Subject: (urth) Scylla, Oreb and transmigrational chain yanking

From: Nigel Price <nigel.a.price at virgin.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 20:19:23 +0000

Back in the "good ol' days" of 16-bit processors, people sometimes used to
refer to machines based around these devices as having "a two-byte word". A
byte is 8 bits, and the natural data size for input to and output from these
chips was therefore two bytes.

I've sometimes wondered whether there wasn't some sort of joke or word play
going on in Wolfe's mind with Oreb, who can talk but who can only use two
syllables at a time. All Oreb's ideas are expressed in these compressed and
occasionally gnomic two-syllable phrases. Perhaps he has a brain based
around two-word bites, as it were.

I'm sure that there will be contributors to the list who have converted
programs to work on different platforms and who may well have had to squeeze
an application and its accompanying data so that it will work on a much
smaller device than that for which it was originally intended. All sorts of
clever techniques have been evolved over the years, and I still marvel at
the way that the operating system on my PDA runs a form of Windows
(so-called Windows CE)on an architecture vastly different and very much
smaller than that used by my desktop machine. File formats are seemlessly
changed as I shunt data back and forth between the handheld and the main PC.

Wolfe has the "windows" in the manteions carry out this sort of operation
with a whole human personality, for example downloading an already digitised
version of Scylla into Oreb's tiny memory and brain. As far as one can make
out, all the data is downloaded, but the executable parts of Scylla's
personality can only run in a highly truncated form.

I just love this mixing of imaginary engineering (how to effect the transfer
of all that data!) and theological speculation (what is a personality? is it
a soul? is it transferrable?), which seems quintessential to the Lupine
version of science fantasy. But as others have pointed out, the "transfer of
human identity" (Hartshorne) is a frquent occurence in Wolfe's writing,
whether it is Severian ingesting Thecla's personality and memories via the
alzabo, or Mr Million preserving a human intelligence in a mechanical
environment in 5HC. (Hmmm. There must be more room in Mr Million than in
poor old Oreb's head. Mr Million does at least talk in complete sentences.
Anybody know what the data capacity of a night chough's brain might be? More
or less than a fine old Spectrum 48, I wonder?)

I have to agree with Hartshorne that this transfer of identity business
really doesn't seem very "biblical". It's always seemed downright odd to
me - wonderful and intriguing, but also very odd! As a Christian, Wolfe
clearly believes in the soul, but his experimental treatment of this theme
within an SF context has always seemed very daring to me. He achieves all
sorts of extraordinary and complex effects, some of which carry deep
symbolic resonances, but the actual plot devices are definitely speculated
and wholly science fictional, or at least, science fantastical.

I was therefore deeply puzzled by Tom's recent post where he wrote:

> Matt 16:13-17 seem to address the issue.  It appears that Jews of the
> time believed in some sort of soul-type transmigration, or something
> pretty darn weird.  And apparently Jesus does, too, as he praises
> Simon for getting it right, since doing so requires some sort
> of divine assistance.  So it looks like the idea of the same soulish
> thing moving from one incarnation to another is not anti - or even
> extra-Biblical.

I almost wondered whether we were looking at the same passage here, Tom!
Peter's comments on the popular view of Jesus' ministry can be interpreted
in a number of ways. He might mean, "They think you are a prophet like John
the Baptist, Elijah or Jeremiah!" He is probably referring to the fact that
the people are making reference to Malachi 4.5, where there is a promise
that "Elijah" will come before "the day of the Lord", and saying that Jesus
is the one who comes as the reconciliatory herald who precedes the
judgement. He may even be referring to an opinion, however metaphorical or
literal we may take it, that some people are saying that Jesus is one of the
prophets come back to life, but I really can't see any reference to the
transmigration of souls in this exchange. When Jesus praises Simon in verse
17 and tells him that he has received divine revelation, it's not because he
has agreed with whatever it was that the people believed about Jesus, but
rather because Peter recognized that Jesus was the messaih, the Son of God
(v16).

As for Alga's post which begins...

>>This is a Pharisees vs. Saducees question...

...I strongly suspect that my chain is being yanked! I refuse to rise to the
bait! The Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead, the Saducees
didn't. Although he was famously critical of the shortcomings and
hypocrisies of the Pharisees, Jesus did agree with them about the reality of
life after death.

Forgive a stodgy old, humourless Baptist, Alga, but that seems to be about
it!

Nigel
(Stodgy and humourless and Baptistical in Minety)

--

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 20:56:38 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nigel Price" <nigel.a.price at virgin.net>
> or less than a fine old Spectrum 48, I wonder?)

A cubic millimeter of brain has 14 kilometers of biological wiring packed
into it.   There is no comparion between the brain of any living creature
and ANY contemporary computer.

I won't comment on the Pharasees/Saducsees debate, but I will note one other
thing about Wolfe.   Apparently machines - computer, Taloses, Solders and
chems - are themselves to be redemeed, and become children of God.

Isn't that interesting?  It also occurs in Lafferty (ARRIVE AT EASTERWINE)
and in Cordwainer Smith, but neither of them thought to preent it as
accepted, routine, ordinary, boring.

    hartshorn    (no capital H, no terminal e)

--

---

From: Alice K. Turner <aturner6 at nyc.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 06:16:44 +0000

> (Stodgy and humourless and Baptistical in Minety)

Your chain was not being yanked. That was a completely serious post, in
which I tried to identify Matthew (whom I consider an interesting and
imaginative nut-case, which may bring out your humourless Baptist
feelings--rising to the bait) as a hard-line resurectionist going against
the at-the-time and still orthodox  Jewish majority feeling that this was/is
a somewhat ridiculous position.

-alga

--

---

From: Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 07:16:22 +0000

>chems - are themselves to be redemeed, and become children of God.

I know you are presenting what seems to be Wolfe's viewpoint, not your own.

First of all, redeemed from what, exactly? Original Sin? For a Christian who
subscribes to that doctrine (as all, I assume, must; otherwise what need of
a "Savior"?), that's a rather queer notion. I mean, the progeny of Eve, even
unto the nth generation, cut off from the Tree of Life and cursed to live by
the sweat of their brows, are all doomed by the nature of their flesh--the
perils and temptations and foibles attendant upon it--to live out their
lives as best they may, then to die. After death they are to be judged, and
rewarded or punished eternally, according to how well they acquitted
themselves while alive and in the flesh. That flesh is subject, by
definition, directly to Lust and Gluttony and, indirectly, to others of the
Deadly Sins. It is very hard, if not impossible, to "sin" in any way that is
not reducible, ultimately, to the animal nature of the species.

For a non-corporeal entity (never mind where the "soul" came from) to be
held to the same standards as one of flesh and blood, strikes me as, well, .
. . unfair, to say the least. It's easy to be a "saint" when it can't be
helped. Has your PC ever lusted after an iMac? Have you ever known a robot
who spent the rent money on wine, women, and the horses? Where is the virtue
of resisting temptations one isn't even subject to?

Look at Hammerstone; he had his basic, factory-issue value system changed by
an ignorant priest with a screwdriver! Talk about an epiphany! Did that
augur save that Iron Man's soul with his meddling, or doom him to hell when
he got some wires crossed?

-Roy

--

---

From: matthew.malthouse <matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 08:20:45 +0000

On 21/04/2002 07:16:44 Alice K. Turner wrote:

>I tried to identify Matthew (whom I consider an interesting and
>imaginative nut-case,

Charmed, I'm sure.

  ;-)

Matthew

--

---

From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:27:46 +0000

Alga wrote:

> feelings--rising to the bait) as a hard-line resurectionist going
> against the at-the-time and still orthodox  Jewish majority feeling
> that this was/is a somewhat ridiculous position.

H'mmmm. Well:

First of all, the Pharisees essentially won -- if you look at modern
Orthodox-with-a-capital-O Jewish practice, it's almost entirely 
descended from the practices of the Pharisaical party. I believe that 
Orthodox Judaism today takes no official position on "what happens
after death," but I'm not sure -- I'd have to do some research in 
books that I don't keep here at work (for some reason).

--

---

From: tom <tom at bitterman.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 17:52:17 +0000

> > thing moving from one incarnation to another is not anti - or even

Warning: discussion of what the word "is" means follows.  Not for
the faint of heart.

> the Baptist, Elijah or Jeremiah!"

Then they should have said that.  But they say (in KJV): "Some
say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias,
or one of the prophets."  They say "is" (well, "art"), not "like" or
"reminds us of".  What could they mean but some sort of soul-ish
transmigration?  Especially since the crowds could easily tell the
difference between Jesus and John the Baptist?  A straightforward
reading would seem to indicate that when they said that Jesus "was"
John the Baptist, they mean that some essential part of John was
in Jesus, or something of the sort.

>He is probably referring to the fact that
> judgement.

Elijah is the only one who could really fit the bill without some
form of transmigration, as he's the only one of the group that
didn't die in the usual way.

>He may even be referring to an opinion, however metaphorical or
> transmigration of souls in this exchange.

When people said Jesus "was" John the Baptist, what did they mean?
I hate to jump on this point, but the whole Long/Short Sun series
is filled with this sort of identity bluriness.

>When Jesus praises Simon in verse

Note that Jesus does not correct the apostles with the equivalent
of "You morons!  Do I look like John the Baptist?  How could I
be Isaiah when he's been dead for hundreds of years?".  He apparently
finds the idea plausible.  Heck, it requires divine revelation for
Peter to get the right answer.

> Forgive a stodgy old, humourless Baptist, Alga, but that seems to be about

Mention might be made of the demon named Legion, who is driven from
a possesed man into a herd of swine.

> (Stodgy and humourless and Baptistical in Minety)

Tom

--

---

From: Dan Meliza <meliza at ocf.berkeley.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 18:21:50 +0000

-----Original Message-----
From: Nigel Price [mailto:nigel.a.price at virgin.net]
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 1:19 PM
To: urth at urth.net
Subject: (urth) Scylla, Oreb and transmigrational chain yanking

> (Hmmm. There must be more room in Mr Million than in

It's hard to compare algorithmic computers to brains but I'm almost certain
Oreb has the spectrum 48 beat.  In fact, if he's at least as smart as Alex
the parrot (who can identify objects on the basis of verbal cues) he's
smarter than any software/hardware in existence today, though probably not
in 20-50 years.  Now with a vastly smaller hippocampus and frontal lobes
it's questionable how much of a human-god's memory and personality you could
store in a bird-brain even if you weren't using it.  But then, there must be
some way to vastly compress an intelligence if you're going to send it
through the optic nerves in a few seconds.

now if only this sort of speculation were acceptable at qualifying exams.

cheers,
dan

--

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:08:37 +0000

> From: "Andy Robertson" <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>

> and ANY contemporary computer.

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken; we've had simulated worm and insect
brains for a few years. Another worm or fly might find the difference
plain, but the comparative function's been demonstrated.

-- 
Jeff Wilson
How Am I Posting? 1-800-555-6789
"If your SecOp can see you, so can the enemy." -Cpt Law

--

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:40:49 +0000

>      From: 
>           "Roy C. Lackey" <rclackey at stic.net>
 
> a "Savior"?), that's a rather queer notion. 

	There's sin learned from others, Unoriginal Sin. :) Seriously, it's
generally accepted among all but the most reactionary Christians that
Jesus' sacrifice redeemed everyone from original sin, both retroactively
and for all generations to come. So, innocent babies do not go to hell
if they die before being baptised or otherwise "cleansed" of sin. 

> I mean, the progeny of Eve, even

	In the same way, most Christians other than the crustiest
fundamentalists will consider yielding to lust and gluttony to be sinful
because/if the person chooses to indulge when they know better. 
 
> of resisting temptations one isn't even subject to?

Salvation's not about cultivating virtue, it's about refraining from
harming yourself and others. There are plenty of precedent for the
behavior (or imagined behavior) of nonhuman beings being held up as an
example of virtuous conduct worth of emulation; the various animal
species that mate for life, the work ethic and community spirit of the
beaver, a lion's courage, the indomitability of the bear. 
 
> he got some wires crossed?

possibly, would he have had time to realize the difference between right
and wrong?

--

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 05:38:39 +0000

Sheesh.  OK  "Any vertebrate".  My bad.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Wilson" <jwilson at io.com>
> brains for a few years

--

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:27:48 +0000

On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Roy C. Lackey wrote:

> First of all, redeemed from what, exactly?  Original sin?
[...]
> It is very hard, if not impossible, to "sin" in any way that is

Classically, Pride is seen as the chief of sins, and one that is least
connected to our animal nature.  Thought to be the source of 

If angels (e.g. Satan) can sin and fall away from God, it seems consistent
that it would be possible for machines and other non-animal persons.

Also, one conjecture that because humanity is fallen, the machines we
make are subject to the same flaws we are.
 
> he got some wires crossed?

Many human beings have biological problems that similarly effect their
behavior.  One imagines/hopes that if people of any sort are held
accountable for their actions, God would take that sort of thing into
account.  One man's half-hearted attempts to belive, repent, and do good 
might produce more apparent virtue than the whole-hearted effort of
another, but perhaps God judges the heart.  And if grace can forgive
intentional sins, it can forgive acts done under the influence of crossed
wires.

-Rostrum

--

---

From: Andy Robertson <andywrobertson at clara.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 16:39:34 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Straight" <straight at email.unc.edu>
> account.

And Wolfe is well aware of the moral side of it.

The aggresive approprioation of the mechanical into the divine is on one
level an argument against the idea that **humans** are merely mechanical.

Humans, **as well as** machines, have free will, hence responsibility, hence
authentic moral status.

    hartshorn

One man's half-hearted attempts to belive, repent, and do good

--