{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4342", "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": 4342, "subject": "(no subject)", "messages": 6, "voices": 4, "first": "2005-01-27T12:33:12+00:00", "last": "2005-01-27T15:04:13+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<197.37356526.2f2aaa00@aol.com>", "from": { "name": "Broceliande27533 at aol.com", "address": "broceliande27533 at aol.com" }, "date": "2005-01-27T12:33:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) (no subject)", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI am a lurker who has so far been too shy to contribute, and nervous about \ninitiating a debate about 5HC. I have read the many postings in the archives and \nwasn’t sure that anyone was ready for another bout. Also, I have much to say, \nand was afraid, rightly, of starting and not being able to stop. And the \nconnections in 5HC lead you on inexorably. \nI wrote to Jim because of his website and because I thought I had too much to \nsay for a posting. \nBut, Jim having (qu)o(u)ted me, and because I can for once put off what I am \nsupposed to be doing today, here goes. And one thing has led to another. \nInevitably many of the connections I see have personal meaning and may be \naccidental and I am aware that I have to be careful not to knit myself my own \nGene Wolfe story rather than looking at the text. \nI agree that 5 HC is about genetic predation, (a great phrase which I gladly \nadopt): about the “Victory” of technologically advanced peoples and thus \ntheir genes at the expense of others less technologically advanced, as a result of \nhuman migration (assisted in Earth’s case by disease, which is not an issue \nthat GW deals with in 5HC: perhaps because if he had described lots of the \nAnnese expiring as a result of the common cold this might have indicated earth \norigin). \nAnd the question of whether the Annese or the colonists are the Victors is a \ncentral unanswered and probably unanswerable question in 5HC. \nPer Aunt Jeannine, is genetic predation “the explanation for the cruelty and \nirrationality (he) sees all around him?” \n5HC, is of course, also about evolution, and I suppose genetic predation as \nan aspect of evolution. \nIt has already been commented that the spiral staircase in the library is a \nreference to the double helix , (early 50?s I think: and Watson’s book came \nout in the 60?s). I have never been able to make sense of the key to the \nlibrary. Is it the key to the genetic code? \n\nI know nothing about General Wolfe and Quebec, but I have travelled in the \nPacific North West and the Caribbean, where I have been very conscious of the \npresence and absence of the autochthonous population, and I am very aware of the \nFrench particularly Napoleonic presence in the Caribbean. Also very aware of \nthe Irish presence in the New World: indeed in Alaska where autochthonous \npeople survived better than anywhere else (because, I was told, it was impossible \nfor Europeans to survive without Native expertise, and because there was \nlittle or no competition for farming land), many of the Native Americans that I met \nalso had Irish ancestry, just as it is suggested that Trenchard has Irish \nancestry. (I think it is very interesting by the way that Borski’s suggestion \nthat Trenchard Sr’s name is “Roy” has been so readily taken up: it feels right, \ndoesn’t it? And of course Roy also means King . Borski suggests that he is the \nAnnese shaman “Twelvewalker” and RT says he is the descendant of Eastwind \n(or Sandwalker become Eastwind: Eastwind being castrated) \nTo me “long house” suggested Native American architecture even though the \ndescription does not fit. But GW intended I think to leave all kinds of resonant \nechoes of what happened in all sorts of places on our world.. \nThe persistence of Native American/First Nations place names has also struck \nme (that’s another theme in 5HC). Also, in England, Celtic place names e.g. —\nAfon?, “Derwent”. The Celts are another people subject to genetic predation \nfrom migrating groups, but as I argue below, they can be regarded as once \nhaving been genetic predators themselves. \nWolfe as a Midwesterner must also be acutely aware of vanished peoples and \nsurviving place names. \nI agree that pagan themes and the myths of Europe and the Mediterranean are \nextremely important in GW. I am not surprised that he has read Graves. I \nguessed that: certainly from? Soldier?, but perhaps from 5HC too. The sacred trees \nand waters of the Annese are an important theme, as is the ring of trees. \nSacred trees and waters appear to have been a key element of Celtic or perhaps \npreCeltic religion (see Darrah, below) and circular structures were constructed \n, probably as observatories, by Neolithic and Bronze age peoples in \nsignificant quantities. If I am right about my theory that the Celtic reference is also \na reference to human migration and conquest, then, Graves, who theorises at \nlength in The White Goddess about population movements into Britain and Ireland \nand religious change, is perhaps relevant in 5HC. \nThe BBC website suggests that the word “Celtic” has no cultural, racial or \neven linguistic meaning at all in the history of the Iron Age. But at the time \nwhen 5HC was written the view was that the Celts came from Central Europe, and \nspread East and West and that “Gal” names are Celtic (e.g. Wales (Gwalia), \nGael, Galicia, Galatia, Gaul). Graves wrote that there were three waves of \nCelts, Brythons, Goidels and Belgii, starting in about 1000 BC, each of whom \nconquered, pushed Westwards and subsumed existing pre-Celtic cultures. . It was \nalso thought that before then there had been many previous conquests by waves of \nNeolithic and then Bronze age invaders which had each obliterated or \nreplaced the earlier culture with or without great population change. That view was I \nthink current and may still be current. \nThere is a legend that the Brythons (Britons) were refugees from the Trojan \nwar under Aeneas? grandson Brut. But people often invent interesting foreign \norigins for themselves, just as, maybe, the Annese did. Graves suggests that \nTuatha de Danaan may have had links with the Danaeans of pre-classical Greece \nbefore they ended up in Ireland from Spain. David is reading Tales from the \nOdyssey: I read that as a joke about ?2001- A Space Odyssey?, which came out in \n1968 I think, and therefore a double reference to the Homeric Greeks as space \ntravellers. The Homeric Greeks are also supposed to have invaded Greece during \nthe Bronze Age and conquered and suppressed the pre Indo European inhabitants \nand imposed their patriarchal religious beliefs on a matriarchal religious \nsystem. \nSo at the time when 5HC was written, in 1972, Wolfe would have been entitled \nto assume that the Celts had effectively replaced the earlier inhabitants of \nBritain and Ireland and obliterated and replaced their culture. Indeed so \nsuccessful is the Celtic tradition that it is usually assumed that Stonehenge was \nbuilt by and worshipped in by the Druids (certainly a late iron age \"Celtic\" \npriesthood) and the Neolithic and Bronze age builders thus entirely forgotten. \nWelsh Scottish and Irish languages traditions and culture have in fact \nsurvived remarkably over 2,000 years considering the pressure on them. That Westwards \npressure precipitated the successful Scottish/Irish/Welsh Diaspora into the \nNew World.. \nSo GW is in my view presenting the Celts of Wales, Ireland and Scotland as —\nGene Wolves?. \nThe connection between pre-Roman religious themes and the Arthur and Grail \nlegends has been explored by many writers. In particular it has long been \nsuggested that the battle between the brothers (5HC again) Balin (Beli) and Balan \n(Bran) at the ford is a combat theme which is part of the “Nemeton” cult- see \nFrazer's The Golden Bough: which I assume GW has read, and I bet Jessie L \nWeston’s From Ritual to Romance, et al. If any subscriber on this list has an \ninterest in this area I recommend John Darrah’s “The Real Camelot” and —\nPaganism in Arthurian Romance? for a rigorously researched and presented argument \nthat the Grail Romances and the Matter of Britain contain many references to \nBronze age religious practices and cult figures in the Matter of Britain, \ntransmitted orally as “a bronze age oral literature” akin to Homer (5HC again), and \nincluding identifiable references to the moving of the Bluestone circle from \nPrescelli to Stonehenge. \nGraves is also very interesting on the links between the “Celtic” and Norse \nGods (Gwydion/Odin/Woden). \nI think in 1972 toolmaking was considered to be the defining characteristic \nof Hom Sap. It was thought that tools cane first, brains later. Not sure that \nthat is still the case. For instance, the following have been suggested \n- Big brains developed because of language, and maybe singing too, \nnot tool making. Quite little monkeys and money-like beings use and even make \nprimitive tools, as do birds (who are incidentally quite like us in some ways, \nparticularly in courtship and pair bonding and selective promiscuity) \n- Language, music art and culture are all to do with reproductive \nadvantages and courtship: they developed early and before tool making \n- Baskets and woven containers and other things which have perished \nare just as important and perhaps more so than edged tools and weapons. With a \nbasket you can carry the food and with a sling you can carry the baby. \n- Human migration took place along coastlines by the beachcomber \nroutes: nets and baskets etc absolutely essential, big stone hatchets not so \nuseful: and you don’t need fire to eat shellfish. Fish is crucial to brain \ndevelopment. Some human groups may still not use fire (e.g. the Andaman islanders) \n- The development of more sophisticated tools came after our brains \ngot big \n- You don’t need tools to produce art including painting: hands are \nquite sufficient: indeed hands prints are an important part of Palaeolithic art \n- Language and grammar and the speech centre of the brain developed \nfirst of all through communication through use of hands and only afterwards did \noral speech develop \n- We are hardwired to acquire language \n- We evolved as walkers, not runners \n- Human males may be hardwired to respond to the female “waist hip \nratio”: thus Marsch/Victor, reviled for sexism in the passage “all the things \nwe consider beautiful in a woman are merely criteria for her own survival, and \nthus the survival of the children we shall father in her” (and then a \nreference to Darwin), is actually making an important evolutionary point \n- It is big brains that make human childbirth so hazardous: “The \nfirst birth kills or none,” says Cedar Branches Waving’s grandmother. I would \nadd: big brains permit knowledge of good and evil: thus Eve and “In sorrow thou \nshall bring forth children”. \nSo GW seems to present very sound anthropological views, whether he intended \nto or not. \nI would also add that hands have many essential functions that must predate \ntool using and construction. You can’t care for a human baby, even a naked \none, without hands with fingers and an opposable thumb. It can’t cling. At first \nit can’t suckle without help from human hands. Hands also have an important \nrole in courtship and sexual activity, and a symbolic role too: think of the \nwedding ceremonies: rings and so on. \nYou could say that tool making is really irrelevant to what it means to be \nhuman. It is however the first step to technology, and technologically created \nhumans, which is also what 5HC is about. \nThe cat (another Marquis of Carabas reference) is a talking animal. As in \nNarnia, animals that speak have souls: animals that don’t speak don’t have \nsouls also apropos the prisoner “I see an animal’s mask: but I have always known \nthat I do not speak like the others, but only make certain sound in my mouth- \nsounds enough like human speech to pass the Running Blood ears that hear me, \nsometimes I do not even know what I have said, only that I have dug my hole and \npassed to run singing into the hills”. (And then a reference to hearing the \nshovels scraping and the dead being buried in the cathedral above him). \nI do not know what evidence, if any, Wolfe relies on to support the existence \nof or survival into the 18th C in Scandinavia and Ireland of Palaeolithic \nCaucasoid pygmies who came to be called the Good People. (Rosemary Sutcliffe, \nchildren’s historical writer, (has Wolfe read her?) suggests this in ?Knights \nFee, and I think I have seen it suggested elsewhere : she herself was much \ninfluenced by Kipling. Scandinavia and Ireland are prime territories for myth. \nBut now there is Homo Florensis, who made me think of the Shadow Children. \nThere was an article in the British magazine The Spectator on 6th November 04 \nentitled ?Do little people go to heaven??. It asks about whether , if H.F. \nwere rational animals, they would have had immortal souls, or whether this is \nrestricted to Hom. Sap. It concludes ?But would the Floresians be fallen \ncreatures, like the children of Adam, or still walking in unsevered friendship with \ngod. CS Lewis wrote about the unfallen Martians in Out of the Silent Planet?\nIf the Floresians were fallen creatures, how would they be redeemed? \nWolfe’s point entirely. \nDid someone say that 5 HC was like a play in 3 Acts? \nThere was some discussion a way back about a film of The New Sun books and \nwho would play what. I thought about a film of 5HC, and decided that it would \nnot work: too obvious a medium, too little room for ambiguity, or the ambiguity \nwould make it incomprehensible. \nBut, if certain technical difficulties were overcome, it would make a \nremarkably good opera. And nowadays there is any number of young, (and indeed old) \nskinny athletic singers around to appear in Act 2. Its difficult to see a \nproduction at ENO (English National Opera) where the cast keep their clothes on \nnowadays so I’m sure it could be played au naturel without embarrassment. And \nyou could have the same cast singing different roles in each of the three acts. \n \n“How long was human prehistory on mother earth. One million years” Some would \nsay 10 million. ( Bones of my fathers). (I see and hear this as Victor’s \nfinal aria , with the ENO chorus as shadow children). \nAnd talking of opera: I haven’t read The Wizard Knight, but is Wolfe by any \nchance a Wagnerian? Was struck by several references in the postings to similar \nthemes. And there is Marquis of Carabas reference in Rheingold which is \nothers based firmly on Norse and German myth. \nWhatever you think of his politics, or opera in general, Wagner’s reworking \nof the Norse myths in the Ring is extremely interesting for a folklorist, (see \nDeryck Cooke’s (mailto:Cooke@s) “I saw the World End” which is worth \nreading quite apart from the Wagnerian element if you are interested in Teutonic \nmyth generally). \nThat is all for now, and I thank you for you patience if you have got this \nfar, but one thing led to another, and I shall go back to less pleasant tasks, \nand, when I have time, privately, to annotating 5HC, and my evidential \nanalysis of the questions:- \n1. What is the evidence for and against the existence of the Annese, \n2. Is Veil’s hypothesis correct? \n2. Did Victor become Marsch, or did Marsch become Victor, or is the prisoner \na synchretisation of the two? \nAnyone up for writing a libretto? \nJudith P" } ] }, { "message_id": "<41F95988.80204@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-01-27T13:13:49+00:00", "subject": "(urth) (no subject)", "in_reply_to": "<197.37356526.2f2aaa00@aol.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I am kind of curious- what does the Marquis de Carabas have to with \nTeutonic derived myth? I coulda sworn that that particular fairy tale \nwas French, derived possibly from the MideEast, but most famously making \nappearances in various 18 & 19 c. anthologies.\n\n~Maru" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Broceliande27533 at aol.com wrote:\n......\n\nAnd talking of opera: I haven’t read The Wizard Knight, but is Wolfe \nby any chance a Wagnerian? Was struck by several references in the \npostings to similar themes. And there is Marquis of Carabas reference \nin Rheingold which is others based firmly on Norse and German myth.\n\n.......\n\n\n Judith P\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<016001c504b6$28d16e20$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-01-27T13:21:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) (no subject)", "in_reply_to": "<197.37356526.2f2aaa00@aol.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think in 1972 toolmaking was considered to be the defining\ncharacteristic of Hom Sap. It was thought that tools cane first,\nbrains later. Not sure that that is still the case." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hmmmm...I hadn't thought of the possible point Wolfe may be making about\nhumanity and the ability to use tools. Is he asking whether the Annese's\ninability to use tools prevents them from being human regardless of how\nclosely they mimic us?\n\nIs Wolfe taking on the Turing requirements for Artificial Intelligence [if a\nmachine is convincingly human enough, then it is self-aware] and applying\nthem to Biology?" } ] }, { "message_id": "<41F95DB1.3040800@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-01-27T13:32:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) (no subject)", "in_reply_to": "<016001c504b6$28d16e20$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This doesn't actually have anything to do with the issue, but I've \nalways thought the true subtlety of the Turing test usually\ngoes unappreciated: What the Turing Test asserts is that there is no way \nto perform all the operations of intelligence,\nin any way simpler and more mechanical than actual intelligence. \nIntelligence is incompressible, if you will. Or, intelligence\nis defined extensionally, not intentionally.\nOh wait, I've thought of a point: Tool-using is a skill. Not \nintelligence in and of itself. So, when you test AI, do you ask it to \nuse a\ninclined plane, pully and other bric-a-brac to prove its intelligence, \nor do you test its imaginativeness and other logical potential?\n\n~Maru" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "James Wynn wrote:\nI think in 1972 toolmaking was considered to be the defining\ncharacteristic of Hom Sap. It was thought that tools cane first,\nbrains later. Not sure that that is still the case.\n " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Hmmmm...I hadn't thought of the possible point Wolfe may be making about\nhumanity and the ability to use tools. Is he asking whether the Annese's\ninability to use tools prevents them from being human regardless of how\nclosely they mimic us?\n\nIs Wolfe taking on the Turing requirements for Artificial Intelligence [if a\nmachine is convincingly human enough, then it is self-aware] and applying\nthem to Biology?\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-01-27T14:24:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) (no subject)", "in_reply_to": "<41F95DB1.3040800@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, with regard to 5HC note that if the idea that abos can't use tools, \nthen Veil's hypothesis seems hopelessly naive. Does Veil know something (ie, \nthat popular wisdom is wrong and abos can use tools) that others do not? She \ndid spend some time studying her subject. Perhaps the second and third \nnovellas are naive, based on a folktale conception of the abos. If *that* \nwere the case, then in all likelihood V.R.T. is not an abo, but would like \nto imply that he is.\n\nWith regard to Turing, what you just described is basically a semantic \nstruggle. Defining intelligence, as you say, \"extensionally\" (although this \nreally isn't quite right, I see what you're trying to say). \"If it looks \nlike a duck, and quacks like a duck...\" To which Searle can be seen \nvolleying (again, mostly semantically): no, it doesn't matter what it looks \nlike, intelligence is the product of a specific biological process and \nmachines can't have it, by definition, no matter what they do or \"say\". The \npart that any empirical test or evidence plays in this debate is much \nsmaller than it might appear. The empirical test, of course, appears as a \nproduct of having already accepted Turing's position.\n\nI think that ultimately the tool-using test you're talking about, if \nimplemented in a way that actually worked, would be more or less the same as \na standard test. Here you would have to be concerned with what constitutes a \n\"use\" of a tool, and be able to quantify between more and less intelligent \nuses for the tool, which involves \"imaginitiveness\" and \"logical potential\". \nNot to mention that sometimes it is more intelligent not to use a tool than \nto use it. (And language is as good a tool as any...)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This doesn't actually have anything to do with the issue, but I've always \nthought the true subtlety of the Turing test usually\ngoes unappreciated: What the Turing Test asserts is that there is no way to \nperform all the operations of intelligence,\nin any way simpler and more mechanical than actual intelligence. \nIntelligence is incompressible, if you will. Or, intelligence\nis defined extensionally, not intentionally.\nOh wait, I've thought of a point: Tool-using is a skill. Not intelligence \nin and of itself. So, when you test AI, do you ask it to use a\ninclined plane, pully and other bric-a-brac to prove its intelligence, or \ndo you test its imaginativeness and other logical potential?\n\n~Maru\n\nJames Wynn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I think in 1972 toolmaking was considered to be the defining\ncharacteristic of Hom Sap. It was thought that tools cane first,\nbrains later. Not sure that that is still the case." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Hmmmm...I hadn't thought of the possible point Wolfe may be making about\nhumanity and the ability to use tools. Is he asking whether the Annese's\ninability to use tools prevents them from being human regardless of how\nclosely they mimic us?\n\nIs Wolfe taking on the Turing requirements for Artificial Intelligence [if \na\nmachine is convincingly human enough, then it is self-aware] and applying\nthem to Biology?\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<41F97365.3040401@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "maru", "address": "marudubshinki at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-01-27T15:04:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) (no subject)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "To which the hoary old Oriental Sun-Tzu replies: 'To win without \nwinning; that could be called a win.' Not needing to use a tool is the \nhighest use tools. Or, Not-use is not the same as not using.\nAnd as far as Searle goes, I think he falls into the trap of the \nNo-true-Scotsman fallacy: But he talks like a Scot, eats like a Scot, \nlooks like one what with the kilt and hair, his parents and \ngrand-parents were Scots...' 'Bah! He's no true Scotsman.' Which is to \nsay, he practically says that intelligence is something that biologicals \ndo, and obviously no Turing machine can be biological, QED AI is a \ndelirious fantasy. Or, historically, intelligence is a unique product \nof a unique world-history and evolutionary sequence, therefore no \nmachine.... etc.\nOne last thing: tools aren't really a good test: they too are \nextensional: remember, intelligent beings can use tools, but so can mere \nmamals like anteaters and monkeys, and certain birds can even evolve \ntheir technology/tools. So a better test would be to try to test the \ncapacity that allows tool use.\n\n~Maru\nIt's been entirely too long since I read 5HC; take my words with a grain \nof salt- preferably sea salt, better flavour." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Chris wrote:\nWell, with regard to 5HC note that if the idea that abos can't use \ntools, then Veil's hypothesis seems hopelessly naive. Does Veil know \nsomething (ie, that popular wisdom is wrong and abos can use tools) \nthat others do not? She did spend some time studying her subject. \nPerhaps the second and third novellas are naive, based on a folktale \nconception of the abos. If *that* were the case, then in all \nlikelihood V.R.T. is not an abo, but would like to imply that he is.\n\nWith regard to Turing, what you just described is basically a semantic \nstruggle. Defining intelligence, as you say, \"extensionally\" (although \nthis really isn't quite right, I see what you're trying to say). \"If \nit looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...\" To which Searle can \nbe seen volleying (again, mostly semantically): no, it doesn't matter \nwhat it looks like, intelligence is the product of a specific \nbiological process and machines can't have it, by definition, no \nmatter what they do or \"say\". The part that any empirical test or \nevidence plays in this debate is much smaller than it might appear. \nThe empirical test, of course, appears as a product of having already \naccepted Turing's position.\n\nI think that ultimately the tool-using test you're talking about, if \nimplemented in a way that actually worked, would be more or less the \nsame as a standard test. Here you would have to be concerned with what \nconstitutes a \"use\" of a tool, and be able to quantify between more \nand less intelligent uses for the tool, which involves \n\"imaginitiveness\" and \"logical potential\". Not to mention that \nsometimes it is more intelligent not to use a tool than to use it. \n(And language is as good a tool as any...)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "This doesn't actually have anything to do with the issue, but I've \nalways thought the true subtlety of the Turing test usually\ngoes unappreciated: What the Turing Test asserts is that there is no \nway to perform all the operations of intelligence,\nin any way simpler and more mechanical than actual intelligence. \nIntelligence is incompressible, if you will. Or, intelligence\nis defined extensionally, not intentionally.\nOh wait, I've thought of a point: Tool-using is a skill. Not \nintelligence in and of itself. So, when you test AI, do you ask it \nto use a\ninclined plane, pully and other bric-a-brac to prove its \nintelligence, or do you test its imaginativeness and other logical \npotential?\n\n~Maru\n\nJames Wynn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "I think in 1972 toolmaking was considered to be the defining\ncharacteristic of Hom Sap. It was thought that tools cane first,\nbrains later. Not sure that that is still the case." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Hmmmm...I hadn't thought of the possible point Wolfe may be making \nabout\nhumanity and the ability to use tools. Is he asking whether the \nAnnese's\ninability to use tools prevents them from being human regardless of how\nclosely they mimic us?\n\nIs Wolfe taking on the Turing requirements for Artificial \nIntelligence [if a\nmachine is convincingly human enough, then it is self-aware] and \napplying\nthem to Biology?" } ] } ] }