{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3434", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 3434, "subject": "Those chems", "messages": 19, "voices": 9, "first": "2002-09-03T05:00:56+00:00", "last": "2002-09-07T02:36:06+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2002-09-03T05:26:35+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Those chems", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The subject of chems having been brought up lately, I want to say a few\nthings about them in general, some of which may bear on recent discussion.\n\nFirst is the silly anthropomorphic notion of gender in machines: they don't\nhave any. Gender outside of biological life forms is devoid of meaning.\nYeah, Wolfe has consistently given us such characters in his fiction, but\nthat doesn't make it true. I can, for the sake of a story, accept sentient\nautomatons, just as I do FTL ships, time travel, and ghosts, but logic can't\nbe left entirely on this side of the looking glass.\n\nChems were built on Urth, not the _Whorl_, to the evil madman Typhon's\nspecifications. Lest the chems wear out, like Marble, or otherwise be lost\nto his plan, he made provision for replacements. For some reason he\ndecided that individual machines should not replicate themselves alone, so\neach machine was programmed with only half the data needed to build a\nreplacement. It was a stupid idea, as subsequent events proved, and gave\nrise to the notion of gender, based on the obvious and convenient human\nanalogy.\n\nChem is a term coined on the _Whorl_. Both Urth-born Kypris and Mamelta give\nthem no more regard as sentient beings than I do my car or computer, each\ncalling them by some variation of \"robot\" and \"machine\", which is what they\nare. The chems are \"its\", not \"hes\" and \"shes\". They have no instincts\nbeyond their \"standing orders\", which can be subverted, as Incus\ndemonstrated, by a little rewiring and reprogramming. They do not have\nglands or hormones to influence behavior. The gamut of human emotions\nattributed to the head movements and body language of Marble exist only in\nthe eye of the beholder; they are learned associations or fanciful\nprojections with no more (probably less) real-world meaning than those my\nwife assigns to one of our cats.\n\nI'm a little over half through my nth reading of the LS series. From all\nI've been able to determine, there are two basic models of chems. One is the\ntall (two heads taller than Silk), heavy model used primarily, if not\nexclusively, as \"soldiers\", such as Hammerstone. These machines are,\naccording to Hammerstone, basically identical in terms of hardware; the\ndifferences, such as military rank, are in the programming they were given\nand a certain ability to \"learn\" from experience. These tall chems are, so\nfar as I can tell, designated exclusively as \"male\". The other model is\nsmaller (nearer normal human size) and lighter, though still heavier than a\nsame-sized human. These shorter chems seem to be all \"female\".\n\nThe only differences between what are termed \"male\" and \"female\" chems is a\nmatter of programming and relative size. Many of their inner components were\nprobably interchangeable. None of those components can be identified as male\nor female. Marble's modesty in entirely an affectation; she has no female\nfeatures to hide beneath a habit, no more than the soldiers have male\nfeatures. In fact, the soldiers wear only different colors of paint to\nindicate their function.\n\nHammerstone might just as well have been programmed as \"female\" and spent\n\"her\" waking hours sewing nighties for Orchid's girls and empathizing with\ntheir monthly courses; but no, its fingers were too big for fine work. But\nit makes just as much sense as wandering around on patrol in the tunnels,\ntalking Silk's ears off with stereotypical army gripes, pining over lost\nlove, and bitching about the shortage of chem nookie--or whatever equivalent\nnon-biological itch Hammerstone was programmed to scratch.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-09-03T05:00:56+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Those chems", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "----- Original Message -----" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Roy C. Lackey\" \nTo: \"urth\" \nSent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 6:26 AM\nSubject: (urth) Those chems\nChem is a term coined on the _Whorl_. Both Urth-born Kypris and Mamelta\ngive\nthem no more regard as sentient beings than I do my car or computer, each\ncalling them by some variation of \"robot\" and \"machine\", which is what\nthey\nare. The chems are \"its\", not \"hes\" and \"shes\". They have no instincts\nbeyond their \"standing orders\", which can be subverted, as Incus\ndemonstrated, by a little rewiring and reprogramming. They do not have\nglands or hormones to influence behavior. The gamut of human emotions\nattributed to the head movements and body language of Marble exist only in\nthe eye of the beholder; they are learned associations or fanciful\nprojections with no more (probably less) real-world meaning than those my\nwife assigns to one of our cats." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Um!\n\nWolfe deliberately gave the chems souls. Whatever \"soul\" is, they have it\nas much as do the bios. After all bios are just machines, too.\n\nYou might argue that the chems are radically less complex mentally than the\nbios, but there is no evidence for this. A human mind can reside in the\nchem's cards, it seems - people are transferred back and forth all the\ntime - and so the chems' native minds apparently can be as complex and\nidiosyncratic as a bio's.\n\nI won't argue that Typhon intnded this. I think it just happened, after\nhundreds of years interaction with the bios and with each other.\n\n\n\nYour cats do have emotions, which they communicate to you very well. Or\ncommunicate to your wife, at least, it seems.\n\n\n hartshorn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "matthew.malthouse", "address": "matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-09-03T10:48:36+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Those chems", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "On 03/09/2002 06:26:35 Roy C. Lackey wrote" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The only differences between what are termed \"male\" and \"female\" chems is\na\nmatter of programming and relative size. Many of their inner components\nwere\nprobably interchangeable. None of those components can be identified as\nmale\nor female. Marble's modesty in entirely an affectation; she has no female\nfeatures to hide beneath a habit, no more than the soldiers have male\nfeatures. In fact, the soldiers wear only different colors of paint to\nindicate their function." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The suggestion that Marble's behaviour is an affectation is an interesting\none.\n\nAn affectation. A show, pretense, or display. Behavior that is assumed\nrather than natural; artificiality. A particular habit, as of speech or\ndress, adopted to give a false impression.\n\nBut is it?\n\nYou also say that the behaviour of the chems is programmed. We know this\nand more we know, I think, that the function of those placed directly in\nsociety is in part and perhaps in the greatest part is to inhibit change,\nproviding a static referent against which novelties can be measured and so\nimprove the chance that the societies Typhon/Pas designed would arrive at\ntheir destination in the form he intended.\n\nProgrammed behaviour - in the literal sense of being codes and\ninstructions - is as \"natural\" to the chems as any learend behaviour is to\nhumans. Marble's modesty is exactly the opposite of an affectation. It\nis likely as deep seated in her as any instinct in us, perhaps more so,\nand for a very specific reason: to make her (and her kind) not only fit in\nwith the human society in which she exists but also to make her a model\nfor that society. Yes, it is an artifice to give a false impression -\nthat she is human. But it is not assumed or adopted: it and other such\nmanerisms are fundamental to her creation.\n\nSo too with gender. Gender-less chems would not, could not have performed\nso well in the role assigned them. A difference so fundamental between\ngendered humans and non-gendered chems would have been a significant\nbarrier to the chems function. Just look at where Marble is; in a\nreligious establishment and a teacher of the young. Church and school, two\ncentral institutions for society and thus most effectively placed. She\nshould be an examplar for the children and adults who come into contact\nwith her. The effectiveness of this compromised only by the unplanned\nlong extended wait in the Whorl where the degredations of age made the\ndifferences between chems and humans more apparent.\n\nGender is not sex. It is not the presence or abscence of particular\norgans. Here it is a designed matter based on the human model with which\nthe chems must blend. If Marble is programmed to act in ways that are\naccepted as being appropriate to women and does so then for the purposes\nof her funtion she is effectively female because she is seen as female in\nthat society. She is modest not because there is physically anything to\nbe modest about but because humans seeing her must be taught that a good\nwoman is modest and a good man respects that mdoesty.\n\nHaving chems differentiated into male and female types - and given those\ntypes occupations stereotypically appropriate in that society - a\nmethodology for governing the replacement of chems in the small numbers\nthat it was anticipated might be required immediately suggests itself and\nfurther fits into the designed differentiation that helps chems fit into\nhuman societies. To do otherwise, to have one chem alone be able to create\nanother or to have new chems appear from some \"magic\" portal would have\ndiminished their effectiveness.\n\nThe entities in Mainframe might understandably be dismissive of\n\"machines\". After all those entities designed the machines and their part\nin the plan. More the machines function has come to an end. Having\nstabilised societial forms for the length of the journey and subsequent\nwait in orbit there is no further use for them. But for the humans abord\nthe whorl the chems are personalities. Marble would have been known to\nmany in her part of the town from their very earliest days and as such\nmost assuredly a person and a woman.\n\nWhat should our view of chems be? The mainframe view of a small, useful\ntool? Or the passenger view of personality and fellow?\n\n\nMatthew" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2002-09-03T18:07:46+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Those chems", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Roy C. wrote:\nChem is a term coined on the _Whorl_. Both Urth-born Kypris \nand Mamelta give them no more regard as sentient beings than\nI do my car or computer, each calling them by some variation\nof \"robot\" and \"machine\", which is what they are. The chems\nare \"its\", not \"hes\" and \"shes\". They have no instincts beyond\ntheir \"standing orders\", which can be subverted, as Incus\ndemonstrated, by a little rewiring and reprogramming. They \ndo not have glands or hormones to influence behavior." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Now, this is an interesting statement. Roy, you seem to be\nstating that behavior influenced by hormones is thereby\nless mechanistic, or something? I wonder if that's a trap\nWolfe deliberately laid ... \n\nThe chems (in my reading) are a perfect analogue of the human\nsituation, and I think Wolfe very much intended them as such.\nWe are (by Christian belief) free willed souls housed in\nbiological \"hardware\" that deeply affects our behavior -- an\ninjury to the head can cause amnesia, radical personality \nchange, all sorts of things. Simple surgical alterations to\nthe brain can have strange, and often unpredictable, effects\non our behavior.\n\nYet we (Christians) claim that there is something, a soul or\nspirit, underlying this which remains constant through all \nsuch changes and is the root of free will, the locus of moral\nchoice, and is what is \"judged\" after this life. \n\nMaterialists claim that the way changes to the brain affect \npersonality is \"proof\" that this intangible thing does not \nexist, and it's certainly an ongoing challenge to refute this; \nwhere is free moral choice when the right combination of \nimplanted electrodes, injected hormones, and/or operant-\nconditioning can turn any \"normal\" person into a Gandhi or a \nraging killer? (Forgive the exaggeration, if it is one. I don't \nknow how far the state of this art has expanded since I last \nread up in it. Neither, I expect, do any of you; those likely\nto fund really advanced research in this field are unlikely to\npublicize it.)\n\nSo how do we differ from the chems? \"Glands?\" Pfui; the \nequivalent can be programmed, or hardware-coded -- the little\nwe learn of chem reproduction leads me to think the latter.\nThough each has half the information needed to build a child,\nit appears that they can't simply share the information, as \nthey surely could (with, perhaps, the help of someone like\nIncus) if it were simply software. Both must be present \nthrough the entire operation. Chems, apparently, have behavior \nand urges which are outside their conscious control and reside \nbelow the \"software\" level.\n\nThe analogy is not perfect but it's enough to allow Wolfe to\nplay safely with questions of the meaning of free will when\nthe brain is interfered with. Since this is a theme also with\nthe bios (Who is morally responsible for the acts of a bio \npossessed by a god? Or of that bio after the god has returned\nto Mainframe but left traces behind? In Short Sun, where does\nHorn's moral responsibility end and Silk's begin? Etc.), it \nseems likely that Wolfe intended the chems to extend this \ntheme ... especially, but not only, in Hammerstone's case.\n\nOnward, back to you Roy:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The gamut of human emotions attributed to the head movements and\nbody language of Marble exist only in the eye of the beholder;\nthey are learned associations or fanciful projections with no more\n(probably less) real-world meaning than those my wife assigns to\none of our cats." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And here the agenda steps forward: Roy, you are a victim of\npseudoscientific behaviorism, the idea that humans are somehow\nthe only creatures with real emotions or consciousness. While \nonly a fool would claim that the _exact_natures_ of a cat's \nconsciousness and emotions are identical to a human's, it is\nequally silly to suppose that they don't have 'em ... in fact,\nthe only plausible argument for this is a religious one that\nwe have souls and they don't.\n\nBut if you accept even in part the idea that our emotions and\nconsciousness are _evolved_ for specific purposes -- and if you\ndon't accept that, then we (despite my professing Catholic \nChristianity) simply do not live in the same universe -- then\nit becomes ludicrous to claim that the same general _kind_ of \nmind and emotions are _not_ present in, at least, other \nvertebrates, and certainly other mammals. Take two animals \ndescended from a common ancestor as relatively recently as us\nand a squirrel, cat, or (especially) chimp, and demonstrate \n(as is easily done) not only that they behave similarly under\ncircumstances we would describe using emotional words, but\n(more difficult but it has been done) that the same regions \nof the brain are firing -- for emotions do _not_ fire \nprimarily in the uniquely human areas of the cortex but in \nthe deeper and older regions of the brain, shared with our\nfellow vertibrates -- _and_ that similar chemicals flood \ntheir systems at those times -- demonstrate all this, I say,\nand a claim that they do _not_ experience something very \nclose to our emotions is not a least hypothesis at all, at\nall, but a highly motivated claim intended to make it okay\nto treat animals as we far too often do.\n\nLet me make clear that I am not a PETA loonie and do not\nseek to shut down all animal research; far from it, I am\na supporter of animal research for medical and scientific\npurposes. However, I believe that this is a case of the\n\"naked lunch\" principle -- which I describe as the idea \nthat those who eat meat need to visit a slaughterhouse, \nsee what is done, and understand that they are hiring \npeople to do this for them. Use of animals for our own\npurposes is (in my very firm opinion) morally acceptable \nonly by those who clearly and fully understand what they \nare doing.\n\n--Dan'l" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2002-09-03T19:36:34+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Those chems", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Matthew wrote:\nThe suggestion that Marble's behaviour is an affectation is an interesting\none.\n\nAn affectation. A show, pretense, or display. Behavior that is assumed\nrather than natural; artificiality. A particular habit, as of speech or\ndress, adopted to give a false impression." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That definition fits Marble perfectly!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Programmed behaviour - in the literal sense of being codes and\ninstructions - is as \"natural\" to the chems as any learend behaviour is to\nhumans. Marble's modesty is exactly the opposite of an affectation. It\nis likely as deep seated in her as any instinct in us, perhaps more so,\nand for a very specific reason: to make her (and her kind) not only fit in\nwith the human society in which she exists but also to make her a model\nfor that society. Yes, it is an artifice to give a false impression -\nthat she is human. But it is not assumed or adopted: it and other such\nmanerisms are fundamental to her creation." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't think so. Marble was not programmed on Urth to be a sibyl. I don't\nknow how/why she became a sibyl, but several decades back she was a maid." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So too with gender. Gender-less chems would not, could not have performed\nso well in the role assigned them. A difference so fundamental between\ngendered humans and non-gendered chems would have been a significant\nbarrier to the chems function. Just look at where Marble is; in a\nreligious establishment and a teacher of the young. Church and school, two\ncentral institutions for society and thus most effectively placed. She\nshould be an examplar for the children and adults who come into contact\nwith her." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "After entering the religious order she \"assumed\" and \"adopted\" the\nconventions of the order. Marble is the only example I am aware of of a chem\nentering the order. That being so, her programmers on Urth assuredly did\n_not_ waste her storage space by giving her unneeded (and from her\nprogrammers' perspective, pointless) \"manerisms\" \"fundamental to her\ncreation\". I mentioned that chems have a certain ability to learn from\nexperience. That is what she did. She adopted the mannerisms of the bio\nsibyls, acquiring her modesty from their nun-like example.\n\nMarble and Olivine are the only female chems I can recall from the LS/SS\nbooks. Olivine does not share Marble's sense of modesty. She spied on Silk's\nnakedness. Olivine clothes herself like a human, not from innate modesty,\nbut because male chems she encounters want to mate with her. She doesn't\nwant to mate, apparently because she is \"ashamed\" of her imperfections.\n(RTTW, 240)\n\n[snip]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What should our view of chems be? The mainframe view of a small, useful\ntool? Or the passenger view of personality and fellow?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Wolfe clearly intended the latter, as I think I indicated. Olivine is a\npathetic figure, like some street urchin out of Dickens. But, hell's bells,\nsomebody smear some grease on her sticking relays and get rid of that\nannoying stammer and lurch!\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2002-09-04T01:15:20+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Those chems", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l wrote:\n\n[snip]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So how do we differ from the chems? \"Glands?\" Pfui; the\nequivalent can be programmed, or hardware-coded -- the little\nwe learn of chem reproduction leads me to think the latter." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Why would any robot designer in their right mind even _consider_ building\none hardwired (or programmed) to be subject to the equivalent vagaries of\nhuman emotions occasioned by glandular secretions? Hard to imagine Marble\nwith a robot version of PMS. Would Sand have been any meaner to Silk if he\nhad cranked out a little more of the robot version of testosterone?\n\nAnd where _do_ those parts needed to build a new chem come from? Central\nwarehouse? I guess not, or Olivine wouldn't have been left in the lurch.\n(There shouldn't have been a shortage of fem-chem parts; there never had\nbeen many females.) Carried inside the chem parents? Then how is it that\nHammerstone and Marble used up theirs?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The gamut of human emotions attributed to the head movements and\nbody language of Marble exist only in the eye of the beholder;\nthey are learned associations or fanciful projections with no more\n(probably less) real-world meaning than those my wife assigns to\none of our cats." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And here the agenda steps forward: Roy, you are a victim of\npseudoscientific behaviorism, the idea that humans are somehow\nthe only creatures with real emotions or consciousness. While\nonly a fool would claim that the _exact_natures_ of a cat's\nconsciousness and emotions are identical to a human's, it is\nequally silly to suppose that they don't have 'em ... in fact,\nthe only plausible argument for this is a religious one that\nwe have souls and they don't." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Perhaps you missed the \"(probably less)\" part of that quote. Anyone who has\nseen a whipped cur, or one that has just been handed a piece of meat, can\nsee that the dog acts very differently in those cases. Likewise the cats\ndon't purr when I yell at them to get off the screen door. Animals seem to\nhave a certain degree of consciousness and emotions, sure; they just don't\nhave the ones my wife projects them to have: they can't--their brains don't\nhave room for that complexity, even if they could think like a human, which\nthey can't.\n\n[snip]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Let me make clear that I am not a PETA loonie and do not\nseek to shut down all animal research; far from it, I am\na supporter of animal research for medical and scientific\npurposes. However, I believe that this is a case of the\n\"naked lunch\" principle -- which I describe as the idea\nthat those who eat meat need to visit a slaughterhouse,\nsee what is done, and understand that they are hiring\npeople to do this for them. Use of animals for our own\npurposes is (in my very firm opinion) morally acceptable\nonly by those who clearly and fully understand what they\nare doing." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Although this animal-rights stuff had nothing to do with my post, you have\nseveral times brought up Heinlein on this list. In TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE he\nsaid that when the need arises you must be able to shoot your own dog. I\ncan; I have. That doesn't mean I liked it. I wouldn't eat chicken for years;\nI kept seeing them headless, flapping around spouting blood as I had seen\nthem as a kid when they were fresh killed. But I got over it. And I know how\nsausage is made.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Charles Reed", "address": "cmreed at link.com" }, "date": "2002-09-04T13:56:56+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Those chems", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n. . . Take two animals descended from a common ancestor as relatively\nrecently as us and a squirrel, cat, or (especially) chimp, and\ndemonstrate (as is easily done) not only that they behave similarly\nunder circumstances we would describe using emotional words, but (more\ndifficult but it has been done) that the same regions of the brain are\nfiring -- for emotions do _not_ fire primarily in the uniquely human\nareas of the cortex but in the deeper and older regions of the brain,\nshared with our fellow vertibrates -- _and_ that similar chemicals\nflood their systems at those times -- demonstrate all this, I say, and\na claim that they do _not_ experience something very close to our\nemotions is not a least hypothesis at all, at all, but a highly\nmotivated claim intended to make it okay to treat animals as we far\ntoo often do." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is off-topic and trivial beyond belief, but I'd just like to\nexpress my admiration for the above sentence. My seventh-grade English\nteacher would love to see it diagrammed. :-)\n\nCharles" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2002-09-05T17:59:11+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Those chems", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Roy, on chem \"glands\":" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Why would any robot designer in their right mind even \n_consider_ building one hardwired (or programmed) to\nbe subject to the equivalent vagaries of human emotions\noccasioned by glandular secretions?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Because the designers' goals are not what you assume they \nare -- they are attempting to build \"chemical persons,\"\nthe term actually used in the text which \"chems\" is short\nfor. More specifically, they are attempting to create a\nconsciousness of equivalent nature (though not identical\nto) human consciousness. From my own reading in the field\n(which is, granted, mostly on the level of Pinker and\nDennett), I am inclined to suppose that it is necessary \nfor some kind of irrational drives to be present for a\nconsciousness as such to have even the possibility of \nevolving/emerging. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Hard to imagine Marble with a robot version of PMS. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Granted; but then, she's _old_. I don't think we actually \nknow enough about younger fem chems to make a statement\nlike this meaningfully." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Would Sand have been any meaner to Silk if he had\ncranked out a little more of the robot version of\ntestosterone?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Would Severian have been taller if he had been born on \nLune instead of Urth? You're asking questions which are \ncontratextual, and given that the text itself is a \ncontrafactual, it's hard to make the questions mean\nanything at all. Even if you grant per hypothesi that \nthe chems do have a hardprogrammed equivalent of \n\"glands,\" that doesn't mean that they duplicate the\nspecific functions of human glands; only that there is\nsome built in drive equivalent to the (glandularly\ninfluenced though not, I think, determined) human drive \nto reproduce. We see in Marble at least one other drive\n-- a drive to maintain her own bodily \"health\" to the\nextent possible.\n\n(Both of these are drives I can imagine even a highly\npragmatic engineer bulding into pure \"robots\"; \nreproduction to maintain the \"supply\" in the isolated \n_Whorl_ and self-preservation/maintenance, to extend \nthe useful lifespan of the \"units.\")" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And where _do_ those parts needed to build a new chem \ncome from? Central warehouse? I guess not, or Olivine\nwouldn't have been left in the lurch." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I have the distinct impression that they have to _make_\nthe parts, though just _how_ this is done is not clear\n-- but there's no reason it should be, since we don't \nsee any of it happening. Olivine isn't incomplete \nbecause they ran out of parts; she's incomplete because \nMarble left too soon. (I think this much, at least, is \npretty clear from the text.) " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "The gamut of human emotions attributed to the head movements and\nbody language of Marble exist only in the eye of the beholder;\nthey are learned associations or fanciful projections with no more\n(probably less) real-world meaning than those my wife assigns to\none of our cats." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "And here the agenda steps forward: Roy, you are a victim of\npseudoscientific behaviorism, the idea that humans are somehow\nthe only creatures with real emotions or consciousness. While\nonly a fool would claim that the _exact_natures_ of a cat's\nconsciousness and emotions are identical to a human's, it is\nequally silly to suppose that they don't have 'em ... in fact,\nthe only plausible argument for this is a religious one that\nwe have souls and they don't." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Perhaps you missed the \"(probably less)\" part of that quote. \nAnyone who has seen a whipped cur, or one that has just been \nhanded a piece of meat, can see that the dog acts very\ndifferently in those cases. Likewise the cats don't purr when\nI yell at them to get off the screen door. Animals seem to\nhave a certain degree of consciousness and emotions, sure; \nthey just don't have the ones my wife projects them to have:\nthey can't--their brains don't have room for that complexity,\neven if they could think like a human, which they can't." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Why in Heaven's name do you assume that emotions are more complex \nthan thinking? The parts of the brain where emotions are seated\nin humans are much older than in animals, and have not changed \nterribly much in lo these many millions of years. To assume that\nthey do not produce similar emotions in animals seems very odd.\n\nAnd why in Heaven's name do you assume that they can't \"think \nlike a human?\" John W. Campbell used to ask for aliens that think\nas well as humans but not like humans; some animals, I submit,\nparticularly a lot of our fellow mammals, are the converse: they\nthink not as well as humans but like humans. \n\nI have seen animals do what I can only call reasoning -- I have \neven seen a cat behaving in a way that I can only explain, \nadmittedly by a sort of projection, by saying that the cat enacted \na primitive form of the scientific method: observing, forming a \nhypothesis, testing the hypothesis by further observations, and \nacting on the results. Lengthy story on request, but it's even \nmore off-topic than this -- which, I believe, remains topic-\nrelevant in that it relates (a) to the question of the chems, and \n(b) to such creatures as Oreb and Tik." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Although this animal-rights stuff had nothing to do with my \npost, you have several times brought up Heinlein on this list. \nIn TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE he said that when the need arises you\nmust be able to shoot your own dog. I can; I have." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Are we establishing some kind of credentials? I haven't shot my\nown dog; it would be illegal where I live. I have held my dog,\nand my cat, while the vet gave it the final shot, and continued\nto hold them until well after their hearts had stopped. Same \nlogic, different environment." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That doesn't mean I liked it. I wouldn't eat chicken for \nyears; I kept seeing them headless, flapping around spouting \nblood as I had seen them as a kid when they were fresh killed." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ditto -- my dad raised chickens in a suburban yard, earning \nthe enmity of his downwind neighbors. I never stopped eating \nchicken, but then my own position on animals has only gradually\nevolved (and still does). Someday I may talk myself into becoming\na vegetarian...but I sure do like meat.\n\nMeanwhile, back at the Whorl: one last question ... why, do you\nsuppose, Wolfe chose to call them \"chemical\" persons instead of\n(say) \"electromechanical\" persons? Does this have any bearing on\nyour assumption that they are what we would call \"robots\" and not \n\"androids?\" (Yes, I know that Li'l Scylla uses the word \"robot.\"\nProves very little, I think.)\n\n President and Founder,\n Chem Rights Now" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andy Robertson", "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-09-05T17:05:16+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Those chems", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Surely this is a reference to \"alchemy\"?\n\nPlus, the Golem's written sigil was called a \"chem\".\n\n\n hartshorn\n\n \n----- Original Message ----- " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: \"Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\" \nMeanwhile, back at the Whorl: one last question ... why, do you\nsuppose, Wolfe chose to call them \"chemical\" persons instead of\n(say) \"electromechanical\" persons? Does this have any bearing on" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at hotpop.com" }, "date": "2002-09-05T21:43:59+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Those chems", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Whipping that\n\nDan'l Danehy-Oakes said:\nMeanwhile, back at the Whorl: one last question ... why, do you suppose,\nWolfe chose to call them \"chemical\" persons instead of (say)\n\"electromechanical\" persons?Surely this is a reference to \"alchemy\"?\n\nHartshorn replied:\nSurely this is a reference to \"alchemy\"?\n\nCrush weighs in:\nHere's a quote from Chenille (roughly) -\n\"Poppy is cute. But Hyacinth is pure gold\"" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2002-09-06T06:24:02+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Those chems", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Blattid\nPresident and Founder," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Chem Rights Now wrote:\nanything at all. Even if you grant per hypothesi that\nthe chems do have a hardprogrammed equivalent of\n\"glands,\" that doesn't mean that they duplicate the\nspecific functions of human glands;" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The books may be fresher in my mind since I am currently re-reading them,\nand have paid particular attention to the chems. Time and again Wolfe\nportrays chems, mostly Hammerstone and Marble, experiencing all-too-human\nemotions, and that's the very thing I can't swallow -- at least on this side\nof the looking glass. Trivial (to the plot) example: Marble thinks that it\nmay rain and spot the clean sheets she needs to hang out to dry: \"Fuming,\nshe put aside the wicker clothes-basket . . .\". (LS3, chapter 8) That just\nhappens to be where I am in my reading; I didn't take notes, but there are\nmany such examples. Hammerstone's obsequious adoration of Incus includes\nwanting to just stare at him like some star-struck teenager. (LS3, 3) At one\ntime or another chems are made to experience shame, anxiety, anger,\ntimidity, doubt, joy, worship (oh yeah; Hammerstone lectures Auk about it),\nwistfullness, and a whole lot more. And Olivine is such a twisted mass of\nemotions it's pathetic. Literally. When she gave up an eye for her mama, I\nthought I was gonna cry. :-)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "only that there is\nsome built in drive equivalent to the (glandularly\ninfluenced though not, I think, determined) human drive\nto reproduce. We see in Marble at least one other drive\n-- a drive to maintain her own bodily \"health\" to the\nextent possible." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Then why did Olivine give up an eye if it wasn't in her best interest? Human\naltruism, that's why.\n\nLook, I've acknowledged that Wolfe intended chems to be regarded as sentient\nautomatons pretty much on a par with humans. (The question of chem \"souls\"\nis one I'd rather not get into, but I seriously doubt the Vatican would buy\nit.) He goes out of his way to do it. But I don't start turning on the\nlights before entering a dark room just because I've read a ghost story,\neither." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Perhaps you missed the \"(probably less)\" part of that quote.\nAnyone who has seen a whipped cur, or one that has just been\nhanded a piece of meat, can see that the dog acts very\ndifferently in those cases. Likewise the cats don't purr when\nI yell at them to get off the screen door. Animals seem to\nhave a certain degree of consciousness and emotions, sure;\nthey just don't have the ones my wife projects them to have:\nthey can't--their brains don't have room for that complexity,\neven if they could think like a human, which they can't." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Why in Heaven's name do you assume that emotions are more complex\nthan thinking?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "How does that follow from what I wrote? I didn't say that." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And why in Heaven's name do you assume that they can't \"think\nlike a human?\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Because they can't. Language and thought are inextricably related in humans;\ncats don't have the language, ergo . . ." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Although this animal-rights stuff had nothing to do with my\npost, you have several times brought up Heinlein on this list.\nIn TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE he said that when the need arises you\nmust be able to shoot your own dog. I can; I have." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Are we establishing some kind of credentials?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It was my response to your \"'naked lunch' principle\" spiel." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I haven't shot my\nown dog; it would be illegal where I live. I have held my dog,\nand my cat, while the vet gave it the final shot, and continued\nto hold them until well after their hearts had stopped. Same\nlogic, different environment." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not the same at all, and it's also illegal where I live, but this is way off\ntopic. I should have given the full quote, which is on page 260 of the\nhardback. Suffice it to say I agree with Heinlein, but I don't deride those\nwho don't." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Meanwhile, back at the Whorl: one last question ... why, do you\nsuppose, Wolfe chose to call them \"chemical\" persons instead of\n(say) \"electromechanical\" persons? Does this have any bearing on\nyour assumption that they are what we would call \"robots\" and not\n\"androids?\" (Yes, I know that Li'l Scylla uses the word \"robot.\"\nProves very little, I think.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I assume that they were so called because chemical reactions (as take place\nin modern dry-cell batteries) were their power source. As I said before,\nboth Urth-born Mamelta and Kypris called them robots and mechanical (LS2, 10\nand 4, respectively). Mamelta was so incensed when Lemur (the chem version\nkilled by Crane with the azoth) was hurting Silk, that she screamed at him\n\"_You damned robot! You THING!_\" (emphasis in text, LS2, 12). (I would give\npage numbers, instead of chapter numbers, but I have only the paperbacks of\nthe first three books.) Clearly, people who had not been born on the _Whorl_\ndid not regard chems as equal to bios.\n\nEven on the _Whorl_, in Silk's day, such an attitude still apparently\npersisted, lest Silk would not have said to Lemur:\n\n\"'You said something else that I ignored, Councillor.'\n For the first time, Lemur sounded dangerous and even deadly. 'Which was\n. . .?'\n 'You said that you were not a chem. I'm not one of those ignorant and\nprejudiced bios who consider themselves superior to chems, but I know--'\n 'You lie!'\"\n\nThen Lemur pitched a fit and fired the azoth. (LS2, 12) He didn't want to\nadmit that he was a chem because he was aware of the prejudice, and even\nseems to have shared it.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "matthew.malthouse", "address": "matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk" }, "date": "2002-09-06T08:52:56+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Those chems", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 06/09/2002 07:24:02 Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nLook, I've acknowledged that Wolfe intended chems to be regarded as\nsentient\nautomatons pretty much on a par with humans. (The question of chem\n\"souls\"\nis one I'd rather not get into, but I seriously doubt the Vatican would\nbuy\nit.) He goes out of his way to do it. But I don't start turning on the\nlights before entering a dark room just because I've read a ghost story,\neither." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I was (hic!) thinking about this - in general terms - last night on my way\nhome from the bar. By alcohol alone is the mind set in motion...\n\nActually I was think more generally that the depiction of the alien (vide\nthe comment about JWCambel's remark) is probably impossible because a\nhuman writer for a human audience canot but produce a human concept.\n\nThought the next was that a very few writers get close. C J Cherryh being\none who does so regularly; V Vinge's \"A Deepness in the Sky\" manages\nsomething akin by playing with the reader's perceptions (to say more would\nbe a spoiler I think).\n\nAnd thought the last as that Wolfe _never_ does. I don't think he even\ntries to nor wishes to.\n\nThe not-human beings encountered in his work might be outre in form and\nsomewhat mannered in behaviour but from Baldanders to Marble are\ncomprehensible in solely human terms.\n\nWhether analogy or parable or \"just a story\" Wolfe's work is essentially\nhumanistic.\n\nSo the lack of chems with chem-centric behaviours and motivations,\nenjoying a uniquely chem-oid lifesyle (still less driving for a family of\ncheap green retractables) isn't a surpise.\n\nMatthew" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at hotpop.com" }, "date": "2002-09-06T15:27:53+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Those chems", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A response and a question.....\n\nRoy C. Lackey said:\nThen Lemur pitched a fit and fired the azoth. (LS2, 12) He didn't want to\nadmit that he was a chem because he was aware of the prejudice, and even\nseems to have shared it\n\nCrush responds:\nHmmm. I thought it upset him because it would mean he was dead - a ghost\nlike the gods at which he sneered. While the *real* Urth of Typhon viewed\nrobots as non-persons, in the Whorl where everything is artificial (except\nfor an ignorant minority) they are as real as anything else. Thus, in Viron\nchems have full rights. Marble seems to face no barriers as a sibyl.\n\nBut I could be wrong about the extent of the general prejudice. Silk's\nstatement \"I'm not one of those ignorant and prejudiced bios who consider\nthemselves superior to chems\" is subtexted by the fact that he himself is an\n\"artificial\" and \"engineered\" person, only one constructed of flesh. And IMO\nwhile Silk is not a bio-supremist, he is a bio-separatist to an extent that\nhe must soon face.\n\nRoy C. Lackey said:\nBut, no, Jonas wasn't a chem, at least not one like those on the _Whorl_.\nJonas was very light weight, as Sev noticed when he picked him up in the\nAntechamber. Male chems are _much_ heavier than humans. Even female chems\nare heavier than same-sized humans.\n\nCrush asks:\nIs anyone aware of any textual evidence that non-military chems are not\nlight-weight? I know Sand was five-hundred weight, but that was useful for\nhis function.\n\n-- Crush" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2002-09-06T20:39:30+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Those chems", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- \"Roy C. Lackey\" wrote:\nBlattid\nPresident and Founder,\nChem Rights Now wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "anything at all. Even if you grant per hypothesi that\nthe chems do have a hardprogrammed equivalent of\n\"glands,\" that doesn't mean that they duplicate the\nspecific functions of human glands;" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The books may be fresher in my mind since I am currently re-reading\nthem,\nand have paid particular attention to the chems. Time and again Wolfe\nportrays chems, mostly Hammerstone and Marble, experiencing\nall-too-human\nemotions, and that's the very thing I can't swallow -- at least on this\nside\nof the looking glass..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Look, I've acknowledged that Wolfe intended chems to be regarded as\nsentient\nautomatons pretty much on a par with humans. (The question of chem\n\"souls\"\nis one I'd rather not get into, but I seriously doubt the Vatican would\nbuy\nit.) He goes out of his way to do it. But I don't start turning on the\nlights before entering a dark room just because I've read a ghost story,\neither." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think what you're assuming--that machines can't have emotions--is not\nonly unproven, but has a very strong argument against it. If human bodies\nincluding brains work by the laws of physics, than computers should be\nable to simulate them as well as desired. That is, it should be possible\nto build robots that behave and feel the way we do. Unless you think that\nour behavior or our feelings are not something our bodies do unassisted,\nin which case your position needs *lots* of explanation. Not necessarily\non this list.\n\nOf course the materialistic view I'm arguing for can't (yet) explain how\nsomething made of matter can be conscious, but that is still easier to\ndeal with than claiming that matter organized in one way (bios) can be\nconscious or interact with conscious spirit or whatever, but matter\norganized in another way (chems) can't.\n\nOr maybe your arguing that engineers and tyrants on Urth [*] wouldn't want\nchems with consciousness and emotions. But maybe they would, or quite\npossibly consciousness and emotions are necessary to something to\nsomething that has as much independent judgement as a person, or maybe\nthey're not but it was much easier to follow the model of human beings\n(with minor modifications) than to create a new kind of independent\nrational being.\n..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Meanwhile, back at the Whorl: one last question ... why, do you\nsuppose, Wolfe chose to call them \"chemical\" persons instead of\n(say) \"electromechanical\" persons? Does this have any bearing on\nyour assumption that they are what we would call \"robots\" and not\n\"androids?\" (Yes, I know that Li'l Scylla uses the word \"robot.\"\nProves very little, I think.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I assume that they were so called because chemical reactions (as take\nplace\nin modern dry-cell batteries) were their power source." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Nuclear reactions are probably involved, since Crane mentions toward the\nend of _Lake_ that lots of isotopes are released when a chem blows." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As I said before,\nboth Urth-born Mamelta and Kypris called them robots and mechanical\n(LS2, 10\nand 4, respectively). Mamelta was so incensed when Lemur (the chem\nversion\nkilled by Crane with the azoth) was hurting Silk, that she screamed at\nhim\n\"_You damned robot! You THING!_\" (emphasis in text, LS2, 12). (I would\ngive\npage numbers, instead of chapter numbers, but I have only the paperbacks\nof\nthe first three books.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Same buying plan as me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Clearly, people who had not been born on the _Whorl_\ndid not regard chems as equal to bios." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, two out of two people surveyed, anyway. Kypris's position is ironic\nsince she herself is a machine intelligence." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Even on the _Whorl_, in Silk's day, such an attitude still apparently\npersisted, lest Silk would not have said to Lemur:\n\n\"'You said something else that I ignored, Councillor.'\n For the first time, Lemur sounded dangerous and even deadly. 'Which\nwas\n. . .?'\n 'You said that you were not a chem. I'm not one of those ignorant\nand\nprejudiced bios who consider themselves superior to chems, but I know--'\n 'You lie!'\"\n\nThen Lemur pitched a fit and fired the azoth. (LS2, 12) He didn't want\nto\nadmit that he was a chem because he was aware of the prejudice, and even\nseems to have shared it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Good point.\n\nJerry Friedman" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "-- " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com" }, "date": "2002-09-06T22:12:18+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) Those chems", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The books may be fresher in my mind since I am currently \nre-reading them, and have paid particular attention to the\nchems. Time and again Wolfe portrays chems, mostly\nHammerstone and Marble, experiencing all-too-human emotions,\nand that's the very thing I can't swallow -- at least on\nthis side of the looking glass." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Okay, then, we're agreed on this pernt: in the Lupiiverse \nof discourse, chems experience emotions reasonably comparable \nto those experienced by humans.\n\nNow, assuming (and I think that this is a reasonable thing\nto assume) that Wolfe has point in giving them emotions, I\ncan see at least three \"thematic\" possibilities:\n\n1. As Bre'r Jerry done point out, in a mechanistic universe,\n there is no Urthly reason why emotions and all the other\n things that us bios think of in relation to a \"soul\" \n should not be plausible in a construct. For consciousness\n and emotion to emerge in a computing device of sufficient\n capacity is a time-honored, even a creaky, stfnal theme \n ... of precisely the sort Wolfe loves to reappropriate and\n make anew.\n\n2. In a divinely created universe, on the other appendage,\n there is no reason to believe that, if we bios were to \n build a device _capable_ of housing a soul, the Increate\n (or the Outsider or whatever you want to call the divine)\n should or would refrain from instantiating a soul in that\n device. (Related to this is the fundamental Catholic\n position on test tube babies, genetically engineered\n humans, etc. Technical language aside, it comes down to\n the idea that their creation would be a sin, but their\n existence would not be a sin on their part; God would \n give them a soul just like any other human.)\n\n3. One of the overarching \"themes\" of the Long/Short books \n is imitation and identity. Perhaps its most explicit \n statement is found in Silk's comment that a demon who \n impersonates a god is in danger of becoming the god. \n This is an example of a general theme I first encountered \n in Vonnegut, and so often think of as \"Bokonon's Law\": \n you must be careful what you pretend to be, because if \n you pretend to be something long enough you become it. An \n excellent example of this \"theme,\" discussed occasionally \n here and there, is Quetzal; he pretends to be a good \n shepherd to the flock of Viron, and in the end dies to \n save them, because he has become one.\n\nNow the interesting point about these three \"thematics\" on \nchem emotions is that they are in no way exclusive of each \nother; in fact, I think that all three are necessary to a \nproper understanding of what Wolfe is doing. \n\nThe third \"thematic\" presents no problems, but I think it \nimportant to observe that the first two blesh in a way\nprecisely harmonious with Wolfe's observed practice in other\nmatters. In short, and I'm going to leave specifics to your\nown memory, Wolfe repeatedly presents us with events that\nsimultaneously have a miraculous quality and are completely\nexplicable in materialistic terms ... Wolfe brings this out\nin the discussion of the flying Cathedral of the Pelerines,\nobserving that the rising of hot air doesn't make it not a\nmiracle; rather, the miracle is that the universe was made\nso that hot air would rise, so that the Cathedral would fly.\n(This is a gross over-simplification from memory, but I \nbelieve it captures the essence of the argument.) \n\nSimply, then: \"thematic\" 2 is the miracle, and \"thematic\" 1 \nis the mechanistic explanation that does not make it any \nless a miracle." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "... there is some built in drive equivalent to the \n(glandularly influenced though not, I think, determined) \nhuman drive to reproduce. We see in Marble at least one \nother drive -- a drive to maintain her own bodily \n\"health\" to the extent possible." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Then why did Olivine give up an eye if it wasn't in her best \ninterest? Human altruism, that's why." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Quite likely, but that's hardly a contradiction of my general \npoint. Indeed, it's another example of humanlike irrational \nemotional (\"glandular\") behavior where I had only offered two \n... Humans have a survival drive too, and (as the phrase \n'human altruism,' though unfairly ignoring the many examples \nof self-sacrificing behavior on the part of many other \nspecies, usefully points out) do similar things to what \nOlivine does -- the actual donation of an eye not being perhaps \non the spot, organ donations (a kidney, part of a liver...) are, \nif not everyday behavior, certainly well withn the normal \nspectrum (in cultures where they can be performed). " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Look, I've acknowledged that Wolfe intended chems to be \nregarded as sentient automatons pretty much on a par with\nhumans. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "So ... uh ... what were we arguing about?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "(The question of chem \"souls\" is one I'd rather not get into,\nbut I seriously doubt the Vatican would buy it.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I suspect that the Curia would be against the proposition \nuntil powerful evidence (though it is hard to imagine what \nwould constitute \"evidence\" in this amtter) was offered; I\nfurther suspect that they would be opposed to the building\nof such a device in the first place. But I don't know, and\nthe Vatican often takes surprising positions on issues." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "He goes out of his way to do it. But I don't start turning on the\nlights before entering a dark room just because I've read a \nghost story, either." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You're braver than me. I was afraid to get into a bathtub for\nweeks after I read THE SHINING. I don't even want to tell you\nwhat IT did to me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Perhaps you missed the \"(probably less)\" part of that quote.\nAnyone who has seen a whipped cur, or one that has just been\nhanded a piece of meat, can see that the dog acts very\ndifferently in those cases. Likewise the cats don't purr when\nI yell at them to get off the screen door. Animals seem to\nhave a certain degree of consciousness and emotions, sure;\nthey just don't have the ones my wife projects them to have:\nthey can't--their brains don't have room for that complexity,\neven if they could think like a human, which they can't." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Why in Heaven's name do you assume that emotions are more complex\nthan thinking?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "How does that follow from what I wrote? I didn't say that." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Clearly I misunderstood; You said that their brains haven't the \nroom for the complexity of emotion, without making a parallel\nstatement supporting your belief that they dont' think \"like a\nhuman.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "And why in Heaven's name do you assume that they can't \"think\nlike a human?\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Because they can't. Language and thought are inextricably \nrelated in humans; cats don't have the language, ergo . . ." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Do you do all your thinking in words? I'm one of the most\nverbally-oriented persons I've ever known, and I certainly\ndon't. Language isn't how we think, it's how we express our\nthinking -- including to ourselves in the \"conscious\" mind.\nIf you think this is an overfine distinction, just consider\nthe many times you've had a complete thought (and even perhaps\nacted on it, as in an emergency) prior to language-ing the\nthought. (If you say this has never happened to you, I will\ntake your word for it but consider you a statistical freak.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Are we establishing some kind of credentials?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It was my response to your \"'naked lunch' principle\" spiel." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Okay, though I wasn't sure how it applied." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I haven't shot my\nown dog; it would be illegal where I live. I have held my dog,\nand my cat, while the vet gave it the final shot, and continued\nto hold them until well after their hearts had stopped. Same\nlogic, different environment." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Not the same at all," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Doubtless true, though at a minimum there is the commonality of\nfeeling that you've killed something that trusted you." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Meanwhile, back at the Whorl: one last question ... why, do you\nsuppose, Wolfe chose to call them \"chemical\" persons instead of\n(say) \"electromechanical\" persons? " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I assume that they were so called because chemical reactions \n(as take place in modern dry-cell batteries) were their power\nsource. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Noooo ... their power source is clearly nucyulehr. Isotopes \neverywhere when a chem blows. That won't work. \n\nIf you're wondering, I don't have an answer sitting up my\nsleeve; I just think it's an interesting question with some\nbearing on the question of \"glandularity\" and emotion.\n\nRegarding the use of the word \"robot\" by Kypris and Mamelta,\nwell, most people don't distinguish the two words the way\nSF people do -- consider the use of the word \"droid\" in the\nStar Wars films for what any SF person would call a robot.\nNonetheless, we are given lots of evidence to support the\nidea that they are android in appearance -- that is, they \nseem to have been built to visually resemble bios to as \ngreat an extent as possible, to the point of including \nplastic or plastic-like \"skins\" -- and in design, to\nthe point that they are clearly part-compatible with \nreplacement parts for bios. " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2002-09-06T23:37:59+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Those chems", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Crush asks:\nIs anyone aware of any textual evidence that non-military chems are not\nlight-weight? I know Sand was five-hundred weight, but that was useful for\nhis function." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes. Silk was no weakling -- he threw Mamelta over his shoulder and ran with\nher, bad ankle and all, after Lemur was killed. Yet when Marble/Rose was\ntelling him about Blood's birth, and it finally dawned on Silk that somehow\nRose was speaking through Marble, he tested his theory:\n\n \"Watching carefully for her reaction, Silk said, 'I would have carried\nyou, Maytera, if I could; but I knew you'd be too heavy for me to lift.'\"\n(LS3, 4; p. 119 pb.)\n\nAlso, earlier, following Marble's collapse after being possessed by Echidna,\nSilk gave her a hand to help her to her feet: \"He heaved with all his\nstrength, reawakening the half-healed wounds left by the beak of the\nwhite-headed one.\" (ibid. 117)\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Alice K. Turner", "address": "aturner6 at nyc.rr.com" }, "date": "2002-09-07T01:20:04+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Those chems", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In this discussion, which is pretty interesting (I admit to having cruised\npast most everything here lately, but this arrested me), I am surprised that\nno one has yet brought up Sidero or Ossipago. Sev believes that Jonas must\nonce have been an automaton (Urth, 93). But I think that part of Wolfe's\ngrand plan is to meld or confuse the differences between AIs, sci-fi\n\"robots\" (already so out of date except for those over-priced \"dogs\"),\nmythological or genre-endorsed supernatural beings (confused deliberately\nwith religious beings--though I guess that goes without saying), enhanced\n(and regular) humans, and aliens. Anyway, Sidero is a sort of Hierodulian\nchem (or automaton) and and Sidero is pretty interesting in himself. So\ndon't leave them out!\n\n-alga" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Alice K. Turner", "address": "aturner6 at nyc.rr.com" }, "date": "2002-09-07T01:26:00+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Those chems", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Whoops, I meant that Ossipago was the hierodulean chem!\n\n-alga" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Straight", "address": "straight at email.unc.edu" }, "date": "2002-09-07T02:36:06+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Those chems", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\n 'You said that you were not a chem. I'm not one of those ignorant and\nprejudiced bios who consider themselves superior to chems, but I know--'\n 'You lie!'\"\n\nThen Lemur pitched a fit and fired the azoth. (LS2, 12) He didn't want to\nadmit that he was a chem because he was aware of the prejudice, and even\nseems to have shared it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yeah, but knowing human beings, that prejudice could easily exist whether\nthere was any basis for it or not.\n\nYou could re-write that substituting whites, blacks, and the accusation\nthat a man who looked white had some black ancestry, and you'd have a\nconversation that would have represented the attitudes of a whole lot of\nreal-world people a hundred years ago. But I wouldn't site that fact as\nevidence that blacks aren't really sentient.\n\n-Rostrum" } ] } ] }