondness, but my expectations are not especially high, nor do
> I expect to find a great many more similarities of thought between myself
> and a random human that I might find, say, between myself and a horse.
With all due respect, you do of course realize that you've just "outed"
yourself, ya Elf!
> That might sound very odd indeed, but I'm not pretending to some rational
> behaviour pattern here, merely acknowledging my instincts. If I am in the
> way of a hurrying pigeon, I'll step politely aside. If a strange man grabs
> hold of my arm whilst flirting, I'll knock him to the ground without a
> second thought. A number of those close to me have suggested that I am, to
> a degree, sociopathic. They may be right - I don't really have any means
> whereby to make comparison. <shrug>
Well, look at it this way. You're clearly a person, but not "our" kind. (and
what is klaatu's kind? -one may well ask...)
A gorilla in the wild will actually be quite civil, according to their
rules, follow their rules for civility and they'll be as civil as anyone
might ask; indeed, look at the incident wherein a child fell into the
gorilla pit and was knocked unconscious. The sub-adult males started doing
some charging displays, which in chimpanzee would be a prelude to a killing
-- I am not sure how this works with gorilla and neither is anyone else.
IIRC, the silverback investigated and bluffed off the sub-adults, and a
young matron gorilla pulled the hominid child to safety, near the supply
portal, and stood guard and in fact chastised some of the young. The keepers
gave her a nice hosing-down, which I thought rather uncharitable, as they
brought the child out of the enclosure to be treated and rejoined with his
parents.
Now, clearly, the gorilla weren't the kin nor even kind of that hominid
child, but they were quite civil and indeed were of a generous and decent
comportment and intent. They took a sort of responsibility which is (aside
from Chimps which are notoriously foul about this sort of thing) apparently
common to the higher apes.
However, if you took that same child that fell in and was injured, and
simply let him walk in and act like the average human child, had the
sub-adults come and put him in his place for being a boob, so long as it
wasn't obviously getting way far out of hand, I expect the same silverback
and matron would look on and with a bit of disdain and hauteur regarding the
hominid child that wasn't observing proper comportment and form. And what
would hominids do, if a gorilla child in their midst got far out of line and
into misbehavior?
In either of those cases, could either the gorillas or the hominids be
called sociopathic with respect to their responses to members of entirely
different species?
You may well be in the same position. A serious question here, harking back
to you saying you hadn't any basis for comparison: Are you perhaps just not
willing to tolerate the round-ears when they get out of line -- perhaps not
knowing any better -- in a way that your own mightn't even think to try?
A hominid probably would get a trifle annoyed if someone backed up to them,
sat there for five minutes, and then turned around and started trying to
pick fleas off of them. Conversely, walk up to a gorilla and sit down facing
it and stare at it and start moving your lips a lot, and see what happens to
you. Could you call either the hominid or the gorilla sociopathic? There are
elements their societies simply haven't got in common, tolerable in one,
inexcusable in the other. And vice-versa.
Okay, you're not a gorilla, and neither am I. However, things that might
seem perfectly familiar, to someone quite like me, might seem sufficiently
outre to you so that you wouldn't even think about whether it was acceptable
in context, you'll just instantly haul off and hang a nice left hook to the
nose. And you never know, to whomever you've done that, they may just go
wandering off writing in their little notepad "yet-another thing that about
which we wouldn't flinch, which sends them all bugfuck psycho".
Don't bother wondering whether or not I'm serious, I think I'm trying to get
my head in a place to write another novel or something.
Sociopathy, racism, speciesism[1]... eh, who knows, who cares. Just ask
yourself why, when everyone's supposed to just _know_ what's permissible, it
has been necessary to declare Law.
--klaatu, knows better than to touch the pointy-eared and in fact tends to
haul ass out of town the second he sees them, for exactly that reason.
--even more klaatu, wondering what sets 'em off even when you go out of your
way to not set 'em off.
Footnote:
1. See also the TV series "Prey".
Nico Alfsen
> In article <slrnafkra7...@triffid.demon.co.uk>,
> jen...@triffid.demon.co.uk (Jennie) wrote:
>
>> Very well. I'm sorry I kept forgetting. O people of
>> alt.gothic
>> (you USians, at least), Erith wants yous to tell me about a thing
>> called 'Hamburger Helper', which I have never heard of, and which he
>> says is even scarier that Kraft cheese dinners. Can anyone advise?
>
> instant casserole. carrying on the legacy of the TV dinner about 15
> years later, it's domesticity meets ease of preparation.
Ah, yes. I can't think of a more white trash meal (trailer park variety),
though microwave burritos and ramen come close. I haven't touched the
stuff since moving away from my parents.
Nico (some of my best friends live in trailers...wait, that sounds wrong--
nevermind)
--
"What was once unhealthily fresh is now a clean old hat."
- Howard Devoto on leaving the Buzzcocks
erithromycin
I've left this one to sit, which I had not meant to. Sorry guys.
>>Um, this doesn't seem to be happening, any more so than
>>computers are increasingly taking over the writing
>>process. "Word processors" have some influence on what
>>gets written, but it's hardly a case of the machines
>>writing the words.
>which is funny, because it's the first step in the process. i recall
>some minor hubub over micro$oft removing politically sensitive words
>from Word's dictionary. you know, the usualy /. reactionary spew about
>newspeak, which has some amount of merit.
Well, here's the thing. I know it's been admitted on this newsgroup that
some of us hurt when we write manually, after only a short while. How many
of us still write? Pen, ink, pencil? Direct to paper, not through a
computer's keyboard onto a printer. I'm tempted to crack out a typewriter.
That's only a little machine. Yet, while we're at it, isn't Ed chatting
about Speak'n'spells? Slaves of the machine? We let them speak for us. I,
interpreter. After all, if language is thought [1] aren't they _then_ doing
the thinking for us. Or do you appreciate Phantasy Star Online for creating
a newspeak to ease communication. When your vocabulary is easily translated,
and there are no other words, aren't you then in a position where everything
works. I wonder if you could express particle physics in PSO? Or will that
wait for PSO2?
>but no, it's not computers writing the words, it's computers suggesting
>corrections for the words, computers alleviating the need for people to
>learn grammar, and computers suggesting layout and formatting options.
We will not be free of machines until we _all_ know how to use Quark! Or
something. Yes, it's a fear, but let's be blunt. For the most part,
throughout histroy, the majority of the populace have been painfully
inerudite, prone to avoiding neology, responsible for the decline of languag
e, rather than it's ascent. It's traders who steal words for mother english,
it's pirates who force them onto cowed populations. Well, that's all lies,
but never mind. Actually, the real fear is the spread of fonts. Look at
Tahoma. It shouldn't be that hard, as it's everywhere.
>when suitably relied upon, this will eventualize in the lack of human
>requirement to learn how to spell, understand gramatical rules, or make
>informed word choices. the feedback loop then imparts the application
>programmers with the ability to structure human language, by leaving out
>difficult words, by deprecating the use of complex but meaningful
>tenses. say goodbye to the subjuntive. the future may be perfect, but
>not in tense.
That's a shocking multi-layered pun. Good job. Actually, you can say goodbye
to the passive sentence too. Anyway, to return to my jackbooted linguistic
point, most people don't bother. Usenet, on occasion, is that rare place
where there remain standards. Lord know's it's not the newspapers. Of
course, usenet is a dead medium. It's only words.
"TeXt Is DeAd! WoRsHiP @ tHe AlTaR oF CoPyRiGhT PrOtEcTiOn" will one day be
a small RCMP* approved logo.
>>I would guess that most ordinary people haven't even
>>heard this one yet. They still haven't gotten over the
>>idea that a clone of themselves would be some kind of
>>soulless doppleganger.
>if they haven't, then they're either hung up on religion, or haven't
>been given the analogy of identical twins.
You'd be amazed how many haven't. Remember, many people learn about cloning
and the like from bad TV SF, and they all share personalities.
>>And anyway, is there really going to be intense
>>resistance to this kind of thing? Nothing a television
>>ad campaign can't take care of, I bet.
>there never really is. or, we could do what we've done with GM foods in
>the States, and simply not mention that these things are going on.
>then, one day, when they are told that technology X has been employed
>almost everywhere for _years_, and nothing has gone wrong yet, and hey,
>there's nothing you can do about it anyhow, people will just roll over
>and go back to sleep.
Verily, thou hast been lied to. Imagine the real fun:
"Every year, X people die because of firearms being used for their intended
purpose. Every year Y people die because of cars and trucks being used
improperly. Every year Z people die because their parents neglected them.
How many of these do you remember being tested for?"
>>>and what means have we of preventing the development of
>>>ideas already on the loose?
>>The DMCA, patents, copyright, John Ashcroft, advertising and
>>cruise missles.
>(aside) short of advertising and cruise missles, those are all blue
>laws. they are political weapons, like loitering laws, designed to be
>applied to 'undesirables.' of course, the forces that put them in place
>don't see them that way, since they are intended to apply to everyone
>once they are firmly accepted as good.
I assume you're also talking about such nonsenses as 'Donkeys in bathtubs'
which seem directly targeted at specific individuals. As the old saw goes,
it's tax evasion they got Capone for. Remember though, that home-taping is
killing the record industry.
>funny, that cruise missles and adverts end up lumped into the same
>category by that division.
Isn't it missiles? I've noticed that that spelling grows more common amongst
norteamericanos as it's pronunciation is standardised by the network news.
It's just an interesting shift, but I lack the linguistic nous to label it
properly.
Anyway, isn't there more spent on advertising than on cruise missiles these
days?
Of course, the only reason I wandered back through this thread was because
I'd seen something on the news today about a car that turned itself on and
drove across a parking area, hitting another, causing it to catch fire. An
electrical short in a RAV4 sparked the starter motor, the vehicle, believed
to have been left in gear [a likely story] took off across the parking area,
struck another vehicle head on, and they went. They are rising up...
erith -
[1] See the clever way I acknowledge that I too read and enjoy
a.g.bookworms?
--
"i had them lined up against a wall and shot"
Weeble
> Weeble <wee...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> When you can keep a perfect copy of a
>> machine and recreate it at any time in the future, the nature of death
>> becomes very different for it.
>
> including all neural pathways, all memory of experience. would the
> nature of death be any different for you, if you knew that even if your
> personal consciousness would cease, an exact replica would go on in your
> place? would you willingly terminate your consciousness with the
> comfort that your past and potential were not obliterated, or would you
> retain some attachment to this instance of your consciousness?
Well no (to willingly terminate my consciousness) and yes (to retaining
some attachment), and I've said as much in previous threads about
teleportation.* As for the machine, it does depend on its exact
operation. If it is utterly rational, then its fear of death will depend
upon its priority for extending its own existence, and the probability
of some other entity recreating it should it cease to exist. I had
envisaged some vast network of co-operative machines, it being the most
obviously threatening configuration. Each machine has some measure of
its worth as part of the whole, and each can recreate a failed member
of the collective if it is of value to the whole. They could have a
high level of trust in each other and that any useful entity will not be
allowed to cease to exist.
Certainly it is possible that machines would end up very much like us,
but I don't see that as the most threatening potential outcome. In
achieving various goals in survivability, ability to reproduce and the
ability to process data, it may become necessary to sacrifice the
ability to extract the exact state of the machine in any moment of time.
But we just end up with humans of different shapes and sizes, of
potentially different intelligence. My point was just to show that there
_could_ be circumstances where machines would have such major
differences to us that our concepts of ethics just don't work for them.
Equally, there might eventually be augmented humans that are simply so
different that we no longer share common ground in concepts of death,
pain or pleasure.
Weeble.
* Mind you, I'm becoming less convinced. It used to be a gut reaction,
that anything destruction and separate recreation is no better than
death, but I don't seem to have that instinct there any more. So long
as we don't fully understand the nature of consciousness I'll have my
reservations, but I couldn't guarantee that I wouldn't go "what the
hell?" and give it a shot anyway.
erithromycin
>erithromycin wrote:
>>Weeble:
>>>As I think about it more, I suspect that
>>>if I were in a position to sell out the human race for a guaranteed place
>>>of
>>>influence in a mechanical empire I might have to think a while. Don't
think
>>>that I'm ever going to remain 100% consistent.
>>Traitor! Wouldn't you miss some people? I'd hate to think that you'd sell
>>everyone out, or that you'd be naive enough to take the mechanical
empire's
>>word for it. Doesn't some part of species survival cry out to you? We
could
>>paint a ring of Jupiter red!
>Well, of course I wouldn't take the empire's word for it. Especially not
>if I had written any of its software. But I was hypothesising a scenario
>where there was some actual guarantee, unlikely as it may be. And
>besides, I'm not the most resourceful of people. All the people I'd be
>worried about selling out would have already taken care of themselves.
>Well, 90% of them.
There's probably room in at least one of the post-apocalyptic communities
for you. You're quite wee, and cunning, and as such would make an excellent
wee cunning person. Yeah.
>>Verily, thou hast been lied to. The red-top tabloids bombard us with EU
>>legislative lunacy, like classifying bananas and threatening the 'great
>>british banger'[tm], while ignoring more worrying trends like the creation
>>of an EU presidency, british entry to a single currency, W Bush's
statement
>>that the US will 'no longer wait to be attacked'[paraphrase][1].
>I don't get the whole single currency thing - we have not entered it, but
>it crops up anyway?
Yes. The question is when Labour decide that we should join it. It can't be
in an election year, unless it's likely to work, and there are other
problems. We'll take in the rate of exchange that exists beforehand, our
currency's value will be tied to the health of the rest of Europe's
economies, and the EU might find it easier to force Britain to meet basic
standards in terms of working hours. 40 a week isn't uncommon.
>And though I'm worried about Mr Bush, I don't see
>much I can do about it. And should I be more worried than I was about
>Iraq and Kuwait? About everything in the Balkans? About Afghanistan?
Well, who decides?
>>>I only heard of the European Union Copyright
>>>Directive a few weeks ago, and from what I can tell it's very close to
>>>being made into law in member countries. I don't like the look of it,
>>>although I'm not qualified to examine the legal implications.
>>Well, do remember the general ignorance over photocopying, as evinced by
>>recent discussion over on r.a.sf.w, about bringing in copies of a story to
>>class. Or, indeed, on r.c.2000ad, about fan-fic. These are nasty issues,
and
>>it's not just the RCMP [2] who're up in arms about it. Did you know that
>>there's a ring of sites that rip off needlework patterns, and distribute
>>them free?
>This is from the reply I got from my MEP:
>"Thank you for your email on the subject of the Copyright Directive. The
>directive was passed only after extensive consultation with many different
>bodies. One of the issues addressed was about copying for personal use,
under
>the directive this is allowed. You can therefore continue to copy your cds,
>records, tapes etc."
>He addressed only the point I made about music, not software. He didn't say
>anything about the fact that I may no longer have the means to perform this
>copying if anything that can do it becomes illegal.
Well, he _is_ an MEP. [Which one, by the way?]. Apart from Kinnock, the EP
tends to be filled with toadies and lickspittle junketgoers.
>>>Certainly
>>>there are a lot of other people who believe it is very bad. But
>>>nevertheless, most people have never heard of it. I'm sure there are lots
>>>of other such laws being passed or situations arising of which I would be
>>>most unhappy to discover my ignorance.
>>How much do you know about PFI?
>Not enough to identify it by the acronym.
Private Finance Initiative, a sort of Public Private Partnership, where,
basically, the government takes out a "no-interest homeowner loan" on
projects like hospitals, and ends up paying five to twenty times as much,
over the long term. Bad financial planning, and the main objections to it
seem to be that capitalism is bad, rather than addressing it as bad
capitalism.
--
erith - pff
erithromycin
>In article <slrnaf50ap...@triffid.demon.co.uk>,
>jen...@triffid.demon.co.uk (Jennie) wrote:
>> There is a general assumption in this thread that humans are at
>>a long-term disadvantage because we do not have the potential to evolve as
>>fast as machines do. This is probably correct, but nevertheless, I find it
>>interesting. What if we did find the means to alter ourselves so that we
>>might compete?
>a better human might design a better human. but that better human, in
>order to compete with machine design, might need to grow to maturity
>rather faster than we do now, to get to the point where it could design
>an even better human to compete with the machine.
Well, perhaps. Of course, there are any number of circumstances where we're
already growing to maturity faster. Look at the fall in age of menarche in
the western world, as nutrition [and, probably hormone exposure]
improve/increase. There are breeding populations where the eldest is
fifteen.
>also, what is 'better' in this case? smarter? one might end up with
>'smart beings' who were mostly brain, and too frail for mobility.
Aiee! Why is it always assumed that smarter people end up with no limbs? Why
not just make them bigger, or strengthen/resize the rest of the notochord,
or give us forehead ridges, or widen the brainpan? Why weaken yourself
physically as you improve mentally? A brain in a jar can't type! Or are we
still suffering the legacy of the TMNT Saturday Morning cartoon?
>better suited to a specific task? that human might be mostly arms, or
>have specially-designed apendages for certain types of task, or be a
>brain attached to a skeletal-musculature structure vaguely recognizable
>as an arm-hip-leg segment with a support.
I think we'd be best creating better _tools_ than changing people. We work
quite well, but sometimes we need stuff to do it. Remember, just because
it's a machine doesn't mean it's any use. Leviathan here could probably fly
a plane, but he'd need software, and connectors, and the right kind of
plane. I could likely do the same, with training, aviator glasses, and an
airframe.
>we design robots for very specific purposes. in many ways, they are
>better than humans, and to a great degree _because_ they are designed to
>do one thing, and one thing well. we could end up with some creepy
>things making 'better' humans.
Or, like I said, we could get better tools. So the machines have got a
gun-platform. We've got sixteen year olds. So the machines have got a
factory where they can make more of themselves. We've got sixteen year olds.
So they've got oil fields. We've got sixteen year olds. [boom-tish]
>>(Granted, we'd probably need (tame?) machines to help us
>>achieve it). It seems to me that most people are even more disturbed by
>>the idea of change in what they identify as human.
>i think there are two scary levels there. the first is the rather
>tasteless purposeful grosteque physical disfugurement that could
>accompany 'advances.'
How tall are you? Are you smarter than your ancestors were, or do you just
know more about different stuff? How about physical health? Are you 'more
advanced'?
>the second are the psychological differences
>which we might be very wise to fear. for a humanoid significantly
>advanced, might feel rightly superior to us, might feel threatened by
>our inferiority, numbers, and tendency toward violence against those
>'different' from us, and may have no emotional investement in seeing us
>not slaughtered to free up resources for more of their own kind. nay,
>they might even have less emotional investment, period, making them seem
>quite inhuman, in the sense that we feel comfortable with.
Or, um, we could call them names. I think you're assuming too great a
difference between us and 'homo superior'. It would be the megolomaniacs,
the mentally ill, among them who'd countenance wiping us sapiens out, and
there'd be those among _them_ that would help. Surely. Or we could just all
fit them with explosive collars.
How much of the fear of homo superior is the fear of children? Did you get
the propoganda from the mid eighties about an entire generation of
sociopaths, faster, stronger, more cunning, more educated, running the
streets like some successor race, coming at you with knives and bombs and
the drugs that were pushed at them?
--
erith - superpredator
erithromycin
>In article <IbOI8.2011$C72.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>,
>Weeble <wee...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>And indeed, how far do we adapt? Unlike a human, it is theoretically
>>possible for a machine to duplicate itself exactly and entirely. Not just
a
>>clone, or a like-minded simulacrum, but a complete copy. Certainly there
>>are some costs involved, but a software-only copy is relatively cheap and
>>has many of the same implications. You asked earlier whether we can
justify
>>keeping machines in bondage (err... that doesn't sound like I meant it
>>to...) but they exist in a state so different to our own that I don't
think
>>we can apply such concepts to them. When you can keep a perfect copy of a
>>machine and recreate it at any time in the future, the nature of death
>>becomes very different for it.
>does it? what if, in theory, we could create a perfect copy of a human,
>including all neural pathways, all memory of experience. would the
>nature of death be any different for you, if you knew that even if your
>personal consciousness would cease, an exact replica would go on in your
>place?
Why this pessimism? Could you say goodbye to your _old body_, if you knew
that it had memories within it that you would never have? Remember, you'd be
_both_, until one died, and then you'd only be the one. To die a thousand
deaths, and live a thousand and once?
>would you willingly terminate your consciousness with the
>comfort that your past and potential were not obliterated, or would you
>retain some attachment to this instance of your consciousness?
I'd tend my grave. You?
--
erith - der deutscherkompositumsubstantivkonstruktionbeispil
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> In article <slrnaf50ap...@triffid.demon.co.uk>,
> jen...@triffid.demon.co.uk (Jennie) wrote:
>
>
> > (Granted, we'd probably need (tame?) machines to help us
> > achieve it). It seems to me that most people are even more disturbed by
> > the idea of change in what they identify as human.
>
> i think there are two scary levels there. the first is the rather
> tasteless purposeful grosteque physical disfugurement that could
> which we might be very wise to fear. for a humanoid significantly
> advanced, might feel rightly superior to us, might feel threatened by
> our inferiority, numbers, and tendency toward violence against those
> 'different' from us, and may have no emotional investement in seeing us
> not slaughtered to free up resources for more of their own kind. nay,
> they might even have less emotional investment, period, making them seem
> quite inhuman, in the sense that we feel comfortable with.
I can only point you to my own musings, and to a work I believe is
deriviative, the TV series "Prey".
"Prey" posited, more or less, that in the same way that -- 40,000 years ago
-- Moderns emerged and shortly thereafter the Neandertal disappeared
practically overnight, in the modern day, a New Species has emerged, and we
too shall disappear, practically overnight.
In this (thankfully, because of the way they botched it, very badly,
mid-series) short-lived series, this New Species is discovered more-or-less
by accident, when genetic sequencing of some of the most vicious sociopathic
criminals reveals that these criminals are only about 98.6 percent human,
compared with roughly 97 percent similarity between Man and Chimpanzee.
The New Species is hominid, being distinguishable from the Moderns -- by the
Moderns -- only through genetic testing, or behaviour. However, they can
recognize one-another and can distinguish easily between themselves and
Moderns... whom they, most of them, loathe with a passion that can be
satisfied only by murder. The reason for this loathing is never sufficiently
explored, other than that they view the Moderns as totally incompetent, not
without reason. One of the traits of the New Species is a slightly smaller
brain with a much better blood supply, and they are much less emotive than
the Moderns in many respects, and extremely contemplative but mostly in the
sense of calculation of strategy and refinement of technique. They also have
a low-grade telepathy which mostly enables them to work more effectively as
a hunting team, it's how they recognize each other; they can sense each
others' presence, more or less as nodes on a network, members of a team. And
what do they hunt? In a world with almost no other large natural prey, they
hunt us.
There is a bit of an ongoing dialogue -- in the story-arc sense -- across
the episodes. Some of the New Species' members aren't unilaterally "evil",
with "evil" being defined as being willing to kill Moderns simply for being
what they are. Yet even the most "accomodationist" of the New Species are
well-aware and articulate that this is a species conflict, and it's a
conflict for species survival. The New Species believe that if they are
known for what they are -- a new species, never mind any of their traits --
they will be eradicated by whatever means are necessary and come to hand. As
the storyline develops, it turns out that they're right; a splinter of a
government agency dedicates itself to this task, even as a faction emerges
within the New Species which dedicates itself to the task of bringing their
more genocidal members under control, and learning to co-exist both openly
and peacefully with the Moderns. As the series draws to a close and ends on
a cliffhanger, it becomes evident that conflict is inevitable, simply
because these two species of hominids are Human; that is to say, what is
intelligent yet also unlike themselves, they must murder.
A conflict is developed throughout the first few episodes... in which even
the most peaceful on either side are forced to hold the view that no matter
how much they themselves might want peaceful -- if not necessarily open --
coexistence, they are what they are, and they will fight for survival, even
if that means the eradication or subjugation of an entire population.
I would suggest that this isn't a worldview far from what would actually be
prevalent, should there be a New Species of intelligent manlike being on
this world, whether evolved by the happenstances of Nature, or created in
the laboratories of Man.
Jennie
<ns_de_cybax_yahoo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>does it? what if, in theory, we could create a perfect copy of a human,
>including all neural pathways, all memory of experience. would the
>nature of death be any different for you, if you knew that even if your
>personal consciousness would cease, an exact replica would go on in your
>retain some attachment to this instance of your consciousness?
Is this us back onto the subject of teleportation?
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
'we are the children of stone and flesh'
Jennie
>I may well make exceptions for individuals, though I must admit that as time
>goes on I find myself less and less capable of understanding or tolerating
>animals, or pets at least. Carolyn's dog Ivy drives me up the wall at times,
It's all about individuals, with animals as much as with
humans. Ivy is a rescue dog, as I understand it, and has some behavioural
problems due to her past experiences. Humans with similar backgrounds are
often difficult to be around, too. One might sympathise with them, but one
has no particular duty to try and be friends with them, any more than with
anyone else. Carolyn has always taken on hard cases (in her personal life
and in her work, where she assisted in nursing homes for years), and I
think she's attracted to the idea of being able to help Ivy through those
difficulties.
With animals, one has to learn to communicate before there's
going to be a great deal to offer either way. There's always
species-specific body language, and sometimes vocal and scent
communication cues, to be learnt. Unless one makes that effort (which,
again, one has no duty to do) it's unfair to expect their company to be as
rewarding as that of humans. If proper communication can be established,
however, there can be a lot more there than appears on the surface.
>company. I've been spending a lot of time at my mum's recently, and the cats
>constantly make demands upon me (opening doors, dispensing food, cleaning up
>little feathered or furry "presents"), with near infinite patience for any
>activity designed to attract my attention.
The cats may well be entertaining themselves by picking on you
- a lot of cats are like that. The only way to stop it is to refuse to
co-operate. As for the presents, well, they're probably trying to provide
for you, since they don't see you going out and hunting for your own food.
In their own way, they're being considerate.
>within the same bracket as humans. As I think about it more, I suspect that
>if I were in a position to sell out the human race for a guaranteed place of
>influence in a mechanical empire I might have to think a while.
What influence would you desire? What would you really be
selling out your species _for_? More intelligent company? ;)
>that I'm ever going to remain 100% consistent.
Consistency is for amateurs. Anybody with a real opinion is
going to change it from time to time.
>That may help, but there are so many things going on it still doesn't seem
>possible for a "normal" person to identify what they need to pay attention
>to and do something about. I only heard of the European Union Copyright
>Directive a few weeks ago, and from what I can tell it's very close to
>being made into law in member countries.
It's easier to keep up with such things online, by subscribing
to news services with selected feed, so that one can be sure of hearing
about matters of particular concern. The Scottish Parliament were
intending to put their schedule online at some point, making it easier to
work out when it's worth lobbying them about particular issues. It can be
worth attending MP, MSP and MEP constituency meetings for a more detailed
account of what's going on, and, since not many people avail themselves of
the option, it's a good way to influence things. Politicians are just
people like anyone else. Most of them aren't especially bright or well
educated, and sometimes they need their constituents to explain or clarify
matters for them.
Jennie
>erithromycin wrote:
>> Traitor! Wouldn't you miss some people? I'd hate to think that you'd sell
>> everyone out, or that you'd be naive enough to take the mechanical empire's
>> word for it. Doesn't some part of species survival cry out to you? We could
>> paint a ring of Jupiter red!
>Well, of course I wouldn't take the empire's word for it. Especially not
>if I had written any of its software. But I was hypothesising a scenario
If the world is run by computers, it's worth knowing where the
bugs are, and how to activate them.
>besides, I'm not the most resourceful of people. All the people I'd be
>worried about selling out would have already taken care of themselves.
So would we all be human slaves in an Intel nation? Or would
you expect your friends to find the means to live independently? Is it
simply that you'd trust the machines to look after you better than you'd
trust your friends? ;)
>I don't get the whole single currency thing - we have not entered it, but
>it crops up anyway?
It's still an issue for businesses here. I'm going to be
trading in Euros once I start shipping stuff to Germany, therefore the
relative worth of the Euro directly affects my business finances. Also, we
are still considering whether or not to join. Tony Blair is hinting
heavily that there will be a referendum early next year. And that's a
dubious political tool, if ever there was one. [1]
>much I can do about it. And should I be more worried than I was about
>Iraq and Kuwait? About everything in the Balkans? About Afghanistan?
The situation between India and Pakistan is considerably more
likely to lead to nuclear conflict, especially if India pulls out of
established treaties regarding the Indus. A people facing massive famine
might decide that the trade-off is worth it. But as for worrying, well,
personally I wouldn't bother, in that it won't do any good. If you want to
make a difference, the thing to do is to start putting pressure on your
representatives to intervene, and making sure, to the best of your
ability, that _they_ are fully aware of the issues. (I see you've made a
start on this sort of thing).
>> How much do you know about PFI?
>Not enough to identify it by the acronym.
Private finance initiative. Involving private money in
national industries such as the NHS, often by contracting out parts of the
service. Added bureaucracy _and_ a layer of profit to be paid for (they
claim that's not the case, but there are still extra salaries, some of
them considerable, which have to come from somewhere). Anyway, there's
plenty of writing, from assorted viewpoints, which you can look up about
it online.
Jennie
[1] A referendum, I mean; but now I see that the term applies fairly well
to Mr. Blair, too.
Jennie
<erithr...@ananzi.co.za> wrote:
>Well, here's the thing. I know it's been admitted on this newsgroup that
>some of us hurt when we write manually, after only a short while. How many
>of us still write? Pen, ink, pencil? Direct to paper, not through a
>computer's keyboard onto a printer. I'm tempted to crack out a typewriter.
If, these days, I wished to produce any quantity of writing
without using a machine (and I find computers considerably easier than
typewriters), I should probably have to dictate. Granted, my experience is
not the normal one, but it does encourage me to appreciate how much
machines enhance my life.
>That's only a little machine. Yet, while we're at it, isn't Ed chatting
>about Speak'n'spells? Slaves of the machine? We let them speak for us. I,
>interpreter. After all, if language is thought [1] aren't they _then_ doing
>the thinking for us.
Only if we give them our raw, non-verbalised thoughts to
translate. But you know that, stirrer. :p
>to the passive sentence too. Anyway, to return to my jackbooted linguistic
>point, most people don't bother. Usenet, on occasion, is that rare place
>where there remain standards. Lord know's it's not the newspapers. Of
>course, usenet is a dead medium. It's only words.
Text has been a dead medium before. There will always be those
who reside in obscure places, keeping the records and keeping the written
language alive. The rest of the population will return and demand it in
some hour of particular need.
>Isn't it missiles? I've noticed that that spelling grows more common amongst
>norteamericanos as it's pronunciation is standardised by the network news.
>It's just an interesting shift, but I lack the linguistic nous to label it
>properly.
It's elision. It happens in most languages, sooner or later,
pruning away those sounds which are no longer necessary to effect
communication.
>Anyway, isn't there more spent on advertising than on cruise missiles these
>days?
Advertising wins more wars (before they begin).
>Of course, the only reason I wandered back through this thread was because
>I'd seen something on the news today about a car that turned itself on and
>drove across a parking area, hitting another, causing it to catch fire. An
>electrical short in a RAV4 sparked the starter motor, the vehicle, believed
>to have been left in gear [a likely story] took off across the parking area,
>struck another vehicle head on, and they went. They are rising up...
Are _they_ the morlocks, coming to claim what is theirs? ;)
Jennie
Jennie
>[ And Jennie wrote - at some length - about Wyndham. Minus *several*
>million points for banging on about Frankenstein, mind. Would you heed the
>paranoid rantings of someone who'd picked everything they knew about
>cybernetics from News of the World stories about Kevin Warwick? Of course
>not. Yet Mary Shelley's hackwork is trotted out every time someone mentions
>AI... ]
'Frankenstein' is one of those things which is worth getting
out of the way at the start of such discussions. Had I neglected to
mention it, someone else would have. And I do heed the rantings of News of
the World readers because, frankly, there are more of them than there of
of me (and my friends), and I'm not convinced I could beat them all in a
fight, so I prefer to know what they're up to and try to work around them.
>[ I find the assertion that women are 'less machine oriented' to be
>particularly distasteful. That comfortably re-words as "Don't worry you
>pretty little heads about complex things. Run along and knit some socks." ]
I feel rather the same way about it myself, but it does seem
to be a popular notion, so, again, I think it's worth examining where that
comes from. I suspect that's why Wyndham raised it. In the early days of
the industrial revolution, was there a more pronounced resistance to
becoming familiar with machines among women than among men? If so, what
cultural reasons might there have been for that? Or is the whole concept
male projection - and if _that's_ the case, why does that happen? Is it to
do with certain men wanting to keep power for themselves?
>So anyway. The AI thing. You'll note that the scaremongering is coming from
>people who know sqrt(fuck-all) about AI. Recently, I was lucky enough to
>attend a lecture by Rod Brooks, who does know a bit about AI. Among other
>things, he noted that the human capacity to anthropormorphise(sp?) means
>that something knocked up out of a half-dozen transistors which gave it the
>ability to avoid obstacles and walk toward the light was invested with some
>low-level intelligence (about the order of a ferret) by the credulous.
Before we had machines, trained animals and unfamiliar animals
were often subject to the same superstitions. I suspect that we have a
deep rooted instinct to avoid or wipe out competition, which can be easily
provoked by this sort of hysteria. One might argue that the ideas are
worth discussing regardless of the actualities at this stage in our
history; and, of course, some are concerned that the speed of developments
may leave us with too little time to contemplate them fully later on.
Personally, I think there are interesting things to be learned here about
human nature, if not about machines themselves.
Jennie
<ns_de_cybax_yahoo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>In article <slrnaf50ap...@triffid.demon.co.uk>,
> jen...@triffid.demon.co.uk (Jennie) wrote:
>> a long-term disadvantage because we do not have the potential to evolve as
>> fast as machines do. This is probably correct, but nevertheless, I find it
>> interesting. What if we did find the means to alter ourselves so that we
>> might compete?
>a better human might design a better human. but that better human, in
>order to compete with machine design, might need to grow to maturity
>rather faster than we do now, to get to the point where it could design
>an even better human to compete with the machine.
If we're talking initial genetic manipulation, yes; we have
the same disadvantage which we have against insects. That wouldn't apply
if we were talking about modifying the adult form, however. That can be
done through cyborg technology, and it's becoming increasingly feasible at
a genetic level.
>also, what is 'better' in this case? smarter? one might end up with
'Better', to me, almost always means 'more likely to survive',
and should be applied in context.
>'smart beings' who were mostly brain, and too frail for mobility.
I see no reason for that to be necessary. Human brain size is
naturally increasing at present [1], made more feasible by the option of
(comparatively) safe caesarian births [2], and body size generally
increases along with it. HG Wells' Martians may be responsible for giving
people the idea that we must choose between brain and body - or else it's
the fact that less physically capable kids tend to concentrate more on
activities which require intelligence, and kids who are intelligent to
begin with often get bullied out of doing physical things (because it's
not fair to be good at both). Brains function better when they are well
supplied with the proper nutrients, for which they require the support of
healthy bodies. Most people who've experienced malnutrition, anaemia and
similar conditions will tell you that their brains didn't work as well at
those times.
>better suited to a specific task? that human might be mostly arms, or
>have specially-designed apendages for certain types of task,
Variety already gives us an edge here, if we use it wisely, as
was observed in the West when women went to work in factories during
the world wars. Smaller hands are better for delicate electronics, whereas
larger, stronger ones are better for other tasks. We're already adapted to
work at our best in a community incorporating individuals naturally suited
to different tasks.
>the second are the psychological differences
>which we might be very wise to fear. for a humanoid significantly
>advanced, might feel rightly superior to us, might feel threatened by
>our inferiority, numbers, and tendency toward violence against those
>'different' from us, and may have no emotional investement in seeing us
>not slaughtered to free up resources for more of their own kind.
Isn't that akin to the position which intelligent people are
in, in this society, already?
Jennie
[1] Human brain use, sadly, is rather lagging behind.
[2] Another curious dependency on technology.
erithromycin
>>to the passive sentence too. Anyway, to return to my jackbooted linguistic
>>point, most people don't bother. Usenet, on occasion, is that rare place
>>where there remain standards. Lord know's it's not the newspapers. Of
>>course, usenet is a dead medium. It's only words.
> Text has been a dead medium before. There will always be those
>who reside in obscure places, keeping the records and keeping the written
>language alive. The rest of the population will return and demand it in
>some hour of particular need.
Now to find a way to make usenet pay...
>>Anyway, isn't there more spent on advertising than on cruise missiles
these
>>days?
>Advertising wins more wars (before they begin).
What about the current trend for scary adverts? The new all:sports cinema
advert seems a bit like a public service video from the fifties, and it's
goal seems to be to imply that not going to the store is akin to, um, being
lost in a surreal parallel universe?
>>Of course, the only reason I wandered back through this thread was because
>>I'd seen something on the news today about a car that turned itself on and
>>drove across a parking area, hitting another, causing it to catch fire. An
>>electrical short in a RAV4 sparked the starter motor, the vehicle,
believed
>>to have been left in gear [a likely story] took off across the parking
area,
>>struck another vehicle head on, and they went. They are rising up...
>Are _they_ the morlocks, coming to claim what is theirs? ;)
Well Horus will behave himself, but that's because he's a _good_ car. I
can't say what the Hestermobile Wendigo will do come the hour.
Edward Scissorhands
excellent dude erithromycin <erithr...@ananzi.co.za> said:
>Of course, the only reason I wandered back through this thread was because
>I'd seen something on the news today about a car that turned itself on and
>drove across a parking area, hitting another, causing it to catch fire. An
>electrical short in a RAV4 sparked the starter motor, the vehicle, believed
>to have been left in gear [a likely story] took off across the parking area,
>struck another vehicle head on, and they went. They are rising up...
Ian returned to the garage last year to find a Ford Sierra had gone from
in front of the cabin, to the middle of the yard. The yard is flat. Cars
for sale are usually parked with the handbrake off and in gear ;)
My XM is always parked in gear, too, because the handbrake sometimes
fails. It's pointed towards a fence when parked, though, in case it does
do something like this.
EdwardS
--
Edward Scissorhands - healthy, with plentiful organs! |\ _,,,---,,_
"At least my mayonnaise will now be safe" /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,
-Nico, on the departure of Dork Boy |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'::.
(Mayonnaise is only safe for 3 days after opening) '----''(_/--' `-'\_) Tish
erithromycin
>So, like, in <3cfcb493$0$1601$afc3...@news.ukonline.co.uk>, the most
>excellent dude erithromycin <erithr...@ananzi.co.za> said:
>>Of course, the only reason I wandered back through this thread was because
>>I'd seen something on the news today about a car that turned itself on and
>>drove across a parking area, hitting another, causing it to catch fire. An
>>electrical short in a RAV4 sparked the starter motor, the vehicle,
believed
>>to have been left in gear [a likely story] took off across the parking
area,
>>struck another vehicle head on, and they went. They are rising up...
>Ian returned to the garage last year to find a Ford Sierra had gone from
>in front of the cabin, to the middle of the yard. The yard is flat. Cars
>for sale are usually parked with the handbrake off and in gear ;)
I'd claim to be surprised, but I'm not.
>My XM is always parked in gear, too, because the handbrake sometimes
>fails. It's pointed towards a fence when parked, though, in case it does
>do something like this.
The thing is, I wasn't aware of handbrake issues with the RAV4, and given
that it was in a supermarket car park, which, as far as I can tell, are
sufficiently flat that there's a platinum one in argon in paris which is the
SI unit of flat. Add to that the fact that the RAV4 seems to have all the
'get up and go', when parked, anyway, of a council house. I'm not aware of
handbrake problems either. I suspect that it was laziness wot did it. Horus,
of course, lives on a hill, in neutral, with the handbrake on, either
behind, or in front of, a 95 Dodge Caravan, which weighs almost three times
as much as my little beastie o' wheels.
--
erith - Minty fresh breath means minty fresh lungs
Edward Scissorhands
excellent dude erithromycin <erithr...@ananzi.co.za> said:
>>My XM is always parked in gear, too, because the handbrake sometimes
>>fails. It's pointed towards a fence when parked, though, in case it does
>>do something like this.
>
>The thing is, I wasn't aware of handbrake issues with the RAV4, and given
>that it was in a supermarket car park, which, as far as I can tell, are
>sufficiently flat that there's a platinum one in argon in paris which is the
>SI unit of flat.
Oh, good. Any spaces? I'm looking for somewhere to park if I ever go
there :)
>Add to that the fact that the RAV4 seems to have all the
>'get up and go', when parked, anyway, of a council house. I'm not aware of
>handbrake problems either. I suspect that it was laziness wot did it.
Absolutely - though I'd suspect it was more the typical Rav4 driver
being somewhat limp of wrist, and having insufficient strength to pull
the handbrake up far enough.
(Want a 4x4? Buy a fucking LandRover. Want a sports hatch? Buy
/anything/ other than a Rav4!).
>Horus,
>of course, lives on a hill, in neutral, with the handbrake on, either
>behind, or in front of, a 95 Dodge Caravan, which weighs almost three times
>as much as my little beastie o' wheels.
Ah, so if the Caravan decides to go for a wander...
Binky's first and last walkabout resulted in very hurried moving it away
from the neighbours VW, then I decided leaving it in gear was best. But
were a Caravan in the neighbourhood, I suspect Binky would shove it
around too ;)
Jennie
<erithr...@ananzi.co.za> wrote:
>How much of the fear of homo superior is the fear of children? Did you get
>the propoganda from the mid eighties about an entire generation of
>sociopaths, faster, stronger, more cunning, more educated, running the
>streets like some successor race, coming at you with knives and bombs and
>the drugs that were pushed at them?
Little Alex and his droogs. A lot of people believed they were
the future. Maybe still do.
I was in a charity shop today, examining a pewter and black
sequinned top and contemplating whether or not it was big enough to turn
into a skirt (I decided against it in the end) when I overheard a rather
delightful conversation between a group of elderly women discussing what
advancing technology might do for them and for their children with regard
to eliminating or compensating for various disabilities and illnesses.
What thrilled me about it was that they were talking really positively,
displaying none of the fear of change which is so often ascribed to older
people, even when they got onto the subject of altering dna. One of them
commented on the changes she'd seen so far in her lifetime - the near
eradication of tuberculosis, smallpox and scarlet fever, which terrified
everybody when she was young. I wondered if she was aware of how quickly
people have forgotten what it meant to live with that fear, and how
careless they are now being as a consequence, but I didn't want to spoil
her pleasure in the triumph of civilisation, because essentially she was
right, and we have come a Hell of a long way, most of us scarcely
appreciating it.
Anyway, as some of the women were leaving the shop, one of
them made a last wee joke - "I wish we could get rid of the gene which
makes them spray grafitti all over everything." - and there, once again,
rose the spectre of hooligan youth. And I thought, well, maybe you can, in
that improved medicine means improved prospects for everyone, and takes
away some of the social pressures which result in destructive behaviour at
that age; but of course, there's more to it.
I am not incapable of being intimidated by aggressive youth.
When my leg was really bad and I was generally weak with my illness, I
went to great lengths to avoid the gangs of neds with their penknives and
cheap lager. But I have to say, I never worried about them being smarter
than me. ;)
In general, the idea of a fast, smart, fierce younger
generation has always pleased me. Though I expect that in actuality
they'll amount to as little as anyone else, the suggestion of their
difference allows me to hope that a few might avoid the social and
economic traps which stunted their parents, and might actually precipitate
useful change. Angry youth is, I think, a necessary element in any
society. It is a part of what drives us, whether out of fear or excited
participation, to claim new territories and ideas, to do more than just
settle and wait for our world to decline. Unchecked, it can be as
dangerous and socially destructive a force as any, but in its place, it
can be beneficial to us all.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
'I dreamt of a white horse.'
Jennie
<ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> responded to my post with:
>And I shall answer in a totally flippant wise and perhaps be a trifle
>offensive, in lieu of actually being substantive.
Heh. Fair enough. ;)
>> other animals. I have a certain respect for all living things, and a sort
>> of potential fondness, but my expectations are not especially high, nor do
>> I expect to find a great many more similarities of thought between myself
>> and a random human that I might find, say, between myself and a horse.
>With all due respect, you do of course realize that you've just "outed"
>yourself, ya Elf!
I do realise when I post things like the above that I am, to a
degree, taking a risk, because a lot of people would not react well to my
apparent difference. I'm prepared to take that risk because the nature of
the differences intrigues me. I don't see myself as part of some different
species (not least because a lot of my differences aren't genetic [1]),
and I have observed that I overlap with different people in different
places, but I don't feel like one of the general mass of humanity; I
simply don't relate to them that way. I could pretend, which might seem
more pleasingly humble or polite, but I think that would be a bit crap,
really.
>Well, look at it this way. You're clearly a person, but not "our" kind. (and
>what is klaatu's kind? -one may well ask...)
That's the question, really, isn't it? You have your
differences too. In many ways they are quite remote from mine; and yet
there are also ways in which you and I can communicate more easily than
either of us could with an average member of the public.
>A gorilla in the wild will actually be quite civil, according to their
>rules, follow their rules for civility and they'll be as civil as anyone
>might ask; indeed, look at the incident wherein a child fell into the
>gorilla pit and was knocked unconscious.
I read of these incidents from time to time, and it all seems
quite natural to me. My fish have observable codes of social behaviour -
in fact, they started off with two separate ones, for the loaches and for
the others, but have developed successful compromise strategies which
enable them to live happily together. When new fish have joined their
community, it's taken them a while to learn the rules, and to accept, for
instance, that a loach touching them is communication and/or affection,
rather than an attack. Pretty much all social animals have some rules
whereby they make their communities work, and they are usually able to
adapt those rules, to an extent, when it is necessary to interact with
others. [2]
Pigeons have certain ways of communicating when they're
walking around urban streets. When I meet a pigeon in the street, I make a
certain pattern of noises which tell it which direction I'm going to walk
in, so that it can step aside. It's a perfectly simple bit of
communication, and seems like common politeness to me, since pigeons are a
part of the overall urban society in which I live. Manners of that sort do
not seem to me to require concerning oneself with the whole rights and
responsibilities debate.
>IIRC, the silverback investigated and bluffed off the sub-adults, and a
>young matron gorilla pulled the hominid child to safety, near the supply
>portal, and stood guard and in fact chastised some of the young.
As I understand it, most mammals and birds have an instinct to
be protective towards young of any species. Even predators, unless food is
really short, will avoid eating young animals - that would be a bad
strategy, since it would deplete future food stocks.
>Now, clearly, the gorilla weren't the kin nor even kind of that hominid
>child, but they were quite civil and indeed were of a generous and decent
>comportment and intent. They took a sort of responsibility which is (aside
>from Chimps which are notoriously foul about this sort of thing) apparently
>common to the higher apes.
I've heard of instances where chimpanzees have successfully
cared for lost humans, at least in the short term. These things always
depend to an extent on individuals, but, in the case of chimps, they tend
to be spoiled by flashes of temper, which make failure to use the
appropriate social signals much more dangerous. I think there is also,
sometimes, a failure to understand how comparatively fragile humans are.
>You may well be in the same position. A serious question here, harking back
>to you saying you hadn't any basis for comparison: Are you perhaps just not
>willing to tolerate the round-ears when they get out of line -- perhaps not
>knowing any better -- in a way that your own mightn't even think to try?
That's a tricky one to answer. It makes me think, however,
about a journey which I undertook yesterday on Glasgow's underground. The
train was really crowded, which was okay, as I'd managed to find a place
where I could stand fairly securely, holding onto one of the bars beside
the doors. It would have been perfectly easy for everyone to get in and
out without problems if only people had waited for the train to stop
before trying to shove past one another. But no. Several people who had
seats decided that, for some reason, they needed to be able to get off the
moment the doors opened (they didn't rush once they were out, even though
it was still crowded; I don't think it was just claustrophobic panic).
They were quite uncivil, elbowing their way through others. That kind of
thing bothers me a lot, because, back when I was more severely disabled,
it several times resulted in me getting quite badly hurt. On this
occasion, I managed to contain my temper, though I was sure to rant about
their ill-manners loud enough for everyone to hear; but in another mood, I
would have seized one of those offending elbows and twisted it, smashing
the owner against the side of the train, to make it clear that such
inconsiderate behaviour is out of line. I wouldn't feel any sympathy
simply because they were also human. Would others feel sympathy in that
instance?
>Okay, you're not a gorilla, and neither am I. However, things that might
>seem perfectly familiar, to someone quite like me, might seem sufficiently
>outre to you so that you wouldn't even think about whether it was acceptable
>in context, you'll just instantly haul off and hang a nice left hook to the
That kind of thing happens between human cultures, also, where
learned social behaviours are sufficiently different. I mostly accept that
there are going to be things about other people's bahaviour which make no
sense to me, and I try to be calm in my reactions. After all, in some
cases, it's quite possible that rude behaviour might be caused by mental
disability or some invisible physical need (like bad stomach pain causing
an apparently able-bodied, youthful person to _need_ a seat, even if it
required shoving others aside). It's when it's clear that there is no such
excuse that I become intolerant.
Jennie
[1] I guess the ears are genetic, but most of my physiological
peculiarities, and the various manifestations of my illness, are almost
certainly the result of certain chemical influences during my gestation.
As time goes on, I keep finding ways in which I am more different than I'd
thought. It seems that my electrolytes are balanced differently from most
people's, making my overall body chemistry more acidic, which probably has
odd effects on how I experience other people's pheromone signals, aside
from all the existing weirdness of me being both male and female in that
regard. The electrolyte thing needs to be urgently remedied, which is
going to mean more confusing changes in how I experience being myself.
[2] I've seen fish communities in which that kind of social adaptation
was unsuccessful, resulting in constant fights and stress. Whether or not
it can work does seem to come down to individuals.
erithromycin
ed said
>erith mumbled
>>and given
>>that it was in a supermarket car park, which, as far as I can tell, are
>>sufficiently flat that there's a platinum one in argon in paris which is
the
>>SI unit of flat.
>Oh, good. Any spaces? I'm looking for somewhere to park if I ever go
>there :)
Park on it? Why, that would be like listening to the spherical goth band of
uniform density!
>>Add to that the fact that the RAV4 seems to have all the
>>'get up and go', when parked, anyway, of a council house. I'm not aware of
>>handbrake problems either. I suspect that it was laziness wot did it.
>Absolutely - though I'd suspect it was more the typical Rav4 driver
>being somewhat limp of wrist, and having insufficient strength to pull
>the handbrake up far enough.
The RAV4 isn't a hairdressers' car, it's too tacky. They were advertised as
a hip urban alternative to a sensible car, but the only people I see driving
them are middle-aged folks who should buy volvo estates or, like you said,
land rovers.
>>Horus,
>>of course, lives on a hill, in neutral, with the handbrake on, either
>>behind, or in front of, a 95 Dodge Caravan, which weighs almost three
times
>>as much as my little beastie o' wheels.
>Ah, so if the Caravan decides to go for a wander...
Horus probably gets pushed out into the street, to be honest. There's only
about three feet between them, and I suspect the noise that the alarms would
kick out would be ample warning. I don't think the caravan can get up enough
speed to do Horus any serious harm, and then it becomes a Toyota handbrake
vs. 2.5 tonnes of motor. Hmm.
>Binky's first and last walkabout resulted in very hurried moving it away
>from the neighbours VW, then I decided leaving it in gear was best. But
>were a Caravan in the neighbourhood, I suspect Binky would shove it
>around too ;)
It could try. My mum's car's probably harder than Binky...
--
erith - car wars?
Edward Scissorhands
excellent dude erithromycin <erithr...@ananzi.co.za> said:
>Park on it? Why, that would be like listening to the spherical goth band of
>uniform density!
You've heard my music, then? *grins*
>The RAV4 isn't a hairdressers' car, it's too tacky. They were advertised as
>a hip urban alternative to a sensible car, but the only people I see driving
>them are middle-aged folks who should buy volvo estates or, like you said,
>land rovers.
Rav4? Hip? Half my friends (not car types) call the damn things "Rava".
If I want 4x4 I want it for winter, with no compromise - Subaru or Volvo
XC, or Quattro, or I want to go off road, in which case Jeep (I liked
the old XJ Cherokee) or Landie.
Hip? Things which should last 10 years and are usually purchased on
finance should not be chosen on the basis of 'hip' ;)
>Horus probably gets pushed out into the street, to be honest. There's only
>about three feet between them, and I suspect the noise that the alarms would
>kick out would be ample warning. I don't think the caravan can get up enough
>speed to do Horus any serious harm, and then it becomes a Toyota handbrake
>vs. 2.5 tonnes of motor. Hmm.
Ah... Still, Toyotas are good.
>It could try. My mum's car's probably harder than Binky...
Hester has met Binky. Binky is Pretty Hard.
Jennie
<ns_de_cybax_yahoo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>In article <slrnafsfos...@triffid.demon.co.uk>,
> jen...@triffid.demon.co.uk (Jennie) wrote:
>> the same disadvantage which we have against insects. That wouldn't apply
>> if we were talking about modifying the adult form, however. That can be
>> done through cyborg technology, and it's becoming increasingly feasible at
>> a genetic level.
>wot, modifying the running code of an adult human? i'd thought that was
>rather prone to rejection and cancerous mutations.
Some of the first areas in which it's being used involve
counteracting cancerous mutations in situations where there's not much to
lose. It's not inherently dangerous; it simply needs to be refined. As for
rejection, that depends on how the process is approached. One can, for
instance, add a segment of dna to an immune system cell, or remove a
segment of dna from another sort of cell, without triggering conflict
(since that will only occur when an immune system cell identifies what it
believes to be foreign dna in another cell). Immune cells can attack one
another, but this can be circumnavigated by initially keeping the patient
in isolation and affecting the change at the bone marrow, cell-production
stage. We are gradually learning to alter the identification templates
carried by immune cells anyway, such that we should, in the future, be
able to adjust those cells to accept the presence of particular bits of
new dna.
>> I see no reason for that to be necessary. Human brain size is
>> naturally increasing at present [1], made more feasible by the option of
>> (comparatively) safe caesarian births [2], and body size generally
>> increases along with it.
>is the brain size increase causal to the body size increase? i'd rather
>thought that the latter, if not the former, were due to medical
>technology and better nutrition.
Brain size increase depends on skull size increase and on
nutrition (so that the brain can develop to maximum capacity in a growing
child). Skull size does appear to be getting naturally larger, perhaps due
to improved nutrition among pregnant women, but the only real reason we
can get away with it is because we now (mostly) have the option of
low-risk caesarian births. Brain size increase does not cause body size
increase, but the two happen for similar reasons, and therefore tend to
correspond.
>for that matter, as we manipulate our environments more and more, we
>need to be _less_ mobile, _less_ capable. we've got flat, smooth
>walking surfaces, elevators, escalators, moving walkways, bicycles,
>cars, scooters, and segways. we travel to work, or not, depending on
In evolution, bits tend to be lost only when they actively get
in the way, not simply because they don't get used much. As individuals,
many of us fail to become as physically tough as we might prefer to be,
due to the luxuries in our environment; but this doesn't cause any change
at a genetic level.
>delivered to the local grocer. humans, as a physical beast, are
>required to do less and less. while the body may be larger and
>healthier, it may be that it is, in many cases, actually less able than
>bodies of humans past.
Aye, but, in most cases, the potential is still there. One
sees it in a lot of refugees; people who worked in desk jobs have managed,
in a short space of time, to develop a lean hardiness which has enabled
them to cope with extreme physical difficulties.
>if we developed brain-humans, wouldn't we be perfectly within our
>pattern of accomodation to allow them to sit and think, and let their
>physique requirements fall by the wayside? we, being those left behind,
>might feel better if the ubermench were at least physically inferior.
As I said in my previous post, I believe that already happens,
to an extent. Smart kids are discouraged from participating in school
sports and are often bullied out of having any physical confidence,
because it makes the masses feel better to keep the smart kids' advantages
to a minimum. However, if the need is there, most of those kids are
perfectly capable of shaping up in later life.
If I wanted a certain human to be useful as a thinking machine
(a mentat? This whole long thread, and we haven't yet discussed Herbert's
Butlerian Jihad), I would want that human to be well nourished and
reasonably well exercised, for the simple reason that brains work better
in healthy bodies. What use is the brain of a kid so feeble that he sleeps
all the time or has difficulty concentrating?
>> Brains function better when they are well supplied with the proper
>> nutrients, for which they require the support of healthy bodies.
>not an assumption that necessarily needs to hold true into the future.
It's an extremely difficult chemical balance to strike
otherwise, and a near impossible one if we wish those brains to think
emotionally as well as rationally (if, essentially, we wish to make them
slightly less like low grade clones of the machines, slightly more
unpredictable and likely to interact better with the rest of us). To
achieve it, we'd need to become even more dependent on machines to
synthesise hormones and atp, etc.
>> Variety already gives us an edge here, if we use it wisely, as
>> was observed in the West when women went to work in factories during
>> the world wars. Smaller hands are better for delicate electronics, whereas
>> larger, stronger ones are better for other tasks. We're already adapted to
>> work at our best in a community incorporating individuals naturally suited
>> to different tasks.
>would you expect, then, that we might not widen those gaps, given the
>power to do so?
We already do. Teenage girls encouraged to diet perpetually to
make them more delicate as adults. Boys encouraged to do bodybuilding.
Kids with different body types persuaded to partake in different types of
sport at an age when the long-term structure of the body is open to
manipulation through exercise. We do it to the extent that we find a use
for it, and it's been going on, in one form or another, throughout human
history. To take it to greater extremes, we would, in each instance, have
to perceive a particular need. I think there's less likely to be
adaptation geared to suiting us to particular practical physical tasks
than there is to be adaptation geared to making us fit fashion in beauty
or sport. And with the former, for the most part, the vast majority of
cases would not require adaptation detrimental to overall physical
ability. The electrical component builder with her delicate hands may be
less capable of lifting heavy objects, but she'll be able to look after
herself in other ways, and, if she wishes, she can decrease the likelihood
of passing on her peculiarity to her children by ensuring that their
father is large and muscular. So, for the most part, we are unlikely to
find ourselves dividing into strange new subspecies.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
erithromycin
nightshade:
>erithromycin
>>>also, what is 'better' in this case? smarter? one might end up with
>>>'smart beings' who were mostly brain, and too frail for mobility.
>>Aiee! Why is it always assumed that smarter people end up with no limbs?
Why
>>not just make them bigger, or strengthen/resize the rest of the notochord,
>>or give us forehead ridges, or widen the brainpan? Why weaken yourself
>>physically as you improve mentally?
>1. because it's a waste of resources. an elephant could carry a
>tremendous brain, but it wastes a lot of energy to move it about.
Elephants have quite big brains, really, in strict comparison to ours, by
which, I mean, not proportional. Though the wiring's different, and the
gestation is long, so there aren't the same advantages. Our heads, as with
the rest of our bodies, are bigger than those of our ancestors. So too our
brains.
>2. safety. would _you_ want an army of three-meter tall beings with IQs
>of 500? or would you rather they be hobbled, so that, in case they got
>any bright ideas, they would still have to ensure _your_ survival
>without subjugating you.
Well, if they were 3 metres tall they'd be bigger targets. They wouldn't mix
with the majority of humanity either, just those who lived in cities with
high ceilings. As for hobbling, well, no. Why cripple them?
>>A brain in a jar can't type!
>but if we have neurobiological/electrical interfaces, it doesn't _need_
>to type. what is your PeeCee, after all, other than a brain in a jar,
>with electrical/biological interfaces?
Um, an electrical adding machine that can draw information from magnets or
key presses, which uses light to display them. That my fingers and eyes are
involved is neither here nor there.
>>>better suited to a specific task? that human might be mostly arms, or
>>>have specially-designed apendages for certain types of task, or be a
>>>brain attached to a skeletal-musculature structure vaguely recognizable
>>>as an arm-hip-leg segment with a support.
>>I think we'd be best creating better _tools_ than changing people.
>but as we play with biology, we may come up with _tools_ that are made
>of people, parts of people, etc.
With the right tools, I can work in space, on mars, under water, on the side
of a building, underground, at high altitude. Why limit your children? Parts
of people, perhaps, but without a brain they're just parts. Even with one,
maybe not. Who knows what a brain that's known nothing but sensory
deprivation would turn into.
>>We work
>>quite well, but sometimes we need stuff to do it. Remember, just because
>>it's a machine doesn't mean it's any use. Leviathan here could probably
fly
>>a plane, but he'd need software, and connectors, and the right kind of
>>plane. I could likely do the same, with training, aviator glasses, and an
>>airframe.
>exactly. and biological computers could be encouraged to grow
>themselves. screw the process of casting, machining, etching, etc. you
>can grow a very small, well-controlled airplane in a nest. make it as
>bright as a human, and you've got a damned fine tool at your disposal.
That's one hell of a leap. We're talking about gradual shifts, here, just
faster ones. When/if the human experimentation begins, we won't have people
with gills immediately. It _will_ take time. Lots, probably. This isn't an
overnight thing. We're not going to wake up able to see Magic: The Gathering
posters without our glasses.
>it may be that, in the end, mechanical beings, as we picture them now,
>are far too impractical in their chemical needs to self-sustain and beat
>us out as a race.
Leviathan needs energy, and silicon, and some metals. They're all to be
found in the asteroids. Now all he needs are end-effectors, arms,
propulsion, shielding, and the chance to get out of the gravity well. _All_
these things I could give him, in time.
>>>i think there are two scary levels there. the first is the rather
>>>tasteless purposeful grosteque physical disfugurement that could
>>>accompany 'advances.'
>>How tall are you? Are you smarter than your ancestors were, or do you just
>>know more about different stuff? How about physical health? Are you 'more
>>advanced'?
>sure. i'm taller than my ancestors. i'm healthier. i don't know if
>i'm smarter, i just may know more about different stuff.
Probably both, to be honest.
>but i'm more advanced due to measures that were largely minor
>incremental improvements to processes already proven by thousands of
>years. even modern medicine has not given me too much, as i've been
>lucky enough to have not required medication much more complicated than
>can be extracted from plants.
Think of everyone else who has. Do you know how tall your grandparents were
when they were your age? How about theirs? Those thousands of years of
processes are really _millions_. We eat, excrete, breed. We think too, but
that's something different.
>did your ancestors did not have the ability to supercharge evolution by
>direct manipulation of DNA? did your ancestors did not have the ability
>to interface circuitry to nerve endings and muscles in a meaningful
>manner? did your ancestors did not attempt to biologically engineer
>their food sources into extinction for the sake of protecting
>intellectual property? we're taking a lot of chances with ourselves.
Did my ancestors did not have? Sorry? I can't parse that in a way that makes
sense. My ancestors couldn't manipulate DNA, but that's not evolution
anyway. Evolution and engineering are different. One solves a problem
mechanically, the other takes ages and goes with what works first/most
often.
>>>the second are the psychological differences
>>>which we might be very wise to fear. for a humanoid significantly
>>>advanced, might feel rightly superior to us, might feel threatened by
>>>our inferiority, numbers, and tendency toward violence against those
>>>'different' from us, and may have no emotional investement in seeing us
>>>not slaughtered to free up resources for more of their own kind. nay,
>>>they might even have less emotional investment, period, making them seem
>>>quite inhuman, in the sense that we feel comfortable with.
>>Or, um, we could call them names.
>i'm sure we would.
You seem to be going with the impression that we're going to be _exactly_
the same, or completely different. I think it'll vary. This isn't going to
be an _everyone_ issue. Remember, the first cloned kid's likely to be
outnumbered 6.25 Billion + to 1. Same with the gengineered.
>>I think you're assuming too great a difference between us and 'homo
>>superior'.
>it depends on how quicky we generate them, how vast the differences at
>each stage, and whether we bring along a population of 'naturals' as we
>bravely splice our way into the future.
They'll still be raised human though, right?
>>It would be the megolomaniacs, the mentally ill, among them who'd
>>countenance wiping us sapiens out, and there'd be those among _them_
>>that would help. Surely.
>why. if they're fundamentally different from us, then applying human
>terms such as 'megalomaniac' to them would be grossly inappropriate.
>'mentally ill' would simply mean that they had not turned out as we
>designed them, that we had created faulty programs.
So, um, let's not do that then. If we're creating them, let's make them love
us. If we're breeding them, let's show them kindness.
>or, if they were _not_ fundamentally different from us, then would they
>not behave much as we do? do we not relegate those that we can in our
>society to the lowest positions, taking what is best for ourselves, and
>then try to determine ways to help 'educate' them into breeding more
>responsibly (i.e. less)? doesn't society hold it's own eugenics
>program, without the aide of megalomaniacs?
I don't have any aides who used to work for megolomaniacs. :)
No? We've got a market, which favours some, and we've got attempted
population controls, which don't work like that, or rather, are rarely
intended to. I'd rather ten children born to a family that could afford a
time/effort/resources mix to raise them properly than one to a family that
couldn't. Just my opinion, of course.
>>Or we could just all fit them with explosive collars.
>which is about where we left our relationship with highly advanced,
>purely-mechanical beings.
Well, we could program them to like us, rather than taping an
electromagnetic shotgun to their foreheads. Or we could just be careful. An
AI in a room, on it's own, away from telephone lines and connected to
nothing that's connected to anything else should be safe. Procedure, not
fear. Disdain paranoia, embrace contingency.
>>How much of the fear of homo superior is the fear of children? Did you get
>>the propoganda from the mid eighties about an entire generation of
>>sociopaths, faster, stronger, more cunning, more educated, running the
>>streets like some successor race, coming at you with knives and bombs and
>>the drugs that were pushed at them?
>i don't recall that propaganda. or, if i do, _we_ were the ones with
>the knives and the drugs, and guns, too.
They're in their mid twenties now. I'm technically of that generation, but
I'm not of that ilk. They were a myth, an excuse, a bogeyman. Look at
curfews. Look at abstinence programs. Look at the mess that is USian sex
education. What's it all about? Fear. Envy?
>if i fear children, then i rather don't fear children so much because
>they're going to be stronger, better educated, and more cunning. i fear
>them more because i'm afraid they might be more prone to disease, poorly
>educated, and really, _really_ pissed about it.
Well, let's be thankful you're not in a position to legislate at them, eh?
Why not work to improve their health provision, their education, and teach
them who's really to blame?
erithromycin
>erith:
>>Well, here's the thing. I know it's been admitted on this newsgroup that
>>some of us hurt when we write manually, after only a short while. How many
>>of us still write? Pen, ink, pencil? Direct to paper, not through a
>>computer's keyboard onto a printer.
>i do, sometimes. i'll take notes on paper. i'll write raw code on
>paper if i'm not in front of a computer and have a nifty idea. i'll
>rough out ideas on paper first, because linear text is suitable to
>computers, but the interface just isn't there to allow things like
>sketches and the line to come off as well as the direct human-pen-paper
>interaction. perhaps with the newer developments pressure-sensitive
>co-input/display devices this might be better served, but they still
>lack the fine granularity afforded by paper and pen.
Paper rocks. As do pens. I like Leviathan for writing, but everything else
lives on paper.
>>>but no, it's not computers writing the words, it's computers suggesting
>>>corrections for the words, computers alleviating the need for people to
>>>learn grammar, and computers suggesting layout and formatting options.
>>We will not be free of machines until we _all_ know how to use Quark! Or
>>something. Yes, it's a fear, but let's be blunt. For the most part,
>>throughout histroy, the majority of the populace have been painfully
>>inerudite, prone to avoiding neology, responsible for the decline of
languag
>>e, rather than it's ascent.
>but at this point in history, it's the upper levels that first adopt the
>more complex technologies. by nature of the cost of the devices, the
>well-off were the first to adopt word processors. and you'd be hard
>pressed to convince me that even those who insist on using their own
>words to write something, do not, more and more, rely on spell-checking
>software.
I don't. It doesn't protect me from the mistakes I tend to make, and won't
until it's capable of actual content analysis, and then, hopefully, I'll be
able to program it to respond in the way I want it to, such that it becomes
an extension of my style, rather than a replacement. That's a while off,
however. I haven't used a spell-checker in over a year.
>computers encourage us to give up the practice of such
>disciplines that would keep our spelling, grammar, and word-usage skills
>honed.
Thankfully, newsgroups don't. Perhaps they'll preserve a quaint form of
written english that'll provide a rosetta stone for generations ahead. That
could be weird. Never mind your children reading a.g. and think of the poor
benighted archeologists.
>they annoy us with little red squigglies if we use a word that
>is not a part of their dictionary, for whatever reason it may be left
>out.
Add them, if need be. Though mine would end up huge, and, likely, internally
contradictory.
>they prod us with green squigglies if our sentences are too long
>or complex for them to understand, encouraging us to dumb-down our
>thoughts.
Or we could turn them off, and use clauses as often as God, who, let us
remember, handed us the bible in Hebrew, but, I'm led to believe, approves
of the King James Edition, which is, lest we forget, a man's bible, intended
us to, as long as, of course, that use forms part of His divine plan,
unless, as I suspect, the use of clauses falls within His purview, yet, due
to other demands on His attention, outwith His attention.
>>It's traders who steal words for mother english,
>>it's pirates who force them onto cowed populations. Well, that's all lies,
>>but never mind. Actually, the real fear is the spread of fonts. Look at
>>Tahoma. It shouldn't be that hard, as it's everywhere.
>giving people page layout capabilites is a terrible time-waster in many
>cases. giving them powerpoint seems to be dragging civilization to a
>halt in productivity.
No, offices do that. Powerpoint just gives them access to clipart.
>>Actually, you can say goodbye
>>to the passive sentence too. Anyway, to return to my jackbooted linguistic
>>point, most people don't bother. Usenet, on occasion, is that rare place
>>where there remain standards. Lord know's it's not the newspapers. Of
>>course, usenet is a dead medium. It's only words.
>newspapers can be some of the worst offenders. they've got so many
>restrictions placed on them. they must be reasonably sensationalist.
>they must cater the the insta-boredom of the masses. they must be easy
>enough to read for someone with average sixth-grade education to trudge
>through. they must be inoffensive (especially to local sensibilities)
>concise, fit well into an n-inch wide column of space, and still
>adequately reflect the opinions of the mega communications conglomerate
>that owns them.
Well, some newspapers. Those that have survived. In the old days, of course,
there was a dichotomy between the penny dreadfuls and the rest, but that's
gone in an age of national newspapers. USA Today likely killed any number of
local papers, and its mix of tedium and middle of the road dross and
infographics set a pattern. How many major cities have more than two papers?
How many only have one, or none?
>>Of course, the only reason I wandered back through this thread was because
>>I'd seen something on the news today about a car that turned itself on and
>>drove across a parking area, hitting another, causing it to catch fire.
>>They are rising up...
>indeed, they are.
>'when spell-checkers attack,' tonight on FOX...
...agf becomes a lot smaller?
Jennie
<ns_de_cybax_yahoo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>i do, sometimes. i'll take notes on paper. i'll write raw code on
>paper if i'm not in front of a computer and have a nifty idea. i'll
>rough out ideas on paper first, because linear text is suitable to
A lot of my short stories, books and articles start out on
paper first, simply because it's easier (and cheaper) for me to carry
around a paper notebook in my bag; or, if I don't have that, to scribble
down notes on the back of an underground ticket. I like to have my notes
beside me as I work at the computer, so that I can cross-reference various
ideas and rearrange them in my head as I compose the final structure.
>well-off were the first to adopt word processors. and you'd be hard
>pressed to convince me that even those who insist on using their own
>words to write something, do not, more and more, rely on spell-checking
>software. computers encourage us to give up the practice of such
I don't use spell-checkers at all. Lately I have considered
starting to, since my own spelling has deteriorated thanks to my
medication, but it's more a typo thing than anything, and simple
re-reading can fix it. I re-read anything which I'm going to be paid for
publishing anyway, because I consider it an essential polishing process
which is part of the job. When I have tried spell-checkers, they've just
pissed me off by making incorrect and naive suggestions all the time. I've
never encountered one designed for writers of fiction. They seem mostly to
be designed for writers of business letters, and they can't cope with my
vocabulary. Also, preducatably enough, they dislike Scots words.
>disciplines that would keep our spelling, grammar, and word-usage skills
>honed. they annoy us with little red squigglies if we use a word that
>is not a part of their dictionary, for whatever reason it may be left
>out. they prod us with green squigglies if our sentences are too long
>or complex for them to understand, encouraging us to dumb-down our thoughts.
The grammar correction things really annoy me, especially if
they try to activate themselves and make corrections without permission
(eg: after software has been reinstalled and I've forgotten to hunt down
and kill the bastards). I firmly believe that computers should speak only
when they are spoken to. I won't have them patronising me.
>'when spell-checkers attack,' tonight on FOX...
Cool. :)
We definitely need a netgoth TV channel. Maybe some kind of
internet one.
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
'your story to remain untold'
Jennie
<erithr...@ananzi.co.za> wrote:
>Elephants have quite big brains, really, in strict comparison to ours, by
>which, I mean, not proportional. Though the wiring's different, and the
>gestation is long, so there aren't the same advantages.
Elephants are remarkably intelligent, and show all sorts of
social interaction which requires complex emotional reasoning. For
instance, they are among the very few species which commit euthenasia.
Their size disadvantages them at a resource level, which is becoming an
increasing problem as humans expand to compete with them.
>of a building, underground, at high altitude. Why limit your children? Parts
>of people, perhaps, but without a brain they're just parts. Even with one,
>maybe not. Who knows what a brain that's known nothing but sensory
>deprivation would turn into.
No-one _knows_, exactly, but there is some data on the basis
of which we can make educated guesses. Children who grow up without access
to language typically show a neurological failure to develop so that,
beyond puberty, they will never be able to understand language beyond a
very basic level (such as that which dogs can understand). The same
situation occurs with regard to mathematical understanding. Chimpanzees
who see pictures and photographs from infancy will be able to relate them
to real world things, but most adult chimpanzees without that upbringing,
if they can make the connection at all, find it distressing and confusing.
We need mental stimulation of certain sorts in order to stimulate
neurological development, and it needs to happen while a brain is young.
>That's one hell of a leap. We're talking about gradual shifts, here, just
>faster ones. When/if the human experimentation begins, we won't have people
>with gills immediately. It _will_ take time. Lots, probably.
There's already been quite a bit of research into gill
technology, so I expect that'll be one of the earlier ones; but gills
won't much handicap anybody when taken out of the aquatic environment.
They'll need to be kept moist, but that's simple enough to arrange, and is
no more difficult that the day to day procedures required to live with
countless minor disabilities (such as contact lens care for the short
sighted).
>Leviathan needs energy, and silicon, and some metals. They're all to be
>found in the asteroids. Now all he needs are end-effectors, arms,
>propulsion, shielding, and the chance to get out of the gravity well. _All_
>these things I could give him, in time.
Dude, we have to raise three million pounds and buy that
Russian shuttle! Once we get to the moon, the bits there are ours, so we
can start building our base, and there's a fortune to be made from taking
pop stars into space. [1]
>My ancestors couldn't manipulate DNA, but that's not evolution anyway.
I should think that they did, else you wouldn't be here.
When I couldn't open packets because my hands were too weak,
I'd stab them with a big knife and get in that way. Crude techniques can
still be successful.
Jennie
[1] In case anyone hasn't yet heard, some guy from N'sync is scheduled to
be in orbit next year.
Jim Campbell
jen...@triffid.demon.co.uk wrote on 9/6/02 6:36 pm:
> [1] In case anyone hasn't yet heard, some guy from N'sync is scheduled to
> be in orbit next year.
Please tell me they're just strapping him to the outside of a really big
rocket ...
Cheers
Jim
Jim Campbell
jen...@triffid.demon.co.uk wrote on 9/6/02 6:47 pm:
> The grammar correction things really annoy me, especially if
> they try to activate themselves and make corrections without permission
I do all my word-processing in DTP software, since the spell-checker does
precisely that: checks the damn spelling rather than offering niggly little
suggestions about grammar. Yes, I _know_ it's a long sentence. The next
sentence is a really _short_ sentence. I'm doing it for effect, you stupid
fucking machine!
Although, there is one feature on my Mac that has been a huge help catching
those things that spell-checks miss: misused or omitted words. Using 'Text
to Speech', the computer will read your document back to you, at which point
missing words and the like tend to leap out at you.
Cheers
Jim
Edward Scissorhands
excellent dude Jennie <jen...@triffid.demon.co.uk> said:
>
> Elephants are remarkably intelligent, and show all sorts of
>social interaction which requires complex emotional reasoning.
And some of them are just jerks.
(10 points).
erithromycin
>>of a building, underground, at high altitude. Why limit your children?
Parts
>>of people, perhaps, but without a brain they're just parts. Even with one,
>>maybe not. Who knows what a brain that's known nothing but sensory
>>deprivation would turn into.
> No-one _knows_, exactly, but there is some data on the basis
>of which we can make educated guesses. Children who grow up without access
>to language typically show a neurological failure to develop so that,
>beyond puberty, they will never be able to understand language beyond a
>very basic level (such as that which dogs can understand). The same
>situation occurs with regard to mathematical understanding. Chimpanzees
>who see pictures and photographs from infancy will be able to relate them
>to real world things, but most adult chimpanzees without that upbringing,
>if they can make the connection at all, find it distressing and confusing.
>We need mental stimulation of certain sorts in order to stimulate
>neurological development, and it needs to happen while a brain is young.
So, without any, assuming artificial wombs that are deprivation chambers,
we're talking mush, right? Where's the guilt? [Saved up at the start, I'd
wager...]
>>That's one hell of a leap. We're talking about gradual shifts, here, just
>>faster ones. When/if the human experimentation begins, we won't have
people
>>with gills immediately. It _will_ take time. Lots, probably.
> There's already been quite a bit of research into gill
>technology, so I expect that'll be one of the earlier ones; but gills
>won't much handicap anybody when taken out of the aquatic environment.
>They'll need to be kept moist, but that's simple enough to arrange, and is
>no more difficult that the day to day procedures required to live with
>countless minor disabilities (such as contact lens care for the short
>sighted).
Within a few weeks there'll be gill-based party tricks.
>>Leviathan needs energy, and silicon, and some metals. They're all to be
>>found in the asteroids. Now all he needs are end-effectors, arms,
>>propulsion, shielding, and the chance to get out of the gravity well.
_All_
>>these things I could give him, in time.
> Dude, we have to raise three million pounds and buy that
>Russian shuttle! Once we get to the moon, the bits there are ours, so we
>can start building our base, and there's a fortune to be made from taking
>pop stars into space. [1]
I am _not_ taking a shuttle to the moon. That'd be like driving a RAV4 to
the newsagents.
>>My ancestors couldn't manipulate DNA, but that's not evolution anyway.
> I should think that they did, else you wouldn't be here.
> When I couldn't open packets because my hands were too weak,
>I'd stab them with a big knife and get in that way. Crude techniques can
>still be successful.
Alright, _directly_ manipulate. Breeding for luck seems to have skipped me,
however.
>[1] In case anyone hasn't yet heard, some guy from N'sync is scheduled to
>be in orbit next year.
Classy. Weren't they going to be in Star Wars too?
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
ns_de_cybax_yahoo.com_not.re...@news.newsguy.com,
"--nightshade--" <ns_de_cybax_yahoo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> In article <3d0358bc$0$4722$afc3...@news.ukonline.co.uk>,
> "erithromycin" <erithr...@ananzi.co.za> wrote:
>>
>> Well, if they were 3 metres tall they'd be bigger targets. They wouldn't mix
>> with the majority of humanity either, just those who lived in cities with
>> high ceilings. As for hobbling, well, no. Why cripple them?
>
> you want the answer to that? go find a 3m tall humanoid, with the
> proportion of an average human, and piss him off.
You needn't bother crippling them. They wouldn't be particularly dangerous,
as they wouldn't dare do anything forceful. Their bones would break quite
easily, assuming they could stand up at all. They wouldn't have much fun
breathing or moving their blood about in their bodies, either. Just make
sure they don't fall on you.
(A clever gengineer might find ways to reinforce things, beef up the
circulatory system, and whatnot. But the square/cube law says ixnay on the
properly-proportioned giant humans, just like it says ixnay on the giant
bugs.)
Sorry, just one of my particular windmills. To be honest a mere 50% increase
in size might not be seriously crippling: I haven't done the math on it. The
case of Robert Pershing Wadlow might be informative, although I'm sure the
new improved model would fare at least somewhat better.
St. Marc
erithromycin
>"erithromycin" <erithr...@ananzi.co.za> wrote:
>>>computers encourage us to give up the practice of such
>>>disciplines that would keep our spelling, grammar, and word-usage skills
>>>honed.
>>Thankfully, newsgroups don't.
>are you reading a different usenet than i?
I think the "than I" is redundant. "to the rest of us" might work better.
Anyway, no, I'm not. There's enough subtle grammar nazis in here to form a
cabal.
>>Perhaps they'll preserve a quaint form of
>>written english that'll provide a rosetta stone for generations ahead.
>d00D! 4L1 uR gR4mM4r rU13z R b310Ng 2 U5.
How's that short bus workin' out for ya?
--
erith - word
erithromycin
>>>1. because it's a waste of resources. an elephant could carry a
>>>tremendous brain, but it wastes a lot of energy to move it about.
>>Elephants have quite big brains, really, in strict comparison to ours, by
>>which, I mean, not proportional. Though the wiring's different, and the
>>gestation is long, so there aren't the same advantages. Our heads, as with
>>the rest of our bodies, are bigger than those of our ancestors. So too our
>>brains.
>yes, and? i don't get your point. again, an elephant, or a horse, or
>any large animal could carry a massive brain about -- could carry
>*hundreds* of pounds of brain. that does not make the trendous body and
>all the resources required to maintain it, a good idea.
Well, it would if elephants could talk and do high level mathematics. Or
were telepaths. I think we're probably arguing in different circles here. I
think, but I may be wrong, that you were arguing that big brains aren't
always useful, which I'll agree with, but I disagreed with your example.
>>Well, if they were 3 metres tall they'd be bigger targets. They wouldn't
mix
>>with the majority of humanity either, just those who lived in cities with
>>high ceilings. As for hobbling, well, no. Why cripple them?
>you want the answer to that? go find a 3m tall humanoid, with the
>proportion of an average human, and piss him off.
Ah. I wasn't implying perfect proportion on purpose. I just meant bigger,
and went for a round number. The average Scandanavian 18-25 year old should
be 2m tall within five years, according to the last set of figures I saw,
and that's all nutrition. They'd be roughly in proportion, but homo sapiens
taller is unlikely to be. I'd wager their head and neck would be more
muscled. I'd also guess that 3m is less likely to be correct than 2.25-2.5,
which are just about within the range of exceptional, though just about
healthy, human growth at present. I take St. Marc's observation as what it
was, and should have known better. I play Battletech, after all.
>bigger target, yeah, but, not to bring up the g*n topic, what would you
>do to ensure they were always targets before they could do damage to
>their immeidate surroundings? arm everyone with elephant guns?
You wouldn't need something that big to whack someone. A shot to the heart
would do it, due to the strain placed on it by moving blood that far. Unless
they had two hearts, and were bulletproof. Then, of course, we're talking
Genetic Infantrymen who aren't blue, and therefore suck.
>>>>A brain in a jar can't type!
>>>but if we have neurobiological/electrical interfaces, it doesn't _need_
>>>to type. what is your PeeCee, after all, other than a brain in a jar,
>>>with electrical/biological interfaces?
>>Um, an electrical adding machine that can draw information from magnets or
>>key presses, which uses light to display them. That my fingers and eyes
are
>>involved is neither here nor there.
>we're about to hit a wall, here, of course, because i'd have to ask you
>next, what would a brain in a jar be, but a biological adding machine
>that can draw information from electrochemical impulses at several nerve
>input bundles, which, given a little more of the human, uses vibration
>of airwaves to vocalize the results of its processing?
It wouldn't be a mechanical device. A computer follows rules, and has
software, and we can reprogram it at will [well, with the right language].
You can't do that with brains without rubber hose. Of course, Computers were
human once. Why take a step backwards?
>i suppose you could tell me that the two are not analagous, because the
>human brain has the subjective experience of being human, and can
>communicate that to other humans, who, because of their similar
>subjective experiences, recognize it as human.
I could. Or I could call it a retrograde step.
>but what _of_ a brain grown in a jar? how human would it be, knowing
>nothing of our world except what it is given? then what of a more
>complex computer in a box? does it not have a subjective experience of
>what it is to be a computer?
A brain in a jar is a brain in a jar, a whole special ethical quandary that
we're not going to be able to deal with until we can _put_ a brain in a jar.
How human it would be is a weird one. Would you consider a child raised by
wolves as human? As for subjectivity and computers, we'd need to make them
aware in the right way first. They'd have to be capable of being subjects,
in that way, first.
>>>but as we play with biology, we may come up with _tools_ that are made
>>>of people, parts of people, etc.
>>With the right tools, I can work in space, on mars, under water, on the
side
>>of a building, underground, at high altitude. Why limit your children?
>you assume that these tools would be considered children.
Ah! No! I meant tools as in machines as in things that are not biological.
Tools like spacesuits and divemasks. With the right interfaces, I can go
anywhere. Why limit children, by which I mean 'whole' 'human beings' to one
environment? Though it could be argued that I'm limited to one environment
too...
>would you consider a spare human liver growing inside a pig to be your
progeny?
I'd consider it dinner.
>why would you consider tool-people to be so?
If they were capable of exhibiting personality, yes. Not animist
personality, I hasten to add, as Leviathan, Tara, and Horus have that.
>>Parts of people, perhaps, but without a brain they're just parts.
>they'd have to have enough brain to keep themselves alive and perform
>their function.
Not conscious brains, however.
>>Even with one,
>>maybe not. Who knows what a brain that's known nothing but sensory
>>deprivation would turn into.
>a machine made of meat?
>one wonders at just how much sensory input we require to consider
>ourselves human.
Hester?
>>>exactly. and biological computers could be encouraged to grow
>>>themselves. screw the process of casting, machining, etching, etc. you
>>>can grow a very small, well-controlled airplane in a nest. make it as
>>>bright as a human, and you've got a damned fine tool at your disposal.
>>That's one hell of a leap. We're talking about gradual shifts, here, just
>>faster ones.
>are we? the only reason i can think of limiting ourselves to that is
>the reality of viable mutation requires that the new being be complete
>enough to sustain its own life. since we don't know much about what
>_could_be_ than what is, we're somewhat tied to existing critters as an
>example of how things might remain functional.
I think the odds of creating truly alien, or at least, alien to those of us
who don't want six nipples or the ability to wake up a different sex at
will, are slim. Torches and pitchforks and all.
>i suppose we were talking about gradual changes, at first: the speed of
>human evolution as it compares with the speed at which machines can
>evolve.
Industrial or informational? A lot of that wasn't evolution, but
engineering. How much of the software around you would you consider stable
enough to be allowed to breed? A different measure of fitness, I suspect.
>but i don't see any reason why those changes would _need_ to be gradual
>and minor, except, as i said, because to do otherwise might be more
>difficult to pull off.
Well, yes. There's also more chance of it not working.
>>When/if the human experimentation begins, we won't have people
>>with gills immediately. It _will_ take time. Lots, probably. This isn't an
>>overnight thing. We're not going to wake up able to see Magic: The
Gathering
>>posters without our glasses.
>of course not. that humans have an edge on machines because of how
>versatile they are is a given of the current state of the art. that
>machines would evolve faster seems to be inhereint in your insistance
>that changes to the human form be gradual.
No, because we control the 'evolution' of machines at the moment too. How
different is a laptop from Eniac? It's smaller, faster, and everything else,
but what it does is pretty much the same. Is that 'evolution', or gradual,
designed improvement? Evolution, IMO, requires that everything else dies.
>i guess, then, the logical conclusion is that humans are only superior
>to their machine counterparts because they have a tremendous head start.
Or because we built them.
>{i still think that the most likely route is to combine forces -- and
>bodies -- with them, though.}
"Help! I just rejected my new skull!"
Nah. We need better materials tech before we get 'borgs. Though I intend to
get an exoskeleton when they become cheap.
>>>but i'm more advanced due to measures that were largely minor
>>>incremental improvements to processes already proven by thousands of
>>>years. even modern medicine has not given me too much, as i've been
>>>lucky enough to have not required medication much more complicated than
>>>can be extracted from plants.
>>Think of everyone else who has. Do you know how tall your grandparents
were
>>when they were your age?
>not much shorter than i am, actually. but even a couple of inches is
>telling. i think we're attributing this to better nutrition and medical
>care.
Consistently better, because your parents were in the middle.
>>How about theirs?
>dunno.
I do, sort of. My grandmother is a recreation genealogist, and we've records
of tributaries of our family going back to the 13 somethings, if not
further. I'm related to a guy called Ulf [hiya pops!] who was, if he was
average height for the time, about four foot something, and not a big
something at that. Ah, the undernourished peasant. Could he have grown to
five nine like me, or six something like my uncle jack? Nope. Better
nutrition through the ages means bigger pelvises, means bigger babies, means
bigger 'dults. Though all this is digression.
>>Did my ancestors did not have? Sorry? I can't parse that in a way that
makes
>>sense. My ancestors couldn't manipulate DNA, but that's not evolution
>>anyway. Evolution and engineering are different. One solves a problem
>>mechanically, the other takes ages and goes with what works first/most
>>often.
>except that genetic engineering is not engineering so much as R&D.
Um, 'random chance backed by some degree of science'. Let's call it gambling
rather than R&D.
>feel
>free to call it engineering when we're programming it the way we'd
>design assembly code. trial & error extraction to determine which
>sequences do what, accompanied by trial and error bind insertion until
>it works, to me, is research science, which may or may not solve a
>problem.
Yeah, but then, there are goats that you can milk for spider silk.
>i'll give you this, i don't know much about genetic engineering. i'm
>sure we know considerably more about it than i am aware of. but i also
>doubt that we have a set of hard and fast rules to build with DNA the
>way we would design a bridge, with confidence that each member was
>fulfilling a specific purpose.
Nature doesn't do it that way. THe specific purpose thing, anyway. A whole
bunch do a bunch of stuff. Though, like I said, pigs that don't reject in
humans, and goatsilk.
>>You seem to be going with the impression that we're going to be _exactly_
>>the same, or completely different. I think it'll vary. This isn't going to
>>be an _everyone_ issue. Remember, the first cloned kid's likely to be
>>outnumbered 6.25 Billion + to 1. Same with the gengineered.
>yeah, i'm sure there'll be a rainblow of choices. which may be worse.
>i'm even more wary about introducing genetically engineered change into
>the human gene pool in a manner that cannot be tracked than i am about
>splitting the breed into two or three subspecies.
They're not in the gene pool if they can't breed with us. They're not in the
gene pool if the traits don't carry. They're not in the gene pool if they're
sterile. They're not in the gene pool unless people want to sleep with them.
I'm removed from the gene pool because I use contraception.
>>>it depends on how quicky we generate them, how vast the differences at
>>>each stage, and whether we bring along a population of 'naturals' as we
>>>bravely splice our way into the future.
>>They'll still be raised human though, right?
>dunno, will they? what is being raised human?
I don't know. Anyone? I suspect that these are questions we can't answer
until we have to.
>if they're raised for a
>very specific purpose, and if this is, as all indications point,
>overseen by government or industry interests, i think there's a
>tremendous possibility that some of them will be farmed. i also think
>that there will be many minor mods that will be released into the
>general public.
Well yeah. Gills rock. I wondered how long that would take, by the way.
>but what about when the public mods aren't just adding that
>cancer-resistant gene, but modify learning potential, termperment, or
>emotional intensity. these might result in 'special needs' schools, for
>example. now you've got segregation. last time we had school
>segregation based on genetic differences, the allegations were that some
>people were not being treated as humans.
True. Aiee. Now it all gets complicated. Though I'd say that all we need is
Professor Xavier, and we're all ok.
>so there you have it. what is the standard of being 'raised human?'
>simply being raised by parents? how much face time with the P's?
>nightly? see them on the weekends? how much outside influence before
>they're being treated differently?
How do we raise mutant children? How do we raise real children? Should we be
crossposting this to a.g.pa?
>>>why. if they're fundamentally different from us, then applying human
>>>terms such as 'megalomaniac' to them would be grossly inappropriate.
>>>'mentally ill' would simply mean that they had not turned out as we
>>>designed them, that we had created faulty programs.
>>So, um, let's not do that then. If we're creating them, let's make them
love
>>us. If we're breeding them, let's show them kindness.
>umm? let's see, we've got machines, the design of which we have
>complete control over. and we're not certain we can make them love us,
>or even keep our welfare close to heart, when once they become
>intelligent enough to be considered alive.
Well, we could take precautions.
>and you're calling for genetically-engineered-in devotion? *shudder*
No! Again, I've left myself open to unintended interpretation. Machines
could be, theoretically, programmed in an Asimov stylee. The best way to
make genetically engineered consciousness like us is to be nice to it.
>i seriously doubt we'll find a gene for devotion, or subservience, or
>unconditional love. that's something that, all indicators point to, is
>unheard-of in living beings, and is greatly a result of how you treat
>the critters. and we can't even manage to treat current humans well
>enough to keep their loyalty. how are you going to do that with
>super-human intelligence, for example?
I didn't intend to. Though I'd wager that if the alternative was
subjugation, we might see a general rise in the standard of politesse.
>but just think if we found it... that's a whole new can of worms, isn't
>it? a genetic modification that would be guaranteed ensure docility and
>love of master. ...due to be implemented -- on 99.9% of 'human'
>society. it's a dream come true: the death of personal freedom, the
>assurance of complicity.
Isn't that 'V'? You could implement it, but what about the 6.25 Billion
people without it. They might object, and you can hardly stop them all
fucking.
>>No? We've got a market, which favours some, and we've got attempted
>>population controls, which don't work like that, or rather, are rarely
>>intended to. I'd rather ten children born to a family that could afford a
>>time/effort/resources mix to raise them properly than one to a family that
>>couldn't. Just my opinion, of course.
>yeah, our efforts don't seem to work. i'll grant you that. but our
>intentions lie in that direction.
Whose? Mine don't.
>>Well, we could program them to like us, rather than taping an
>>electromagnetic shotgun to their foreheads. Or we could just be careful.
An
>>AI in a room, on it's own, away from telephone lines and connected to
>>nothing that's connected to anything else should be safe.
>and utterly useless. brain-in-a-box. it's only as useful as the i/o
>you give it.
Well, they might be good at writing books. Or coding. Or operating
factories. Indoor work, with no heavy lifting.
>>They're in their mid twenties now. I'm technically of that generation, but
>>I'm not of that ilk. They were a myth, an excuse, a bogeyman. Look at
>>curfews. Look at abstinence programs. Look at the mess that is USian sex
>>education. What's it all about? Fear. Envy?
>both. fear, and envy, yes.
Exactly. Whose fear and envy? The parents, no?
>>>if i fear children, then i rather don't fear children so much because
>>>they're going to be stronger, better educated, and more cunning. i fear
>>>them more because i'm afraid they might be more prone to disease, poorly
>>>educated, and really, _really_ pissed about it.
>>Well, let's be thankful you're not in a position to legislate at them, eh?
>>Why not work to improve their health provision, their education, and teach
>>them who's really to blame?
>dunno. maybe they're our (as in the human race's) best hope. perhaps
>they'll take society down a peg or two and slow the forward momentum a
>tad.
What's wrong with slipping headlong into the future?
>maybe trying to mainstream them into our sick & twisted views is
>more self-destructive than having them turn on us could ever be.
Is this an anti-society rant?
>everybody sing:
> 'i believe the children are our future.
> arm them well and let them blow shit up.
> show them all the anger they posess inside.
> give them a sense of resentment, to make it easier
> let the children's bloody rebellion
> remind us how fucked up we are'
Dude, that just doesn't scan. Go write angry haiku. :)
--
erith - noun
Jim Campbell
ns_de_cybax_yahoo.com_not.re...@news.newsguy.com,
--nightshade-- at ns_de_cybax_yahoo...@microsoft.com wrote on
11/6/02 4:20 am:
> what do you tweak to make it bearable? i've played with the modulation,
> tone, and speed settings for the high quality voices, and i either end
> up with 'unbearably slow' or 'fast enough, but unintelligible.'
I do it in very short bursts!
The most amusing thing I've found to do with it, however, is make prank
calls from Stephen Hawking ...
Cheers
Jim
Jennie
<ns_de_cybax_yahoo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>bigger target, yeah, but, not to bring up the g*n topic, what would you
>do to ensure they were always targets before they could do damage to
>their immeidate surroundings? arm everyone with elephant guns?
Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't be more scared of a two
metre tall muscular supergenius than I would a of a reasonably smart
slender five footer. Motive and opportunity are the two biggest risks in
either case. It's pretty easy to kill somebody, if one has a reasonable
knowledge of anatomy/physiology and the patience to plan ahead.
>we're about to hit a wall, here, of course, because i'd have to ask you
>next, what would a brain in a jar be, but a biological adding machine
>that can draw information from electrochemical impulses at several nerve
>input bundles, which, given a little more of the human, uses vibration
>of airwaves to vocalize the results of its processing?
Some people would raise the issue of souls here. To set that
argument aside (not being a believer in such discorporate entities
myself), I think that the point at which we choose to consider things
'animal' rather than just 'animate' has to do with capacity to think
emotionally; that is, with demonstrable chemical as well as electrical
factors being involved. I'm not sure it's a sensible way to do things at
all; it's just an observation. Beyond that, isn't the definition about us,
rather than about them? When we say 'that's human', do we really mean
'that fits into this strict classification system', or do we (more often)
mean 'I can identify with that; it seems rather like me'?
>but what _of_ a brain grown in a jar? how human would it be, knowing
>nothing of our world except what it is given? then what of a more
>complex computer in a box? does it not have a subjective experience of
>what it is to be a computer?
We could expect that each would experience some impression of
identity based on the bios, or on os level programming, as it were.
Certain parts of our human experience are hardwired (for instance,
desiring to produce a loud noise when we require assistance (whether or
not we act, or are able to act, on that impulse).
>i'll give you this, i don't know much about genetic engineering. i'm
>sure we know considerably more about it than i am aware of. but i also
>doubt that we have a set of hard and fast rules to build with DNA the
>way we would design a bridge, with confidence that each member was
>fulfilling a specific purpose.
At present, that depends on the specific areas we're working
with. Some parts we know extremely well, and can approach with just as
much confidence as we would approach designing a load bearing structure the
collapse of which might result in hundreds of people-packed vehicles
crashing into a river (that is to say, plenty, but always with an
awareness of risk). Some areas prove more difficult to get the hang of
than others, but overall it gets easier with each new process developed.
>dunno, will they? what is being raised human?
That depends entirely on the prevailing culture, doesn't it? ;)
>but what about when the public mods aren't just adding that
>cancer-resistant gene, but modify learning potential, termperment, or
>emotional intensity. these might result in 'special needs' schools, for
Some disease treatments will alter temperament and so forth as
a side effect (in fact, some already do), so this is an area which we have
to tackle regardless of where we stand on the specifics of direct
psychological modification. Of course, as genetic modification of adults
becomes simpler and safer, the issue becomes less of an ethical minefield,
because there is the option of restricting modification of that sort to
those who are personally able to give their consent. Sure, their children
would probably inherit their difference too, but I think we could
guarantee that they'd think it through more carefully if they were going
to have to live with it themselves.
On the specific issue of learning potential, let's not forget
what we've been discussing with regard to stimulus-deprived brains. Most
of our learning potential is determined by our experiences as children -
it's about phenotype rather than genotype.
>example. now you've got segregation. last time we had school
>segregation based on genetic differences, the allegations were that some
>people were not being treated as humans.
As a result, we've fought to encourage the understanding that
we are all the same. It's a noble cause, and a perfectly good short term
strategy, but I don't think it'll serve us in the long term. Dangerous
though it might be, we're going to have to develop something new here. We
need to accept our basic similarity, our shared humanity (with the
consensus of rights and responsibilities which attach thereto), in order
that we might move on to a point where we can openly acknowledge and
celebrate our differences. We need to move from "don't hit him, because
he's human too" to "don't hit him because that would be mean"; "don't hit
him even if you _do_ think he's weird".
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
'we have to keep imagining impossible things in order to remain alive'
Jennie
<ns_de_cybax_yahoo...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>In article <slrnag4ovm...@triffid.demon.co.uk>,
> jen...@triffid.demon.co.uk (Jennie) wrote:
>> stage. We are gradually learning to alter the identification templates
>> carried by immune cells anyway, such that we should, in the future, be
>> able to adjust those cells to accept the presence of particular bits of
>> new dna.
>and thus train our immune systems to be more finnicky about what they
>attack. splendid. i mean, if you let them bypass specific new segments
>of DNA, how picky do they still remain? do these new cells wait longer
>before attacking a rogue virus, or has that yet to be seen.
They'd treat a rogue virus just the same way as unaltered
immune cells would; just the same way they'd treat any unfamiliar invader
(it's possible that some virii could evolve to disguise themselves as the
host's own cells, but that wouldn't be _more_ of a risk than it is
already; it does sometimes happen now). It's not about damaging the immune
cell's mechanisms for identifying the unfamiliar; it's about removing
inappropriately attached warning signs, to say, for instance, no, actually
you don't need to try and destroy kidneys, they're supposed to be here.
>for our own good, i hope cloning, the artificial womb, and full-blood
>replacement get into full swing _before_ we completely trounce our
>ability to fight disease and reproduce naturally.
I quite agree. There's no need for the latter, at any rate.
The thing is, though, there are a great many diseases which we have never
had a hope of fighting naturally - most significantly, those which occur
when things go wrong with our own body mechanisms, so that, at a
physiological level, we are incapable of recognising that there is a
problem. Genetic treatment of these conditions can in some cases offer
healthy lives to those who would have no hope of them otherwise (not only
as a kindness, but, especially as the process is comparatively cheap, for
the economic benefit of society as a whole, enabling them to make a full
contribution); in other cases, it can actually wipe out the diseases
concerned, so that nobody will have to fight them by any means in the
future.
>there's a direct correlation? that is, have studies shown that the
>children, or, more likely, the grandchildren of people who have had
>cesarians actually have larger skulls by a stastically significant
>margin? after all, i don't see a causal relation between person A
>having a cesarian birth and a totally unrelated person B having a child
>with a larger cranium.
No; but there's a higher chance of children with larger
craniums _surviving_ if they are born by caesarian (and, in time, passing
on any genetic inclination to grow larger in the womb); there's also a
higher chance that a woman who is inclined to produce children with larger
craniums will survive having several of them.
>as often turns out to be the case, actually. as stereotypical
>footballer guy dons his beer gut, those who were skinny might catch the
>hormone wave and bulk up / fill out later in life. there might be some
>sort of psychological reason for this. perhaps when the smarter kids
>become more successful, they put in more time on their appearance.
Peer group social control is usually at its most extreme in
the school environment. Once people are out of there, they have a lot more
freedom to build up confidence (or, alternatively, a lot less support
whereby to keep it).
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode jen...@innocent.com
http://www.triffid.demon.co.uk/jennie
Jennie
<erithr...@ananzi.co.za> wrote:
>and went for a round number. The average Scandanavian 18-25 year old should
>be 2m tall within five years, according to the last set of figures I saw,
>and that's all nutrition. They'd be roughly in proportion, but homo sapiens
>taller is unlikely to be. I'd wager their head and neck would be more
>muscled.
That's common for most taller people. Simply walking around
carrying a greater weight will stimulate greater muscle development.
>I'd also guess that 3m is less likely to be correct than 2.25-2.5,
>which are just about within the range of exceptional, though just about
>healthy, human growth at present.
Not exactly true. 2.5m is pushing it; most humans that height
encounter serious spinal problems in later life, and often other bone and
joint problems, especially if they're well built (not to mention if
they're overweight; and let's not forget that it's a still greater problem
for women who undergo pregnancies). Circulatory problems are also a common
complaint.
>You wouldn't need something that big to whack someone. A shot to the heart
>would do it, due to the strain placed on it by moving blood that far. Unless
>they had two hearts, and were bulletproof. Then, of course, we're talking
>Genetic Infantrymen who aren't blue, and therefore suck.
Or we're talking Time Lords in kevlar.
On that subject, has anyone else been wondering why wee Ilya
has now resorted to borrowing from old Dr. Who episodes for his trolling?
Poor old chronovore.
>It wouldn't be a mechanical device. A computer follows rules, and has
>software, and we can reprogram it at will [well, with the right language].
>You can't do that with brains without rubber hose.
This conjured up all sorts of strange images for me. Please
tell me they weren't intended. :o
>How human it would be is a weird one. Would you consider a child raised by
>wolves as human?
Personally, I would, but I think that's one of those cases
where we'd see the average person's categorisation change as hir
tolerance was worn thin by experience of said child's antisocial
behaviour. Such children usually have severe communication difficulties
and different behaviours which they never grow out of. Most people are
unwilling to countenance in between categories, where a person might be
accepted as human but less mentally capable than most humans (or, indeed,
as non-human but exceptionally capable). That's an interesting matter in
itself. Why do we defend our neat boundaries so passionately? Is it an
indicator of insecurity about our own identity? [1]
>I think the odds of creating truly alien, or at least, alien to those of us
>who don't want six nipples or the ability to wake up a different sex at
>will, are slim. Torches and pitchforks and all.
I don't think your opinion (or mine) counts for much here,
Erith. Torches and pitchforks are traditionally wielded by the ignorant
(and those who manipulate them); they're willing enough to believe that a
different religion can make one a dangerous alien, or that six year olds
with Tourette's syndrome ought to be killed for the good of society.
There are a shining gold torch and pitchfork emblazoned on the flag of
democracy.
>"Help! I just rejected my new skull!"
>Nah. We need better materials tech before we get 'borgs. Though I intend to
>get an exoskeleton when they become cheap.
We're fine with anything external [2]; it's comparatively easy
to make an external skull, so that's not really the best example. Items
which remain entirely enclosed within certain areas of the body, where
they're guarded by muscle or can snuggle up against bone, also tend to be
okay, as with pacemakers and the wee bit of nylon which holds my right eye
together. It's objects which pierce the skin which are tricky. Even then,
Donald got away with his Hickman line [3] for a year, but it had to be
kept scrupulously clean and it prevented him from safely undertaking a
number of ordinary activities.
>True. Aiee. Now it all gets complicated. Though I'd say that all we need is
>Professor Xavier, and we're all ok.
Did Professor Xavier know how to handle the politics of
exclusion? To an extent, perhaps, but I still think there were useful
things he might've learned from Magneto. I don't think he properly
understood the emotional issues involved.
>How do we raise mutant children? How do we raise real children?
We start by recognising difference and individuality in every
child, as well as pointing out the things which they have in common with
each other, and saying, look, it's cool that we can learn from one another
in this way. We stop trying to force children into positions where they
are either obliged to be exceptional or bullied into trying to be utterly
unremarkable and average. We show an appreciation for what they can be
just by being themselves.
>Should we be crossposting this to a.g.pa?
Looking for a fight, are you?
I like my thread the way it is. Lots of ideas and minimal
hysterics. I made this. :p
>Well, they might be good at writing books.
The last time we had this discussion, I believe Klaatu and I
concluded that the best way to make a brilliant writer was (besides
providing good reading material) to ensure that sie had an absolutely
miserable life. ;)
>Is this an anti-society rant?
Dude, this is a.g.! It's half of what we do.
Jennie
[1] Just saw my first 'Impostor' trailer tonight. Looking forward to a
wonderful summer of Dick. :)
[2] Myself not included, admittedly, but I reckon I'm a statistical
anomaly, being allergic to my own skin to begin with.
[3] For the uneducated, this is kind of like a Harkonnen heart plug,
being a tap connecting through the chest directly into the vena cava,
which enables medicines to be administered intravenously without risking
damage to smaller veins or infection from constant puncturing of the skin.
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
in message
news:ns_de_cybax_yahoo.com_not.re...@news.newsguy.
com...
> In article <3d055b4b$0$3579$272e...@news.execpc.com>,
> "St. Marc the Perpetually Amused" <disc...@templeoferis.org> wrote:
>
> > You needn't bother crippling them. They wouldn't be particularly
dangerous,
> > as they wouldn't dare do anything forceful. Their bones would break
quite
> > easily, assuming they could stand up at all. They wouldn't have much fun
> > breathing or moving their blood about in their bodies, either. Just make
> > sure they don't fall on you.
>
> that poor example...
Actually it was a very good example of the archetypical human behavior that
equates "I can" with "I should." *smile* For a while we had a computer game
division at my company and I used to yell at the game designers about fluff
they wanted to put in, "Just because you *can* doesn't mean you *should*" To
be fair, I think you were more thinking, "if *they* can, *they* will," not
saying you thought it was a good idea.
> was to say that if you had a modified strain of human
> that was considerably stronger and more agile than 99% of 'normal'
> humans, that there would be very great reason to fear them, at least if
> you were near enough that they could swat you.
Only if you did something that deserved a swat, and if they were smart,
probably not most of the time then. *I* am considerably bigger, stronger,
and more agile than an average human being (though I'm certainly not in the
99th percentile in any of those categories.) People do things around me *all
the bloody time* that in *my* opinion, deserve a good swift kick in the
pants. I don't administer same, however, because I'm also smart enough to
know that:
1) I'm outnumbered - which would be different in your scenario, of course.
2) If *I* go around swatting people for being stupid, eventually *I* will do
something stupid and I'll get swatted. I wouldn't like that. I do stupid
things all the time, even though I'm also a lot smarter than the average
human being. (In this category, I am approaching your theoretical ceiling.)
I've noticed that really smart people, when they do stupid things, do really
stupid things, which would theoretically be even more deserving of a swat.
*smile*
3) Once I started, I'd never be stopping, and I'd never get anything else
done.
An interesting thought has occurred to me... we may not need genetic
engineering to achieve this state. In another few generations, if present
trends continue, just being of what used to be "average" health and fitness
and what is now somewhat above average, will equate to being a superman. If
a large majority of the population is seriously diabetic, morbidly obese,
and otherwise in generally poor health, just keeping in shape will make you
stand out.
St. Marc
Jennie
<erithr...@ananzi.co.za> wrote:
>nightshade:
>>are you reading a different usenet than i?
>I think the "than I" is redundant.
Not necessarily; usenet is famed for its ease of
misinterpretation; the 'than I' supplies clarifying information. ASE
clarifying information, of course; in SSE or ESE, the phrase would be
'from I'. Or, rather, 'from me', since the first person pronoun there
properly takes the dative (regardless of dialect).
>"to the rest of us" might work better.
ESE speakers, and most SSE speakers, would say 'from the rest of
us'. What you have there is a rarer SSE form which I would suspect was
reinforced by your years in the 'States.
>Anyway, no, I'm not. There's enough subtle grammar nazis in here to form a
>cabal.
And plenty of less subtle ones besides. ;)
Jennie
Jennie
<f...@thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>Big guys don't get into fights a lot as is. I see no reason why bigger guys
>would.
That depends on the situation. In many urban environments,
it's commonplace for youths to try to prove themselves to one another by
attacking a 'big man'. Now, granted, they usually look for a target who
appears in some way fragile despite his size, but on other occasions,
especially if they're on drugs, they'll want to do it for real.
Celebrities with a reputation for being a bit hard are frequent targets
for this sort of thing. Now consider the position of someone whose
difference is unconcealable, and whose physical superiority is widely
famed. Extra points for having a go at him because he's weird. Still more
because the danger that the girl you like might fancy him (due to his
fame, etc.) The risk isn't so much that they'll attack us, but that we'll
attack them, at least to begin with; until they learn to be bitter and
perhaps pre-emptive. I'm sure that many a punk here has been through it;
of course, the 'us' and the 'them' in this paragraph are mere
conveniences, since we as individuals might sometimes identify more with
the 'homo superior' than with the neds.
>Consider possible present examples, e.g. those born with normal functioning
>brains but severely crippled and/or deformed bodies. Or those with senses
>missing. Helen Keller was a functional human in society. Why?
I agree with your general argument here, but it's worth noting
that Helen Keller was an exceptional case; and, also, that she experienced
a late puberty, so that she hadn't completed her childhood neurological
development when she first received linguistic contact from the outside
world. Most people in her position do manage to function in society, but
far less successfully.
>If a 'machine' has a human-originated brain in it, people will expect/want/
>fear human behaviour from it (why else use a human brain there?), and it'll
>be declared human. Eventually.
I don't think it's quite that simple. We have to draw lines
somewhere, because there will be machines with different degrees of human
neural substance. Does a simple neural network constructed using human
neurons count as a person, regardless of its limitations?
Jennie
<disc...@templeoferis.org> wrote:
>An interesting thought has occurred to me... we may not need genetic
>engineering to achieve this state. In another few generations, if present
>trends continue, just being of what used to be "average" health and fitness
>and what is now somewhat above average, will equate to being a superman.
Most of this is down to poor nutrition and lack of exercise, so
it's easily reversible, but sure, I see what you mean. Perhaps most
disturbing is the increase in obesity in the very poor, in the third world
and so forth, due to the awful quality of the only food which they can
afford. In order to obtain basic nutrition, they have to poison
themselves.
>a large majority of the population is seriously diabetic, morbidly obese,
>and otherwise in generally poor health, just keeping in shape will make you
>stand out.
This is one of the things which makes me hesitant about
registering my disability (though I'm going to have to, if I cease to be
needed as a carer, so that I can afford my medication). Aside from the
fact that I need my medication to keep me alive, and my leg doesn't always
bend properly, and I have little strength in my forearms, I am vastly
fitter than many of my friends. It doesn't tire me to bounce up the five
flights of stairs to my flat, nor to walk in and out of town (when walking
itself is possible). I may have pain from various sources, but it seems to
me that it can't be nearly as bad as that experienced by friends who smoke
and whom I see curled up and coughing, clutching at their chests. These
days, I can usually get out of a chair with far less difficulty than my
more seriously overweight friends. I find it bizarre that, in many cases,
those people have crippled themselves, and allow themselves to remain that
way, when they could choose to have so many advantages. But they accept
it, and society accepts it, because it has become the norm. People
_expect_ to be in bad physical shape. There's little motivation for them
to change.
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
news:slrnaghl6k...@triffid.demon.co.uk...
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:20:09 +0000 (UTC), Red Drag Diva
> <f...@thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> >Consider possible present examples, e.g. those born with normal
functioning
> >brains but severely crippled and/or deformed bodies. Or those with senses
> >missing. Helen Keller was a functional human in society. Why?
>
> I agree with your general argument here, but it's worth noting
> that Helen Keller was an exceptional case; and, also, that she experienced
> a late puberty, so that she hadn't completed her childhood neurological
> development when she first received linguistic contact from the outside
> world. Most people in her position do manage to function in society, but
> far less successfully.
Hellen Keller, despite some pretty stupid political ideas, was a
super-genius. Also, she was not born blind and deaf: she was two years old
when that happened. A lot of the basic wiring of the brain is well underway
by then: while she may or may not have had a conscious memory of what sight
and hearing were like, her brain was wired to acknowledge that they existed.
That could have made a big difference. Just saying.
> >If a 'machine' has a human-originated brain in it, people will
expect/want/
> >fear human behaviour from it (why else use a human brain there?), and
it'll
> >be declared human. Eventually.
>
> I don't think it's quite that simple. We have to draw lines
> somewhere, because there will be machines with different degrees of human
> neural substance. Does a simple neural network constructed using human
> neurons count as a person, regardless of its limitations?
No. Torch and pitchfork time for anybody who tries that, I'll wager, so we
may not find out for a few hundred more years.
St. Marc
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
Darn it, I was trying to be impersonal and talk about trends and so forth.
Now you're just making me feel guilty about this swivel-chair spread of
mine.
St. Marc
(Seriously, while I do have some extra pounds I'm really not that bad.
*smile*)
Endymion
> I find it bizarre that, in many cases,
> those people have crippled themselves, and allow themselves to remain that
> way, when they could choose to have so many advantages. But they accept
> it, and society accepts it, because it has become the norm. People
> _expect_ to be in bad physical shape. There's little motivation for them
> to change.
There's all the motivation in the world. The problem is that the motivation
to change comes only over a very long period of time, while the motivations
to go on crippling themselves come in little, discrete, immediately
effective packages each time a decision is made. Same reason so many people
*outside* the Third World eat poorly when there's no economic need to do so.
Same reason so many people devote their lives to a few thousand fleeting
buzzes instead of doing anything that might change their circumstances if
only they could defer gratification longer than the next toke or swill.
--
Endymion
disinte...@mindspring.com
"You throw the sand against the wind,
And the wind blows it back again."
St. Marc the Perpetually Amused
news:slrnagi19...@crushed.velvet.net...
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:22:28 +0000,
> Jennie <jen...@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> : On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:20:09 +0000 (UTC), Red Drag Diva
> :<f...@thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> :>If a 'machine' has a human-originated brain in it, people will
expect/want/
> :>fear human behaviour from it (why else use a human brain there?), and
it'll
> :>be declared human. Eventually.
>
> : I don't think it's quite that simple. We have to draw lines
> : somewhere, because there will be machines with different degrees of
human
> : neural substance. Does a simple neural network constructed using human
> : neurons count as a person, regardless of its limitations?
>
>
> case - assuming Moore's Law holds out a while longer, an electronic neural
> net computer will probably do the job.
>
> But if they do use human neural tissue, I suspect the arbiter will end up
> being the Pope. Will he want it to know about Jesus?
What would be *really* interesting would be to see if it thought of God if
we didn't *tell* it about God.
St. Marc
ask. me
didn't. ;)
A clone of "me" used for sex? (granted another person, probably more
attractive than the light of the sun after digging self out from under
rubble of a colapsed building....) But let me re-iterate... ME?!? Used
for sex?
The only thing I have against that is that someone might mistake -me-
for -my clone- and then jump my bones in the most inapropreate way... (ie,
dominate position.... er.. well... atleast inapropreate if i'm not ready
first.)
or most inapropreate times.. like when I'm buying clothes or looking for a
hard to find book on the bottom shelf.......
Thats about all.. Otherwise I think that the world needs more of me...
lots lots more ;)
Bring on the Music!
"--nightshade--" <ns_de_cybax_yahoo...@microsoft.com> wrote
in message
news:ns_de_cybax_yahoo.com_not.re...@news.newsguy.
com...
> In article <slrnaf5a54...@triffid.demon.co.uk>,
> jen...@triffid.demon.co.uk (Jennie) wrote:
>
> > The other day, Erith and I were discussing the sale of
genetic
> > material by celebrities, and the consequent possibility of fan-created
> > clones. He asked if I would be bothered by the idea of a clone of me
being
> > used as a sex toy, and I said that, beyond concern for its human rights,
I
> > would have no particular concern on a personal level.
>
> ditto. though i expect it would take someone with a rather unique
> perversion to prefer a clone of _me_ for sexual purposes.
>
>
> > [1] He said that in
> > his own case, he would, and that the difference might be to do with our
> > different experiences of family, but it seemed to him natural that one
> > should be concerned for the well-being of those bearing one's own dna.
[2]
>
> perhaps that's why i wouldn't particularly care. i'm not big on DNA
> being thicker than water.
>
> i would, however, prefer not to be cloned. i'm always having people
> tell me that i remind them of someone. i'd rather that not be the case
> in one more instance.
>
>
> --nightshade--
>
> --
> --nightshade--
> 'whoever said it was a small world
> was either a liar or a fool' --concrete blonde
erithromycin
>erith
>>I'd also guess that 3m is less likely to be correct than 2.25-2.5,
>>which are just about within the range of exceptional, though just about
>>healthy, human growth at present.
>Not exactly true. 2.5m is pushing it; most humans that height
>encounter serious spinal problems in later life, and often other bone and
>joint problems, especially if they're well built (not to mention if
>they're overweight; and let's not forget that it's a still greater problem
>for women who undergo pregnancies). Circulatory problems are also a common
>complaint.
True, though, of course, it's clear that hearts can support quite a lot,
though perhaps not an active lot. Look at the worst of the morbidly obese,
and be afraid. If we assume that people will continue to grow as long as
there's the diet/conditions to support that, and that each generation will
get a little taller, then we could see a gradual push to over two metres. Of
course, this assumes that people don't get bred for shortness.
>>You wouldn't need something that big to whack someone. A shot to the heart
>>would do it, due to the strain placed on it by moving blood that far.
Unless
>>they had two hearts, and were bulletproof. Then, of course, we're talking
>>Genetic Infantrymen who aren't blue, and therefore suck.
>Or we're talking Time Lords in kevlar.
That would be scary.
>On that subject, has anyone else been wondering why wee Ilya
>has now resorted to borrowing from old Dr. Who episodes for his trolling?
He read the novelisation of Spider-Man [A Peter David], and did some further
reading?
>Poor old chronovore.
Chronovores, chrononauts. Aiee!
>>It wouldn't be a mechanical device. A computer follows rules, and has
>>software, and we can reprogram it at will [well, with the right language].
>>You can't do that with brains without rubber hose.
>This conjured up all sorts of strange images for me. Please
>tell me they weren't intended. :o
Which ones? The references to mechanical programming devices that plugged
into people's heads [I can't even remember where that one's from] and to
North Korean brainwashing techniques were intentional. There may have been
in-jokes in there too.
>>How human it would be is a weird one. Would you consider a child raised by
>>wolves as human?
>Personally, I would, but I think that's one of those cases
>where we'd see the average person's categorisation change as hir
>tolerance was worn thin by experience of said child's antisocial
>behaviour. Such children usually have severe communication difficulties
>and different behaviours which they never grow out of. Most people are
>unwilling to countenance in between categories, where a person might be
>accepted as human but less mentally capable than most humans (or, indeed,
>as non-human but exceptionally capable). That's an interesting matter in
>itself. Why do we defend our neat boundaries so passionately? Is it an
>indicator of insecurity about our own identity? [1]
I'd say so. Many people are unsure about themselves as a carry-over from
adolescence. Those of us with enough of them figure it out eventually.
>>I think the odds of creating truly alien, or at least, alien to those of
us
>>who don't want six nipples or the ability to wake up a different sex at
>>will, are slim. Torches and pitchforks and all.
>I don't think your opinion (or mine) counts for much here,
>Erith. Torches and pitchforks are traditionally wielded by the ignorant
>(and those who manipulate them); they're willing enough to believe that a
>different religion can make one a dangerous alien, or that six year olds
>with Tourette's syndrome ought to be killed for the good of society.
>There are a shining gold torch and pitchfork emblazoned on the flag of
>democracy.
That's what I said, I thought. I agree, by the way, about the torch and
pitchfork, but why do they never take Halogen Spots and SPAS-12s? Alien to
those of us who are not interested in the alien. That crap kind of way.
Trust you to agree with me more eloquently.
>>"Help! I just rejected my new skull!"
>>Nah. We need better materials tech before we get 'borgs. Though I intend
to
>>get an exoskeleton when they become cheap.
>We're fine with anything external [2]; it's comparatively easy
>to make an external skull, so that's not really the best example.
Well, helmets, I suppose.
>Items
>which remain entirely enclosed within certain areas of the body, where
>they're guarded by muscle or can snuggle up against bone, also tend to be
>okay, as with pacemakers and the wee bit of nylon which holds my right eye
>together.
I'm not sure there's room in me, but I get your point. Of course, those with
over-active immune systems are likely to have trouble with anything new
anyway, no?
>It's objects which pierce the skin which are tricky. Even then,
>Donald got away with his Hickman line [3] for a year, but it had to be
>kept scrupulously clean and it prevented him from safely undertaking a
>number of ordinary activities.
I think people with histories of through-skin injury/illness, however, would
have difficulties. I'd likely reject my interface plugs, or get them
infected with monotonous, painful, regularity.
>>True. Aiee. Now it all gets complicated. Though I'd say that all we need
is
>>Professor Xavier, and we're all ok.
>Did Professor Xavier know how to handle the politics of
>exclusion? To an extent, perhaps, but I still think there were useful
>things he might've learned from Magneto. I don't think he properly
>understood the emotional issues involved.
Well, he was white, rich, and naturalised. Poor Magneto.
>>How do we raise mutant children? How do we raise real children?
>We start by recognising difference and individuality in every
>child, as well as pointing out the things which they have in common with
>each other, and saying, look, it's cool that we can learn from one another
>in this way. We stop trying to force children into positions where they
>are either obliged to be exceptional or bullied into trying to be utterly
>unremarkable and average. We show an appreciation for what they can be
>just by being themselves.
Well, that's as may be, but why treat mutant children better? :) The
potential for bullying remains huge, something X-Men was quite good at
realising. That, at least in the early days, that had a kind of
Slan/Rocketship Galileo aspect to it is neither here nor there.
>>Well, they might be good at writing books.
>The last time we had this discussion, I believe Klaatu and I
>concluded that the best way to make a brilliant writer was (besides
>providing good reading material) to ensure that sie had an absolutely
>miserable life. ;)
DAY 12: I am a box.
>[1] Just saw my first 'Impostor' trailer tonight. Looking forward to a
>wonderful summer of Dick. :)
Ha. Ahem. Is it 'Second Variety' or has someone decided to try something
else?
--
erith - it probably should have an 'e'.
erithromycin
>nightshade
>:okay. i've already gotten my head turned around about how direct
>:proportion would be a poor design. all i'm trying to say is that you
>:might want to have some assurance that the new race of super-humanly
>:strong people were not about to take it upon themselves to use you to
>:work out their aggravations in a physical manner.
>Big guys don't get into fights a lot as is. I see no reason why bigger guys
>would.
They've less to prove, at least in some ways, but there's no accounting for
paranoia. David, people your size make some people nervous by entering a
room. It's nothing to do with anything other than stature/build, but some
people fear big guys. Now imagine that the big guy is smarter, wittier, more
handsome, and more attractive than anyone else in the room. Imagine how
you'd feel to be confronted by such a specimen, and to then realise that
they were better at everything you did, and
_were_not_human_as_you_understood_it.
>Consider possible present examples, e.g. those born with normal functioning
>brains but severely crippled and/or deformed bodies. Or those with senses
>missing. Helen Keller was a functional human in society. Why?
It sold newspapers?
>I would expect that human brains come with a lot of stuff for becoming
>and being part of society, whether in a good body, a bad body or a jar
>(read: worse body). Imprinting on a new social situation is one of the
>things we do.
I think that societal stuff probably has more to do with nurture, but the
paths are there already, if you like, except in some people with particular
conditions.
>If a 'machine' has a human-originated brain in it, people will expect/want/
>fear human behaviour from it (why else use a human brain there?), and it'll
>be declared human. Eventually.
If only through anthropomorphisis. Everybody's familiar with 'blame the
computer'. What if it was capable of human failings too? "Sorry boss, the
computer lied to me".
>To answer the original question: can thinking machines become human? My
>answer is: if they aren't, we won't stop until they are, because that's
>what we're fascinated by.
Yay! Now we can say "Frankenstein" and piss of HiRez again!
>Genetic engineering is the new rock'n'roll!
Every once in a while I'm reminded you're over thirty. Saying stuff is the
new rock'n'roll is terrifyingly early seventies.
--
erith - Anyone who wishes to do so may submit. If you aren't at least 18
years old, your parent or guardian must sign the submission form.
erithromycin
> "erithromycin" <erithr...@ananzi.co.za> wrote:
>>Well, it would if elephants could talk and do high level mathematics. Or
>>were telepaths. I think we're probably arguing in different circles here.
I
>>think, but I may be wrong, that you were arguing that big brains aren't
>>always useful, which I'll agree with, but I disagreed with your example.
>not at all. actually, i was trying to explain that making tremendously
>large brains agile/mobile is not a very good use of resources, if all
>they are expected to do is think anyways.
Well, it's probably more efficient than moving them yourself. I suppose it
all comes down to what you want them to do. I once used a sessile
sea-creature as a colony telepath/ansible, with like/like electron rotation
as the direct means of communication within species. The only justification
I could come up with was that it had happened by accident, but now I think
it should be designed in. Anyway, they were a plot-device, not a real thing,
and I made them too big to move to force them to be in a particular
location. I digress. As for this expecting them only to think, well,
perhaps. Though they'd surely get bored. Remember, Gibson's AIs wrote
cookery books with their free time [well, according to Dixie]. What would
real one's, even if they were biological do? I'd be quite happy to let them
wander down the watering hole and splash.
>i believe that quite a bit of the original intent of these sub-threads
>of discussion are getting lost in high levels of absent reply cascade.
>but at 400+ lines, i'm not about to rummage back through and include
>them, unless absolutely necessary.
Thank fuck for that. I'd split them, but frankly, I like multi-leveled
intelligent conversation. Think of it as acrostic graffiti.
>>>you want the answer to that? go find a 3m tall humanoid, with the
>>>proportion of an average human, and piss him off.
>>Ah. I wasn't implying perfect proportion on purpose.
>okay. i've already gotten my head turned around about how direct
>proportion would be a poor design. all i'm trying to say is that you
>might want to have some assurance that the new race of super-humanly
>strong people were not about to take it upon themselves to use you to
>work out their aggravations in a physical manner.
We could give them stress balls? There's sf allegories about AI/enhanced
behaviour with consequences. I can think of a stack of examples off the top
of my head, and if you want 'em mail me. I can understand the intention, but
it strikes me as bad precautions, more born from paranoia than contingency.
I suppose it depends on how many disposable interns you've got.
>>>bigger target, yeah, but, not to bring up the g*n topic, what would you
>>>do to ensure they were always targets before they could do damage to
>>>their immeidate surroundings? arm everyone with elephant guns?
>>You wouldn't need something that big to whack someone. A shot to the heart
>>would do it, due to the strain placed on it by moving blood that far.
Unless
>>they had two hearts, and were bulletproof. Then, of course, we're talking
>>Genetic Infantrymen who aren't blue, and therefore suck.
>argh. no. all i'm talking about is something bigger, faster, stronger,
>and more intelligent than the average normal human. not even bigger,
>then. also, they might be better marksmen, just to level the playing
>field a bit.
Well, we outnumber it, and we've access to air-delivered napalm. It may be
bigger than me, and it may be faster than me, and it may be smarter than me,
but if it's trapped in a building on fire and it can't reach me, it's either
going to burn, and die, or suck halon, and die. Or it could escape, and
pitch its life story to NBC as a series. Then we could lawyer it to death.
Anyway, yes, we outnumber it, and that's our primary advantage. A shitty
one, but there it is.
>>>we're about to hit a wall, here, of course, because i'd have to ask you
>>>next, what would a brain in a jar be, but a biological adding machine
>>>that can draw information from electrochemical impulses at several nerve
>>>input bundles, which, given a little more of the human, uses vibration
>>>of airwaves to vocalize the results of its processing?
>>It wouldn't be a mechanical device. A computer follows rules, and has
>>software, and we can reprogram it at will [well, with the right language].
>>You can't do that with brains without rubber hose. Of course, Computers
were
>>human once. Why take a step backwards?
>alright. we're getting into the truly hypothetical here, and i seem to
>be picking up from your post that you're not big on trying to plan out
>all the aspects of a hypothetical that is so far removed from where we
>are right now.
It's some of that, but it's also that I can see a difference between them.
Functionally, it's a blackbox problem, and most people can deal with those
as black boxes. Tell them that their computer has a friggin' person inside,
and we're looking at the Butlerian Jihad...
>nonetheless, i don't see a drastic difference between a human brain in a
>jar and a computerized brain in a plastic cabinet, other than the
>materials of which they are made.
Alright, I must admit, neither do I. However, I know which one people will
have the most problems with, and it ain't in Radio Shack just yet.
>and, i'm not so certain that you cannot program a human brain. i think
>it's just incredibly
>difficult to REprogram it later. you program a brain
>by stimulating its pathways
>with repeating common firing patterns. this is not that much different
>than blowing instruction code into OTP EPROM.
Well, not at a high-level process level. Hmm. LISPing people [and I know
that it's an old one]. It's theoretically possible, but practically
difficult. Of course, if you blow bad code into EPROM you can try again with
another. How many chances do you think the ethicists would give you with
human parts.
>>>but what _of_ a brain grown in a jar? how human would it be, knowing
>>>nothing of our world except what it is given? then what of a more
>>>complex computer in a box? does it not have a subjective experience of
>>>what it is to be a computer?
>>A brain in a jar is a brain in a jar, a whole special ethical quandary
that
>>we're not going to be able to deal with until we can _put_ a brain in a
jar.
>is that particular ethical quandry any less vexing than a suitably
>complex computer in a box?
It involves bits of people, so then you've got the Church to deal with. So,
yes. The quandary, I suppose, isn't more vexing, but by god the issues
around the initial vexation will vex mightily.
>the brain, if it has never been in a human,
>has not been programmed as a human. who knows what it 'thinks' or even
>IF it 'thinks.'
Now comes the philosophy part. I think some level of human thought is
ingrained, if only in the structure and organisation of components of the
brain which have identifiable functions, and the roughly consistent rules
that govern interactions within the brain, with admitted complications
because there aren't the tight boundaries one sees in mechanical computers,
because ions leak and neurons branch multivariously. It will think _like_ a
human, but not _as_ a human.
>much the same way that a computer is not self aware
>because it has never been taught of the self.
Ooh. Well, can we define self-awareness? Cogitat ergo sum? Does my laptop,
Leviathan, have an awareness of self? I don't think so, but I can't be sure.
>we might never know what
>a brain in a jar thinks. what if you gave it a functional eyeball?
>would that input alone be enough to make it think? or might it just be
>a very useful pattern recognition device? i don't know. i don't know
>if we _could_ know.
[obDoonesbury] But doesn't it make sense to build a multi-billion missile
defence shield just in case?
>it almost certainly would not associate itself with
>humans as a like-minded creature. it would have no language except that
>it could communincate with the motion of that eye. perhaps it could
>communicate positive and negative, or even more complex notions through
>series of eye movements. but what would it have to communicate, except
>the results of its basic programming.
The creative thought it might be capable of?
>it might be taught to always
>recognize facial patterns, and be rewarded with a bit of chemcal
>pleasure stimulant when it got them right. we could treat it as a
>programmable neural net, essentially. {ironic, eh?}
Well, no, not strictly. I get your point. The problem is, there aren't
liberation groups seeking to free computers from shackles of enforced
pleasure. Yet, anyway.
>i guess what i'm getting at is that the major differences would be the
>methods of programming and available i/o, not necessarily what inherent
>qualities it might have in its 'natural' state as an unprogrammed
>isolated device.
Alright. I see your point. Though available i/o would likely improve with
borging.
>>How human it would be is a weird one. Would you consider a child raised by
>>wolves as human?
>no, i don't think so. i mean, i'd have to consider it homo sapiens, of
>course. but human implies some level of socialization within humanity.
So if you're computerisedbraininaboxwhichisbiological[tm] is surrounded by
people, is it human?
[The middle question was meant to be is a wolf raised by people human, but I
got impatient?]
>>As for subjectivity and computers, we'd need to make them
>>aware in the right way first. They'd have to be capable of being subjects,
>>in that way, first.
>why would we need to do that, though? is there a _need_ for computers
>to be aware in all the ways that we think of life? what is 'aware in
>the right way?' self-aware? aware of our existance? aware of
>themselves, us, and our relationship? in very simplistic ways, they
>already are.
I don't think it's a question of simplicity, I think it's a question of
threshold. A level of awareness which makes you human. Sociopaths lack one
of them, if I remember rightly.
>is the elephant like a wall, a snake, a spear, a fan, a tree, or a rope?
Only to some blind men.
>how much of us does the computer have to be aware of, and how accurate
>does its impression need be? i mentioned earlier a set of asimov's
>robots who were convinced that the power station they ran on mars was
>their god, and that, although they need not understand its divine plan,
>they were there to replace the fallible humans and to serve the god
>better than we. were these robots 'aware' enough?
Overly so, perhaps. Ach, they worked, though where the god part comes from I
don't remember. I shall need to dig out my short asimov.
>what if the computers don't recognize us as the physical beings that we
>are, but only as the interface we have to them? what am i to you? am i
>ones and zeroes, or am i a human on the other end of a network
>connection that you've never met?
You're --nightshade-- an entity I talk to, just as I'm erith, an entity you
talk to. That we each may have lives outwith a.g. is neither here nor there.
Inside, we're just conversation agents.
>>>you assume that these tools would be considered children.
>>Ah! No! I meant tools as in machines as in things that are not biological.
>>Tools like spacesuits and divemasks. With the right interfaces, I can go
>>anywhere. Why limit children, by which I mean 'whole' 'human beings' to
one
>>environment? Though it could be argued that I'm limited to one environment
>>too...
>ah, but why not limit them?
Morals?
>a whole rainbow of human diversity.
Have you read any of John Varley's Ophiouchi Hotline universe stuff?
>>Not conscious brains, however.
>not if we were wise about it. but what is a conscious brain? same
>question of what kind of awareness for the computers, but from the
>biological end.
Thresholds, like I said.
>and, no, i don't expect you can draw the magical line in the sand. i
>certainly can't. i just don't expect all awareness to be something we
>could necessarily relate to.
I don't think it's a line you can be aware of, just one you can sort of
point at. Though I was always intrigued by Sentience Scales. Am I a .9 yet
mommy?
>>I think the odds of creating truly alien, or at least, alien to those of
us
>>who don't want six nipples or the ability to wake up a different sex at
>>will, are slim. Torches and pitchforks and all.
>we might. we might raise them in a relatively safe environment.
>perhaps government-run facilities on the moon.
What are you? I mean, that's Dr. Evil territory. It might work, but think of
the funding difficulties. Look at NASA's tiny, squabbled over budget, in
comparison to THE BIG FUCKING SLAB that is social security. Then again, if
we can put celebrities in space, then we're set. I'm trying to remember
where I put my Spaceflight Manual, a classy little piece of neartech
spec-non-fic which I got when I was ten. According to 'The Economist' the
third-cutest member of N'SYNC may sing. Rock Concerts In SpAcE! How
Jetson's.
>>Industrial or informational? A lot of that wasn't evolution, but
>>engineering. How much of the software around you would you consider stable
>>enough to be allowed to breed? A different measure of fitness, I suspect.
>again, i think some context has dropped off the back of the stack.
a.g. misses the point in interesting ways. Discuss?
>originally, this part of the discussion, i believe, originated with a
>discussion of whether or not thinking machines, capable of designing
>(and possibly building) their own 'progeny,' would far outstrip humans
>in their own evolution. i thought it possibly, given that the time to
>conceptualize a better machine is, at least at present, far less than
>the time required to bring the next generation human to spawning age.
>also, computers are not so restricted in functional form, in that they
>need not be entirely self-contained, giving them a much wider selection
>of form to take, yet remain functional. if it requires more processing
>time to think up the next generation, machines can subdivide the task of
>thinking up that next generation. every computer in the world could be
>the intellectual parent of the first born of the next generation.
Oh, well, in that case, assuming genetic algorithms, or an analogue thereof,
for design, yeah. Then you're on small generation biological evolutionary
scale, in a resource rich environment.
>i suppose genetic engineering gives us this possibility as well -- the
>ability to sidestep the maturation process and have many humans
>contribute the the design of the next genetic code. but there's a
>difference, of course. when the next gen machine is built, they will
>know immediately if it works. we will not know if the next revision
>human will be viable into adulthood without allowing it the time to get
>there. accelerated maturation can only go so far.
Even if your Spaarti cylinders are draped in ysalamiri.
>>No, because we control the 'evolution' of machines at the moment too. How
>>different is a laptop from Eniac? It's smaller, faster, and everything
else,
>>but what it does is pretty much the same. Is that 'evolution', or gradual,
>>designed improvement?
>then, how different is a modern human from our prehuman ancestors? it's
>smarter, more capable of articulation, better equipped for working with
>fine tools. but it does pretty much the same thing.
True, but great-grandpappy "Fell In The Water" isn't around. ENIAC is.
>much of what makes modern humans what they are is the software they run,
>not the improvements in hardware that they've achieved over time.
Well, I don't really use my appendix, but I get your point.
>>Evolution, IMO, requires that everything else dies.
>does that mean that, once eniac is unplugged for the last time, an
>evolution has occurred, if newer, better machines have taken its place?
Yes?
>>>i guess, then, the logical conclusion is that humans are only superior
>>>to their machine counterparts because they have a tremendous head start.
>>Or because we built them.
>that's not a sole reason to be superior. its a possible reason why we
>might be able to maintain control. but control is not superiority.
It does imply it, in a fair universe. I can't believe I just said that.
Yeah, you're right.
>one of my examples, in this thread, of the potential first
>borgifications -- where people would voluntarily make semi-permanent
>alterations to themselves in a minimally invasive manner -- were
>inner-ear implanted hearing aides. next, retina projection devices, if
>successful as goggles, might be made to overlay the eye, if capable of
>either (a) being transparent, or (b) projecting an accurate image of
>what was behind them.
>tell me that somewhere inside, if it was minimally invasive, you
>wouldn't really dig the idea of built-in night vision. *g*
Nope. Though most of my cyberpunk characters never borged either. I just
don't like having things like that happen to me. At all. I don't wear
contacts. Hell, I actively detest having my hair cut. I am not captain body
mod, even though I want six nipples. I figure I can _grow_ them, rather than
have surgery, and then I might be ok with it.
>>Nature doesn't do it that way. THe specific purpose thing, anyway. A whole
>>bunch do a bunch of stuff. Though, like I said, pigs that don't reject in
>>humans, and goatsilk.
>okay, so it's more like attempting to alter an machine code instructions
>to do one thing differently with an independant algorithm that adjusts
>random bytes to ensure that it still retains the same image checksum.
>you fiddle with this, but you end up changing that at the same time. in
>the end, it still has to function. the program might have a lot of
>redundant or unused code, so some of the automated modifications may
>have no effect, but others may throw a non-existant instruction address.
>interesting problem.
It is. Though you're neglecting to add the fact that the compiler is prone
to changing the code too. The analogy I just though of was directing a
limousine through traffic in a tightly wound european capital from the back
seat, with blacked out windows, no map, and a GPS sensor. You know exactly
where you are, and where you want to go, but how that relates to what your
driver is capable of you've no idea.
>>They're not in the gene pool if they can't breed with us. They're not in
the
>>gene pool if the traits don't carry. They're not in the gene pool if
they're
>>sterile. They're not in the gene pool unless people want to sleep with
them.
>and? yeah. anyhow, what i tried to say was that i'm almost more
>willing to tolerate a divergent _viable_ species than untried & untested
>meddling out in the open with our own genes.
Well, it shows you're tolerant. I agree, by the way, but I think the
pitchforkers have us outnumbered.
>>No! Again, I've left myself open to unintended interpretation. Machines
>>could be, theoretically, programmed in an Asimov stylee. The best way to
>>make genetically engineered consciousness like us is to be nice to it.
>i'll believe that we, as a society, can 'be nice' to a newly genetically
>engineered frankenperson, when i've seen reasonable evidence that we can
>be nice to our own kind, and no sooner.
Unfortunately, yes, I agree with you. You could isolate them I suppose, and
now I'm thinking about 'Twins'. Bad brain!
>>>but just think if we found it... that's a whole new can of worms, isn't
>>>it? a genetic modification that would be guaranteed ensure docility and
>>>love of master. ...due to be implemented -- on 99.9% of 'human'
>>>society. it's a dream come true: the death of personal freedom, the
>>>assurance of complicity.
>>Isn't that 'V'?
>eh? wasn't 'V' the alien race with green skin that masqueraded as
>humans, but would occasionally rip off their false flesh?
Probably. I've no idea which poor TV series it was.
>>You could implement it, but what about the 6.25 Billion
>>people without it. They might object, and you can hardly stop them all
>>fucking.
>no. but i'd be surprised if all their fucking lead to fewer and fewer
>offspring.
My point was that they'd outnumber your superguy, despite their sterility.
[Raising standards in the 3rd world, I think]
>>>yeah, our efforts don't seem to work. i'll grant you that. but our
>>>intentions lie in that direction.
>>Whose? Mine don't.
>okay. you think we've struck a decent balance between the number of
>well-off people an impoverished, undereducated people in society, then?
Hell no.
>or, perhaps you think we need more?
Yep.
>s'okay, we prolly don't need to go there. i don't have a whole lot to say
on the
>subject.
I disagreed with your initial statement, whatever the hell it was. :) Me
neither, really.
>>>and utterly useless. brain-in-a-box. it's only as useful as the i/o
>>>you give it.
>>Well, they might be good at writing books. Or coding. Or operating
>>factories. Indoor work, with no heavy lifting.
>heh. could be interesting. i'd like to see what a boxed brain came up
>with as far as book authorship. with a command of the human language, a
>rather twisted perspective on humanity, and possibly quite a bit of
>sensory deprivation...
Now, who on this newsgroup does that remind _you_ of?
>>What's wrong with slipping headlong into the future?
>i believe we ought to sit down and have a good long think on it before
>we go there, that's all.
I want my NOW seven at a time.
>--nightshade-- {will try to stay away from rewiting cheesy pop lyrics}
That had _better_ be a promise.
--
erith - How Jetsons.
By the wat, sheesh, this formatting's getting odd.
erithromycin
"ask. me" <spa...@account.net> wrote in message
news:ugk5or7...@corp.supernews.com...
>I had to quote the whole thing cause it might just be out of context if I
>didn't. ;)
Context is good, but remember that round these parts we frown on
top-posting.
>A clone of "me" used for sex? (granted another person, probably more
>attractive than the light of the sun after digging self out from under
>rubble of a colapsed building....) But let me re-iterate... ME?!? Used
>for sex?
Well, do remember that somewhere right now someone is probably downloading
pr0n with people in that look sufficiently like you that it might as well be
you, or, at least, pr0n whose 'stars' share at least one feature with you,
be it that you're green, tall, have six arms, or own a pickup truck. That
last one really is genetic, honest. It's a scientific fact.
>The only thing I have against that is that someone might mistake -me-
>for -my clone- and then jump my bones in the most inapropreate way... (ie,
>dominate position.... er.. well... atleast inapropreate if i'm not ready
>first.)
>or most inapropreate times.. like when I'm buying clothes or looking for a
>hard to find book on the bottom shelf.......
That's something that I'd been thinking about. This 'sex toy' clone would,
of course, barring differences in physiological development that were not
genetic, look more than reasonably similar to you, and as such might appear
in all sorts of compromising photographs. Would the stigma of being the
model of a sex toy in any way dissuade you from taking money for it? Or
would the lure of filthy lucre have you lining up to make wealthy, lonely
businessmen happy in age of consent years?
>Thats about all.. Otherwise I think that the world needs more of me...
>lots lots more ;)
Do you combine to form a larger, more powerful you?
--
erith - who doesn't
Tiny Human Ferret
>
> In article <3CFE2FB8...@earthops.net>,
> Tiny Human Ferret <ixnayamsp...@earthops.net> wrote:
>
> > I can only point you to my own musings, and to a work I believe is
> > deriviative, the TV series "Prey".
>
> > "Prey" posited, more or less, that in the same way that -- 40,000 years ago
> > -- Moderns emerged and shortly thereafter the Neandertal disappeared
> > practically overnight, in the modern day, a New Species has emerged, and we
> > too shall disappear, practically overnight.
>
> that was the one with the relatively emotionless humanoids who were
> physically suporior, bred quickly, had cryptic tatooed markings, and
> evolved somewhere in the desert of Mexico, no?
Heh... um yeah. BTW -- it wasn't that they didn't have emotions, it's more
that they didn't have any affinity-emotions _towards us_. Us, they hated.
Passionately.
The physical superiority wasn't by much, a slightly better immune system,
marginally better adapted to high-temperature conditions, etc.
The main difference was reproductive: the females gave birth to _litters_
and matured physically and sexually at about age 8.
>
> > In this (thankfully, because of the way they botched it, very badly,
> > mid-series) short-lived series, this New Species is discovered more-or-less
> > by accident, when genetic sequencing of some of the most vicious sociopathic
> > criminals reveals that these criminals are only about 98.6 percent human,
> > compared with roughly 97 percent similarity between Man and Chimpanzee.
>
> yeah, that's the one. i saw maybe a handfull of episodes.
Wanna know where they were going with it, if it had lasted (and been done as
it should have been)?
I'll tell you anyways. Treatment for the primary longterm story-arc of
"Prey" ("Hunger for Life"), second season and subsequent seasons, copyright
2002 all rights reserved by TJH Internet SP of Rockville MD, USA.
The tattoos: In most cases, obviously a calendar, with dates marked in
advance. You saw one of those if you got out and saw the perfect triangle
of planets in mid-May.
Originating in Mexico? Yes. They were the cannibal priests who ruled
Mesoamerican antique cultures roughly until Cortes landed at Veracruz. Note
that the Aztecan cultures were ruled by highly inbred families, of this
history assures us. "Prey" would have posited that these weren't just
inbred, they were so very inbred that they'd become a different species. Or
was it due to inbreeding? Some of the tattoos indicated not only the
positions of planets in specific alignments, but also indicated a comet.
Well, as we know, the Aztecan rulers had advanced mathematics with a number
system used noplace else, and many have pointed out that some of their
remnant images greatly resemble astronauts and starships. Were the "New
Species" the result of ET meddling with hominid DNA? Are they the _result_
of global warming, or are they the _cause_, ultimately programmed to change
the terrestrial ecology to the point where only the "New Species" -- and
their ET masters -- can survive? Only future episodes can tell. Is that a
comet in the tattoos, or is it a returning ET mothership following a
cometary orbit, refueling and retrofitting as it mines that comet's
resources?
One thing is for sure: in the past, everyone who has ever discovered an
enclave of the "New Species" has tried to eradicate them, so they must all
live their separate lives, with only their planetary clock tattoos to remind
them that at certain times they should either find another "cell" or "pod"
of their extended family, or simply raise as much hell as they can and cause
as much destruction and death to the hated "old humans" as possible. And, it
would seem, planets are moving into alignment, and a hithertofore uncharted
comet is discovered at the limits of detection... not quite visible to the
naked eye... yet. But when it is visible to the naked eye, it and the
planets in the sky will shortly thereafter resemble the tattoos which are
found mostly on the hereditary leadership and operations castes...
Subthreads will explore why these highly intelligent and organized beings
which ruled mesoamerica with an iron grasp for nearly 2000 years were never
able to assume a world-leadership role... mostly, it was because they could
never control the vast resources of northamerica's appalachian and
midatlantic: they could only really get as far as capturing (and devouring)
the Anasazi, and could make no inroads from there towards assuming similar
levels of control over the Moundbuilder culture, because a combination of
drought and a new-madrid class earthquake wiped out the Moundbuilders and
disrupted the trade routes. The drought also wiped out the Anasazi (what was
left of them) and concurrently there was one of the periodic overpopulations
and die-offs in mesoamerica. By the time Cortes arrived, they were regaining
almost enough power to try once again for northamerica, but then the
smallpox decimated them along with all of the rest of the nativeamericans.
Only now can they again make a bid for conquest, glory, and global
domination. Will our small crew of intrepid paleontologists and
criminologists be able to discover and foil their plots in time? And what
interference will come from their Rivals in the european and asian venues?
--
Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae.
Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow. <-----> http://earthops.net/klaatu/