Love it so far! :)

[phonuz]

This is great, I am always a fan of these types of explorations and
specifically the topic of real vs simulated, etc.

Also, this could be a really useful dry run for when we release the
actual notice, or 'synchro' as we are calling it now. I assume you
have been filled in by one of the dendrite folk, although I am
surprised because I thought this would happen more in tandem, but oh
well.

"People" will be OK, I'm sure, I mean everything is backed up,
anyways, and we can just back track if we screw anything up in a big
way. Unless it really does feedback negatively into our system, but
most of us think that's a stretch. Nothing ever happened with the
LHC, and you've seen how much some of your peers worry about singlets
and what not.

Anywho, keep up the good work, I can't wait to see how this all turns
out! :)

42.43

P.S. It might be funny if the user is asked to make an early choice in
the narration, and they don't find out the repercussions of the choice
till later. You know, something that sounds inoffensive, but ends up
being of monumental importance, and oops, too late to change their
choice!

[Matthew]

Hey pho,

I really need to brush my teeth in peace but bing, you're posting you
madman, isn't it 3AM where you are? I know I gave you access to the
sim so you could drift through your class but dude, we really should
not use the in-sim net systems to leave messages, even though it
should be filtered for them not to see. I really don't want to
backtrack, it takes at least five minutes to pull up the archive and I
am basically drooling I am so tired and out of stim. We seriously need
to avoid messing with the ACs or else I'll lose access. Be cool.

--pod

PS the LHC sent tachyons so far into the future our great-grandkids
will still be sorting it out so let's not get cocky. "Nothing ever
happened" is a pretty literal use of the past tense, don't you think?

[Winston Zardo]

Will humans brush their teeth in 100 years? Won't they use nanobots
to do that for them?
Zardo

> > choice!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Matthew]

Heh, Zardo, you know I actually thought about that! Maybe to "brush
one's teeth" is a phrase still used in the future but it is in fact no
longer done with a brush; it's just ingestion or activation of such
nanobots. But wouldn't those bots already always be in one's mouth?

In the future I envisage for this story, I don't have much nanotech.
If it does come to exist I picture something like Stephenson's book
The Diamond Age and that is a bit too grand for my taste. But I am not
sure yet. Are free-wheeling nanobots illegal in this future? It is a
quite highly regulated and governed society, unlike Stephenson's
libertarian visions. Do people still use a brush for sentimental or
pleasurable reasons?

Or should I just stop referring to tooth brushing? :) I found it a
funny image, to counterpoint the vastness of the creator's power with
something so pedestrian. But I admit, now that you point it out, it
might not be the best fit!

On Dec 10, 12:33 am, Winston Zardo <richardbrown...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

[Winston Zardo]

Matthew,
I would recommend "The Singularity is Near". Wiki it for a preview.
Zardo

> > Zardo- Hide quoted text -

[Matthew]

I will, thanks Zardo! I know a bit about it but I am eager to read
more... when I find the time, that is.

I still have a feeling that consciousness is tied up into quantum
strangeness that even a fantastically robust computer cannot recreate.
It may be that we only ever find consciousness in "wetware" with all
its squishy chemical entanglements.

[Humberto Castaneda]

True internal consciousness, perhaps.  But that may not be necessary for the external appearance of consciousness.

That is the most intriguing aspect of it to me:  how could you measure true consciousness from 'the outside' of the consciousness itself?  How could you ever prove 'it' really is conscious, and not just an incredibly faithful simulation?

In practical terms, we will have AI agents in short order (10-20 years) that claim, very convincingly, that they are indeed conscious.  There will be a great deal of litigation and debate, probably violence as well, all over the question of what is the threshold for being 'alive' and for being 'conscious'.

Already we see sparks about how real "virtuality" is or not, like Richard Bartle complaining about 'torture' in World of Warcraft (http://kotaku.com/5098888/mud-designer-unhappy-about-wow-torture-quest), or debates about sex with robots (http://www.asylum.com/2008/12/09/is-having-sex-with-a-robot-hooker-cheating-revisted/).

Of course, digital beings will have a capability us squishy ones don't: backups.  How can you truly hurt or kill a being that you can easily restore ad-infinitum?  Sure, in many cases you could erase all backups permanently.  But in some cases, the being will be generated algorithmically.  How can you eliminate the being then?  You would have to eliminate not only all instances of the being, but all record of the algorithm, and probably all knowledge in every other being of how to regenerate the algorithm.

But that is a tangent.  My point is mainly that we will have digital beings very shortly that appear to be conscious to outside observers.  And who will we be to claim that they are not truly conscious?

--

I, Transhuman
42.43

[Kat Ford]

Just a quick reply as I'm at work. But I quickly checked out that link regarding torture which I didn't really understand the specific objection to. I personally found it strange that in a number of the deathknight quests you routinely kill people who beg for mercy. If I objected to that I could just skip the quest. However I believe that there is no harm to any Npc nor to myself unless I choose to. Horrible things can happen in fiction. It is fiction though. Sex with robots? I don't see what the problem is since vibrators have been around a good long time without issue.  

Sent from my iPhone

[Winston Zardo]

There is a good possibility that the line between human and machine
will continue to blur...without major rejection. Arificial joints,
pacemakers, etc. even brain-connected prosthetics are welcomed without
having to contend with crowds of villagers shouting and carrying
torches.
Zardo

> > ), or debates about sex with robots (http://www.asylum.com/2008/12/09/is-having-sex-with-a-robot-hooker-ch...
> > ).

>
> > Of course, digital beings will have a capability us squishy ones  
> > don't: backups.  How can you truly hurt or kill a being that you can  
> > easily restore ad-infinitum?  Sure, in many cases you could erase  
> > all backups permanently.  But in some cases, the being will be  
> > generated algorithmically.  How can you eliminate the being then?  
> > You would have to eliminate not only all instances of the being, but  
> > all record of the algorithm, and probably all knowledge in every  
> > other being of how to regenerate the algorithm.
>
> > But that is a tangent.  My point is mainly that we will have digital  
> > beings very shortly that appear to be conscious to outside  
> > observers.  And who will we be to claim that they are not truly  
> > conscious?
>

> > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Matthew <MatthewMF...@gmail.com>  

> > wrote:
>
> > I will, thanks Zardo! I know a bit about it but I am eager to read
> > more... when I find the time, that is.
>
> > I still have a feeling that consciousness is tied up into quantum
> > strangeness that even a fantastically robust computer cannot recreate.
> > It may be that we only ever find consciousness in "wetware" with all
> > its squishy chemical entanglements.
>
> > On Dec 11, 1:55 am, Winston Zardo <richardbrown...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Matthew,
> > > I would recommend "The Singularity is Near".  Wiki it for a preview.
> > > Zardo
>
> > --
>
> > I, Transhuman

> > 42.43- Hide quoted text -

[Matthew]

That is a very interesting article about torture in World of Warcraft,
thanks Humberto for bringing it up and Kat for filling in more info.

I don't see why Bartle is drawing a distinction between a fiction in
which you play a part and fiction which you just witness and
vicariously enjoy. Is it wrong for me to enjoy Pulp Fiction and cackle
with glee when people are killed there? I don't think so. So how is
playing the part of an evil being somehow wrong? It is still your
choice to play that role. After all, when you choose to become
something called a "Deathknight" you can hardly be shocked when you
are compelled to do nasty things.

And what if you are in a play and your role is Richard III or Macbeth?
Is it wrong for you to play that part? Of course not.

However there is an interesting insight here into how we might
sympathize with virtual creatures, even those which are obviously not
conscious. When I play games, I get a squeamish feeling (which can be
cathartic in itself) if I do violent or cruel things. So though I
don't think it is wrong for me to do them or those games to be made, I
do feel an emotional, visceral connection-- and that's a good thing;
it makes the game that much more engaging.

[Matthew]

> That is the most intriguing aspect of it to me:  how could you measure true
> consciousness from 'the outside' of the consciousness itself?  How could you
> ever prove 'it' really is conscious, and not just an incredibly faithful
> simulation?

True, this is the "problem of other minds" that is a philosophical
conundrum, and I have not yet read a satisfying solution to it. It may
be in fact impossible to solve. You simply can never know if someone
is truly conscious or not. We may have to make our best guess and live
with it. So though it's possible you are all bots, I choose to live my
life as if you are all really as conscious as you appear.

[Matthew]

> debates about sex with robots

This is yet another fascinating subject and is close to a similar
debate: if you are in a simulated reality, and have sex with an
automated avatar there, is it infidelity? What if that avatar is
controlled by another human? Though sex with robot is still a ways in
the future for most people, sex with an avatar is happening here and
now amongst millions. See Second Life and World of Warcraft.

(I am compelled to note that not everyone has the same view about what
is "infidelity"; myself I admire the concept of polyamory. But for
shorthand I discuss this with the traditional, mainstream view that to
have sex outside of a committed romantic relationship is taboo.)

I think the difference to most people between sex with a robot/AI and
sex with a vibrator is the similarity to humanity. We are wired to
bond emotionally with those with whom we have sex, even though that
urge is often resisted. So the creepy bit to most people is, what if
you start to feel emotionally attached to the robot or AI? What if it
shows attachment to you? Vibrators don't elicit those questions...
unless it is a *really* fancy one. ;)

[Matthew]

> Of course, digital beings will have a capability us squishy ones don't:
> backups.  How can you truly hurt or kill a being that you can easily restore
> ad-infinitum?  

Fascinating tangent. It reminds me of the old sci-fi question: you
step into a transporter. It dissolves you in place. It rebuilds you in
a distant location from component atoms. Are you the same person? Did
you die? Now, there is a malfunction. The distant transporter works,
but the one you step into fails to dissolve you. You have a copy.
Which one is you? Which one gets your stuff?

So copying an AC begs the same question.

Now, just because something *can* be revived from a backup does not
seem to make it any more right to make it suffer and die. I don't have
the right to drug my child, put him into a deep coma, freeze him, and
keep him that way for a few years till I have more money to send him
to college. Even if I can bring him back to life with no ill effects,
it is still wrong. He still suffers as he realizes what will happen to
him, and suffer when he learns later what occurred. It's a new and
different kind of suffering and injustice, but still is those things,
isn't it?

[Matthew]

On Dec 12, 12:28 am, Winston Zardo <winston.za...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is a good possibility that the line between human and machine
> will continue to blur...without major rejection.  Arificial joints,
> pacemakers, etc. even brain-connected prosthetics are welcomed without
> having to contend with crowds of villagers shouting and carrying
> torches.
> Zardo

Oh, I completely agree with that. It will be seamless. Each step will
seem a bit weird, but it gets absorbed. At first it seemed so odd to
see people with in-ear headsets and invisible microphones, walking
around looking like they are talking to themselves. But I have gotten
more used to it. It used to be that having a mobile phone glued to
your ear brought mockery. No more. It used to bring derision to have
earphones in public. "Unplug yourself, young man!" No more. So this
will continue, I agree.