{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/6149", "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": 6149, "subject": "S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "messages": 119, "voices": 14, "first": "2011-12-19T01:40:21+00:00", "last": "2011-12-25T10:53:35+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-19T01:40:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In light of the recent discussions about BotNS as appearing to be Sword &\nSorcery: just realised I briefly addressed this about a year and a half\nago in a post on my Wolfe blog. Paragraph six at:\n\nhttp://silkandhornheresy.blogspot.com/2010/06/reading-wolfe-is-dream-like-another.html\n\n-DOJP" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-19T01:42:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually, I should just paste it here for ease:\n\n' The other way Wolfe is generally different than Tolkien is that most of\nhis world-building is in authentically *science fictional* terms (barring,\nof course, the Soldier series and the Wizard-Knight series). That is, in\nall twelve books of the Solar Cycle Wolfe is creating not 'alternate\nrealms' of 'sword and sorcery' (oh yes, it sometimes looks and feels like\nthis to a large degree so that he is often labeled 'science fantasy'), but\ngenuine far-future, technologically advanced (so vastly advanced that it is\nin long forgotten decay), space-faring, interplanetary, alien ecospheres\nand economies. The Solar Cycle is indeed a subversive or alternative or\n'punk' form of classic Heroic Fantasy, but it is in irreducibly science\nfictional terms. Of course, Wolfe also writes these books in a way that\nrichly and readily includes the 'fantastic': the paranormal, the\npreternatural, the supernatural, the 'transcendant', the spiritual, the\n'trans-dimensional' (though curiously, nothing authentically 'magical' that\nI can see). In this sense it is also fantasy literature but more in the\nvein of Lovecraft or Gaiman or Tim Powers or 'magic realism' or what have\nyou. This kind of fantasy is neither Tolkien's Middle Earth on the one hand\nnor Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast on the other (though it includes a 'feel'\nfrom both). So when I call Wolfe's writing 'science fantasy' what I mean is\nsomething like 'science fiction fantasy', which I know is uncomfortable\n(not to say oxymoronic!) to some out there. But Wolfe's fiction is nothing\nif not uncomfortable, uncategorisable, and disturbing — but all, in my\nopinion, in ways that are ultimately enlightening and humanising.'\n\n-DOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Daniel Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:\nIn light of the recent discussions about BotNS as appearing to be Sword &\nSorcery: just realised I briefly addressed this about a year and a half\nago in a post on my Wolfe blog. Paragraph six at:\n\n\nhttp://silkandhornheresy.blogspot.com/2010/06/reading-wolfe-is-dream-like-another.html\n\n-DOJP\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1324408368.30211.YahooMailNeo@web114708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-12-20T19:12:48+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: Daniel Petersen \nActually, I should just paste it here for ease: " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Very interesting essay. Of course Wolfe's world-building is the kind that Heinlein championed, \"The door dilated\", but taken much farther than Heinlein ever did, even in /The Moon is a Harsh Mistress/." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "' The other way Wolfe is generally different than Tolkien is that most of his world-building is in authentically?science fictional terms (barring, of course, the Soldier series and the Wizard-Knight series). That is, in all twelve books of the Solar Cycle Wolfe is creating not 'alternate realms' of 'sword and sorcery' (oh yes, it sometimes looks and feels like this to a large degree so that he is often labeled 'science fantasy'), but genuine far-future, technologically advanced (so vastly advanced that it is in long forgotten decay), space-faring, interplanetary, alien ecospheres and economies. The Solar Cycle is indeed a subversive or alternative or 'punk' form of classic Heroic Fantasy, but it is in irreducibly science fictional terms. Of course, Wolfe also writes these books in a way that richly and readily includes the 'fantastic': the paranormal, the preternatural, the supernatural, the 'transcendant', the spiritual, the 'trans-dimensional'" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "(though curiously, nothing authentically 'magical' that I can see). \n\nHow about the analept of the alzabo and the effect of drinking blook?on the inhumi? After a moment's thought, the only way I can understand these is as magic, specifically the principle of contagion (if I have it right). Even if you believe in Lamarckian inheritance, the effect of memory and decisions on DNA or anything else located outside the brain is clearly very subtle--for instance, children aren't born knowing their biological parents'?language--not what seems to happen to the inhumi or even to alzabo addicts. Though actually I'm not clear on what happens to alzabo-heads who don't happen to be carrying the Claw." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In this sense it is also fantasy literature but more in the vein of Lovecraft or Gaiman or Tim Powers or 'magic realism' or what have you. This kind of fantasy is neither Tolkien's Middle Earth on the one hand nor Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast on the other (though it includes a 'feel' from both). So when I call Wolfe's writing 'science fantasy' what I mean is something like 'science fiction fantasy', which I know is uncomfortable (not to say oxymoronic!) to some out there. But Wolfe's fiction is nothing if not uncomfortable, uncategorisable, and disturbing — but all, in my opinion, in ways that are ultimately enlightening and humanising.'" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Certainly uncomfortable and disturbing in some ways, but genre confusions don't bother me. Wolfe seems to care that what Decuman and Typhon do is hypnotism of some very strange sort, not magic, but I don't see why he cares.\n\nJerry Friedman" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-20T19:53:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<1324408368.30211.YahooMailNeo@web114708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jerry Friedman: How about the analept of the alzabo and the effect of drinking \nblook on the inhumi? After a moment's thought, the only way I can understand \nthese is as magic, specifically the principle of contagion (if I have it right)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI think the alzabo stuff is explainable by time period. There was a very real\nand serious camp in the 1970's which thought memory might be carried by RNA. Wolfe\nwouldn't be the only SF writer of that era to base fiction on it.\n \nBut that really doesn't wash for 21st century science in Short Sun. You got me \nthinking Jerry..\n \nI've always thought that there was an echo of 5HoC Shadow Children in the Inhumi.\nPerhaps, like them, inhumi are essentially non-material beings. So it isn't really\nthe blood, per se, which facilitates the personality absorbtion but the spirit \nassociated with blood (eucharist in mind).\n \nPerhaps more importantly, this idea has softened my stiff-necked stance on the Inhumi\nlie of flying through the void from Green to Blue. If there is a spiritual essence\nto them, perhaps they could do it by shucking their material body. Then all my problems\nwith the idea (using muscles to achieve escape velocity, biological survival in the void) \nare side-stepped. If \"contagion\" is invoked, that could explain why planetary conjunction \nis important in setting the timing of the migration.\n \nI kinda like this idea further because it allows the stated \"Secret of the Inhumi\" to\nactually be their secret- they are what they eat. But, of course the secret isn't as\nsimple as that. The deeper truth being that they have no material body other than\nwhat they eat. They aren't humanoid or reptilian or even parastic vines. In essence \nthey are only malevolent spirits. (and they are still liars ;- ) ) \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gwern Branwen", "address": "gwern0 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-20T20:02:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Lee Berman wrote:\n\nI think the alzabo stuff is explainable by time period. There was a very real\nand serious camp in the 1970's which thought memory might be carried by RNA. Wolfe\nwouldn't be the only SF writer of that era to base fiction on it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Frank Herbert comes to mind besides Wolfe." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "gwern\nhttp://www.gwern.net" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-20T21:24:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<1324408368.30211.YahooMailNeo@web114708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:\nFrom: Daniel Petersen \nActually, I should just paste it here for ease:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Very interesting essay. Of course Wolfe's world-building is the kind that\nHeinlein championed, \"The door dilated\", but taken much farther than\nHeinlein ever did, even in /The Moon is a Harsh Mistress/." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "' The other way Wolfe is generally different than Tolkien is that most of\nhis world-building is in authentically science fictional terms (barring, of\ncourse, the Soldier series and the Wizard-Knight series). That is, in all\ntwelve books of the Solar Cycle Wolfe is creating not 'alternate realms' of\n'sword and sorcery' (oh yes, it sometimes looks and feels like this to a\nlarge degree so that he is often labeled 'science fantasy'), but genuine\nfar-future, technologically advanced (so vastly advanced that it is in long\nforgotten decay), space-faring, interplanetary, alien ecospheres and\neconomies. The Solar Cycle is indeed a subversive or alternative or 'punk'" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "form of classic Heroic Fantasy, but it is in irreducibly science fictional\nterms. Of course, Wolfe also writes these books in a way that richly and\nreadily includes the 'fantastic': the paranormal, the preternatural, the\nsupernatural, the 'transcendant', the spiritual, the 'trans-dimensional'\n(though curiously, nothing authentically 'magical' that I can see).\n\nHow about the analept of the alzabo and the effect of drinking blook on\nthe inhumi? After a moment's thought, the only way I can understand these\nis as magic, specifically the principle of contagion (if I have it right).\nEven if you believe in Lamarckian inheritance, the effect of memory and\ndecisions on DNA or anything else located outside the brain is clearly very\nsubtle--for instance, children aren't born knowing their biological\nparents' language--not what seems to happen to the inhumi or even to alzabo\naddicts. Though actually I'm not clear on what happens to alzabo-heads who\ndon't happen to be carrying the Claw.\n\n ...\nJerry Friedman" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thanks Jerry. Yes, I wasn't clear in the essay. I meant 'magical' in the\nspells and incantations sort of sense. If you're explaining the Inhumi and\nalzabo phenomena in non-naturalistic (supernatural, paranormal, etc.)\nterms, then I agree. Or at least, I'm as open to that possibility as any\nother.\n\n-DOJP" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1324430592.14044.YahooMailNeo@web114714.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-12-21T01:23:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: Lee Berman \nJerry Friedman: How about the analept of the alzabo and the effect of \ndrinking \nblook on the inhumi? After a moment's thought, the only way I can \nunderstand \nthese is as magic, specifically the principle of contagion (if I have it \nright).\n\nI think the alzabo stuff is explainable by time period. There was a very real\nand serious camp in the 1970's which thought memory might be carried by RNA. \nWolfe\nwouldn't be the only SF writer of that era to base fiction on it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, but RNA in cooked flesh? Surely it would have to be in the brain, but nothing in that scene (CotC, Ch. XI)?seems to suggest that they ate Thecla's brain. On the other hand, nothing seems to rule it out, either.\n...\n???????????? \n\nDaniel Petersen:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I meant 'magical' in the spells and incantations sort of sense. If you're explaining the Inhumi and alzabo phenomena in non-naturalistic (supernatural, paranormal, etc.) terms, then I agree. Or at least, I'm as open to that possibility as any other." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Okay, there aren't any spells or incantations. (The closest thing to that is the one from Isangoma, which may or may not work.)? I think of contagion as specifically magical, not just supernatural or paranormal in general. The blood or flesh carries the memories because it's connected to the brain. I might not be right about that, though. \"Contagion\" more often means the reason people who believe in it bury their hair and fingernail clippings to keep someone from using them in a curse.\n\nJerry Friedman" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF15A79.9030900@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2011-12-21T04:03:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<1324430592.14044.YahooMailNeo@web114714.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 12/20/2011 7:23 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:\nFrom: Lee Berman\nJerry Friedman: How about the analept of the alzabo and the effect of\ndrinking\nblook on the inhumi? After a moment's thought, the only way I can\nunderstand\nthese is as magic, specifically the principle of contagion (if I have it\nright).\n\nI think the alzabo stuff is explainable by time period. There was a very real\nand serious camp in the 1970's which thought memory might be carried by RNA.\nWolfe\nwouldn't be the only SF writer of that era to base fiction on it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yes, but RNA in cooked flesh? Surely it would have to be in the brain, but nothing in that scene (CotC, Ch. XI) seems to suggest that they ate Thecla's brain. On the other hand, nothing seems to rule it out, either.\n..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The leech and the old autarch mention that brains work best, but the \nextremely well informed Ultan says that hands are sufficient. I think \nthat the memory RNA hypothesis of the time was license to go there, but \nthe exact mechanism is not important, similar to the way a solution to \ntransplant and implant rejection exists by implication in the accounts \nof the leech and Jonas and Severian's comments on them. The memory \ntransfer is acknowledged subtextually by the author to be more involved \nin that it requires a special animal, while the rejection cure is \napparently so well understood or had been at one time that it is still \nreadily available wherever surgeons are to be found.\n\nOr possibly, Urthers have undergone a change or a culling so that they \ndon't reject implants or one another's tissue." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-21T09:02:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<1324430592.14044.YahooMailNeo@web114714.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ok, Jerry, so I think you, like me, have 'magical' as a subset of\n'supernatural' or 'paranormal'. But, if not in terms of spells, etc., then\nin what sense are these phenomena 'magical'? (I think I normally think\nthere has to be some human agency in terms of cooperation with greater\npowers through arcane [and usually uncertain] rules or rituals. That's the\nkind of stuff I feel I don't see in BotNS. If the Thecla ritual eating is\nto be thought of this way, then, for once, I'd probably tend toward a more\n'scientific' explanation as has been discussed.)\n\n-DOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 1:23 AM, Jerry Friedman wrote:\n\nDaniel Petersen:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I meant 'magical' in the spells and incantations sort of sense. If you're\nexplaining the Inhumi and alzabo phenomena in non-naturalistic\n(supernatural, paranormal, etc.) terms, then I agree. Or at least, I'm as\nopen to that possibility as any other." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Okay, there aren't any spells or incantations. (The closest thing to that\nis the one from Isangoma, which may or may not work.) I think of contagion\nas specifically magical, not just supernatural or paranormal in general.\nThe blood or flesh carries the memories because it's connected to the\nbrain. I might not be right about that, though. \"Contagion\" more often\nmeans the reason people who believe in it bury their hair and fingernail\nclippings to keep someone from using them in a curse.\n\nJerry Friedman\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF1D955.6090700@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-21T13:04:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF15A79.9030900@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/20/2011 11:03 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:\nOn 12/20/2011 7:23 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "From: Lee Berman\nJerry Friedman: How about the analept of the alzabo and the effect of\ndrinking\nblook on the inhumi? After a moment's thought, the only way I can\nunderstand\nthese is as magic, specifically the principle of contagion (if I \nhave it\nright).\n\nI think the alzabo stuff is explainable by time period. There was a \nvery real\nand serious camp in the 1970's which thought memory might be carried \nby RNA.\nWolfe\nwouldn't be the only SF writer of that era to base fiction on it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Yes, but RNA in cooked flesh? Surely it would have to be in the \nbrain, but nothing in that scene (CotC, Ch. XI) seems to suggest that \nthey ate Thecla's brain. On the other hand, nothing seems to rule it \nout, either.\n..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The leech and the old autarch mention that brains work best, but the \nextremely well informed Ultan says that hands are sufficient. I think \nthat the memory RNA hypothesis of the time was license to go there, \nbut the exact mechanism is not important, similar to the way a \nsolution to transplant and implant rejection exists by implication in \nthe accounts of the leech and Jonas and Severian's comments on them. \nThe memory transfer is acknowledged subtextually by the author to be \nmore involved in that it requires a special animal, while the \nrejection cure is apparently so well understood or had been at one \ntime that it is still readily available wherever surgeons are to be \nfound.\n\nOr possibly, Urthers have undergone a change or a culling so that they \ndon't reject implants or one another's tissue." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ultan's remarks are key, although I think they do not refer only to the \nanaleptic alzabo but to larger concepts of interest to Severian and \nWolfe. At any rate, the principle of what you might call \"spiritual \ncannibalism\" already exists---that is, the pre-scientific concept that \nwhen you eat the seat of your dead enemy's soul, you eat his soul. Any \nfurther details will be particular to the genre, setting, or \naudience---in our case, \"plausible\" science.\n\nIn addition, if the brain is so potent, there was plenty of Thecla's to \ngo around the table in thimblefuls. That would seem to make eating the \nbody redundant, but it's easy to construct a social/ritual/magical \nexplanation for this that would be acceptable to the Vodalarii, or to \nimagine that the feast was so much more, as a sensual or even as a \nbonding experience, than a simple injection of cells/RNA to acquire \nmemories. The presentation of the body alone suggests a cultural \nsignificance on the level of a spectacular wedding feast." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-21T14:33:43+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF1D955.6090700@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Stockhoff: Ultan's remarks are key, although I think they do not refer only to the \nanaleptic alzabo but to larger concepts of interest to Severian and Wolfe. At any rate, \nthe principle of what you might call \"spiritual cannibalism\" already exists---that is, \nthe pre-scientific concept that when you eat the seat of your dead enemy's soul, you eat \nhis soul. Any further details will be particular to the genre, setting, or audience---in \nour case, \"plausible\" science." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "An excellent point. Along with all the other persistent faerie/magic elements from human\nmythology, cannibalism belongs in this book along with vampires, giants, shapeshifting, \netc. I'll even assert that the only kind of cannibalism among humans is \"spiritual\". I \ndon't know any examples of cultural prescription of cannibalism for the sake of nutrition.\n \n(FWIW, centuries before \"Mad Cow Disease\" appeared in our news, Papua-New Guineans, hoping to \naugment their own courage, were giving each other a prionic dementia disease called \"kuru\" from \neating the brains of fallen warriors.) \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-21T16:48:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<1324408368.30211.YahooMailNeo@web114708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Jerry Friedman " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: Daniel Petersen danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "(though curiously, nothing authentically 'magical' that I can see). " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "How about the analept of the alzabo and the effect of drinking blook on the inhumi? \nAfter a moment's thought, the only way I can understand these is as magic, specifically\nthe principle of contagion (if I have it right). Even if you believe in Lamarckian \ninheritance, the effect of memory and decisions on DNA or anything else located \noutside the brain is clearly very subtle--for instance, children aren't born knowing \ntheir biological parents' language--not what seems to happen to the inhumi or \neven to alzabo addicts. Though actually I'm not clear on what happens to \nalzabo-heads who don't happen to be carrying the Claw." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nIt’s not magic — it’s bad science, just like FTL travel. Wolfe doesn’t care too much if the science is questionable, what he cares about is that the world of the story is underpinned by natural laws. The distinction between magic and science is that magic has either no rules, or rules that are arbitrarily connected to their physical effects (they may be psychologically non-arbitrary)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Certainly uncomfortable and disturbing in some ways, but genre confusions don't bother \nme. Wolfe seems to care that what Decuman and Typhon do is hypnotism of some\nvery strange sort, not magic, but I don't see why he cares." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think he cares because it would be a different kind of world if it had magic. Not necessarily for the characters in it, but for the readers.\n- Gerry Quinn\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-21T16:50:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:\nIt’s not magic — it’s bad science, just like FTL travel. Wolfe doesn’t care\ntoo much if the science is questionable, what he cares about is that the\nworld of the story is underpinned by natural laws." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It seems to me that what the sorcerers in the woods do is \"real\" magic." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "<11A01154864B4BD78806D1B3FC31E7AE@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-21T16:56:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Lee Berman " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I've always thought that there was an echo of 5HoC Shadow Children in the Inhumi.\nPerhaps, like them, inhumi are essentially non-material beings. So it isn't really\nthe blood, per se, which facilitates the personality absorbtion but the spirit \nassociated with blood (eucharist in mind)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The Shadow Children are certainly material (they can be eaten), and in fact — as is explained to us - they are descendents of human explorers. As for the inhumi, I think the same applies as elsewhere in the Solar cycle: Wolfe doesn’t worry too much about making his science realistic, but inhumi like other creatures are ultimately to be considered physical and obeying physical laws.\nGod has no true competition in the magic department, and he generally does his stuff by working through the physical laws he has written down.\n- Gerry Quinn " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF20FFA.2000107@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2011-12-21T16:57:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/21/2011 10:50 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nGerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "It’s not magic — it’s bad science, just like FTL travel. Wolfe doesn’t care\ntoo much if the science is questionable, what he cares about is that the\nworld of the story is underpinned by natural laws." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It seems to me that what the sorcerers in the woods do is \"real\" magic." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "legerdemain + psi" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-21T16:58:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF20FFA.2000107@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"psi\" is a fancy word for magic." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote:\nOn 12/21/2011 10:50 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "It’s not magic — it’s bad science, just like FTL travel. ?Wolfe doesn’t\ncare\ntoo much if the science is questionable, what he cares about is that the\nworld of the story is underpinned by natural laws." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "It seems to me that what the sorcerers in the woods do is \"real\" magic." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "legerdemain + psi\n\n--\nJeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<50125F66123D40BCA2CF1ECCECDB7508@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-21T17:01:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Lee Berman " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 2:33 PM\nTo: urth at urth.net \nSubject: (urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS\nAn excellent point. Along with all the other persistent faerie/magic elements from human\nmythology, cannibalism belongs in this book along with vampires, giants, shapeshifting, \netc. I'll even assert that the only kind of cannibalism among humans is \"spiritual\". I \ndon't know any examples of cultural prescription of cannibalism for the sake of nutrition." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "According to Wikipedia: ?Cannibalism was widespread in the past among humans in many parts of the world, continuing into the 19th century in some isolated South Pacific cultures, and to the present day in parts of tropical Africa. In a few cases in insular Melanesia, indigenous flesh-markets existed.\n\nAnd of course we know of cases when shipwrecked sailors or other groups of isolated survivors ate human flesh to survive.\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<2CD619ACDA004C9A9A4F9455117E2958@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-21T18:21:29+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"psi\" is a fancy word for magic." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Psi is SF terminology to indicate that certain powers arise from physical causes rather than magic. It is on occasion used to put a thin veneer of SF on a story that might as well be about magic, but in itself it is not a word for magic.\nMucor has powers of this kind (though I don’t think Wolfe ever uses the word psi), but her brain is physically abnormal. \n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-21T18:35:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<2CD619ACDA004C9A9A4F9455117E2958@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:\nFrom: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\n\"psi\" is a fancy word for magic." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Psi is SF terminology to indicate that certain powers arise from physical\ncauses rather than magic. It is on occasion used to put a thin veneer of SF\non a story that might as well be about magic, but in itself it is not a word\nfor magic.\n\nMucor has powers of this kind (though I don’t think Wolfe ever uses the word\npsi), but her brain is physically abnormal." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And yet Mucor's powers turn out to have a great deal to do with the soul.\n\nMagic.\n\n\"I say it's spinach, and I say to hell with it.\" -- James Thurber" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-21T19:09:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:\nFrom: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\n\"psi\" is a fancy word for magic." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Mucor has powers of this kind (though I don’t think Wolfe ever uses the word\npsi), but her brain is physically abnormal." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And yet Mucor's powers turn out to have a great deal to do with the soul." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Magic." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Why? \n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-21T19:12:32+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:\nAnd yet Mucor's powers turn out to have a great deal to do with the soul." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Magic." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Why?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Because Wolfe is not such a fool as to offer a scientific (or\npsientific -- which can also mean \"pseudo-scientific\") explanation for\nthe soul." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "<8A698AD2D397431780A7ED5D233F0E11@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-21T19:48:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nSent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 7:12 PM\nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSubject: Re: (urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:\nAnd yet Mucor's powers turn out to have a great deal to do with the soul." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Magic." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Why?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Because Wolfe is not such a fool as to offer a scientific (or\npsientific -- which can also mean \"pseudo-scientific\") explanation for\nthe soul." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What powers of Mucor are you saying are magic? The Whorl gods? possession of people is explicitly glossed as technology rather than magic, and that surely also involves the soul. Do chems have souls? One imagines so, and Mucor doesn’t mistake Quetzal for one. Yet their soul presumably starts off as a computer program.\nI don’t think souls are magic in Long Sun / Short Sun. \n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1324498759.21606.YahooMailNeo@web114711.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-12-21T20:19:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF1D955.6090700@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: David Stockhoff dstockhoff at verizon.net\nOn 12/20/2011 11:03 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 12/20/2011 7:23 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "[the analeptic alzabo]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Yes, but RNA in cooked flesh? Surely it would have to be in the brain, but nothing in that scene (CotC, Ch. XI) seems to suggest that they ate Thecla's brain. On the other hand, nothing seems to rule it out, either.\n..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The leech and the old autarch mention that brains work best, but the extremely well informed Ultan says that hands are sufficient. I think that the memory RNA hypothesis of the time was license to go there, but the exact mechanism is not important, similar to the way a solution to transplant and implant rejection exists by implication in the accounts of the leech and Jonas and Severian's comments on them. The memory transfer is acknowledged subtextually by the author to be more involved in that it requires a special animal, while the rejection cure is apparently so well understood or had been at one time that it is still readily available wherever surgeons are to be found.\n\nOr possibly, Urthers have undergone a change or a culling so that they don't reject implants or one another's tissue." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "To me, the problem of rejection seems quite different, as we know ways to deal with that. Most simply, the boy who \"donated\" blood may have been O-, and the leech may have known that.\n\nAnd whether the beliefs of the '70s licensed the alzabo or not, I don't see that the beliefs of the '90s licensed the still less plausible inhumi." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Ultan's remarks are key, although I think they do not refer only to the analeptic alzabo but to larger concepts of interest to Severian and Wolfe. At any rate, the principle of what you might call \"spiritual cannibalism\" already exists---that is, the pre-scientific concept that when you eat the seat of your dead enemy's soul, you eat his soul. Any further details will be particular to the genre, setting, or audience---in our case, \"plausible\" science.\n\nIn addition, if the brain is so potent, there was plenty of Thecla's to go around the table in thimblefuls. That would seem to make eating the body redundant, but it's easy to construct a social/ritual/magical explanation for this that would be acceptable to the Vodalarii, or to imagine that the feast was so much more, as a sensual or even as a bonding experience, than a simple injection of cells/RNA to acquire memories. The presentation of the body alone suggests a cultural significance on the level of a spectacular wedding feast." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But then why do we have to imagine it, and why the red herring of Severian's and Ultan's interchange about the corpse's hands, as Jeff mentioned above? If Wolfe had wanted us to think of this as science fiction, he could easily have restricted the whole thing to brains, which would indeed have been licensed by the RNA and planaria beliefs of the time and by the reference to holography, another sf cliche back then (though not tremendously compatible with the RNA theory). He seems to undercut this deliberately by implying that the memory is in the whole body, when we know perfectly well that injuries that don't interfere with brain function don't affect the memory.\n\nJerry Friedman" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-21T20:43:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<1324498759.21606.YahooMailNeo@web114711.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Jerry Friedman " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But then why do we have to imagine it, and why the red herring of\n Severian's and Ultan's interchange about the corpse's hands, as \nJeff mentioned above? If Wolfe had wanted us to think of this as \nscience fiction, he could easily have restricted the whole thing to \nbrains, which would indeed have been licensed by the RNA and \nplanaria beliefs of the time and by the reference to holography, \nanother sf cliche back then (though not tremendously compatible \nwith the RNA theory). He seems to undercut this deliberately by \nimplying that the memory is in the whole body, when we know \nperfectly well that injuries that don't interfere with brain function\n don't affect the memory." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "They wouldn’t if they are an epiphenomenon of a holographic memory.\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF249AE.4050709@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-21T21:03:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<1324498759.21606.YahooMailNeo@web114711.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "On 12/21/2011 3:19 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:\nUltan's remarks are key, although I think they do not refer only to the analeptic alzabo but to larger concepts of interest to Severian and Wolfe. At any rate, the principle of what you might call \"spiritual cannibalism\" already exists---that is, the pre-scientific concept that when you eat the seat of your dead enemy's soul, you eat his soul. Any further details will be particular to the genre, setting, or audience---in our case, \"plausible\" science.\n\nIn addition, if the brain is so potent, there was plenty of Thecla's to go around the table in thimblefuls. That would seem to make eating the body redundant, but it's easy to construct a social/ritual/magical explanation for this that would be acceptable to the Vodalarii, or to imagine that the feast was so much more, as a sensual or even as a bonding experience, than a simple injection of cells/RNA to acquire memories. The presentation of the body alone suggests a cultural significance on the level of a spectacular wedding feast." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \nBut then why do we have to imagine it, and why the red herring of Severian's and Ultan's interchange about the corpse's hands, as Jeff mentioned above? If Wolfe had wanted us to think of this as science fiction, he could easily have restricted the whole thing to brains, which would indeed have been licensed by the RNA and planaria beliefs of the time and by the reference to holography, another sf cliche back then (though not tremendously compatible with the RNA theory). He seems to undercut this deliberately by implying that the memory is in the whole body, when we know perfectly well that injuries that don't interfere with brain function don't affect the memory." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "First, Wolfe undercuts everything he does. Rather than repeat himself, \nhe throws out a data point that is near another one. He also likes to \nparrot historical concepts, especially commonsense ones that are \nprobably wrong, whether they explain things or not. I think he truly \nenjoys imagining what the world would be like if it actually ran the way \nwe think it does. When he has Latro see gods, he doesn't mock the Greeks \nbut rather ourselves, including our inability to see miracles.\n\nSecond, I think the remarks about hands have to do with how the universe \n(and the Increate) works as a whole. It's a clue about how Yesod manages \nBriah, for example, and Tzadkiel.\n\nThird, did Wolfe want us to think BNS was SF? If so, he failed. He had \nVodalus give a feast in a scene that contains no SF whatsoever, and gave \nus enough contradictory theory about the process that we would not know \nwhat to expect when the moment came for actual practice. (Science is \nsupposed to predict!) And when the time comes for the real thing with \nthe old Autarch, the ritual's brutal simplicity reveals that feast as \norgiastic and hollow pageantry in comparison." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1324502718.91721.YahooMailNeo@web114714.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-12-21T21:25:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: Gerry Quinn \nFrom: Jerry Friedman \nFrom: Daniel Petersen danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "(though curiously, nothing authentically 'magical' that I can see). " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "How about the analept of the alzabo and the effect of drinking blook on the inhumi? \nAfter a moment's thought, the only way I can understand these is as magic, specifically\nthe principle of contagion (if I have it right). Even if you believe in Lamarckian \ninheritance, the effect of memory and decisions on DNA or anything else located \noutside the brain is clearly very subtle--for instance, children aren't born knowing \ntheir biological parents' language--not what seems to happen to the inhumi or \neven to alzabo addicts. Though actually I'm not clear on what happens to \nalzabo-heads who don't happen to be carrying the Claw." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It’s not magic — it’s bad science, just like FTL travel. Wolfe doesn’t care too much if the science is questionable, what he cares about is that the world of the story is underpinned by natural laws. The distinction between magic and science is that magic has either no rules, or rules that are arbitrarily connected to their physical effects (they may be psychologically non-arbitrary)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But that's precisely what we've got with the analeptic alzabo and the inhumi. The rules underlying them make psychological sense because they work by \"contagion\", but they don't make physical sense to me. That's why they feel like magic rather than science-fictional \"bad science\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "?> Certainly uncomfortable and disturbing in some ways, but genre confusions don't bother \nme. Wolfe seems to care that what Decuman and Typhon do is hypnotism of some\nvery strange sort, not magic, but I don't see why he cares.\n\nI think he cares because it would be a different kind of world if it had magic. Not necessarily for the characters in it, but for the readers." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But the reader can't tell. Maybe that's why Wolfe felt he had to say it in an interview. In any case, it's a distinction without a difference for this reader, and maybe for Dan'l too. If we were supposed to find valid scientific explanations for everything, that would make a difference to me, but not if we're supposed to find bogus science-fictional explanations." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Daniel Petersen wrote:\nOk, Jerry, so I think you, like me, have 'magical' as a subset of 'supernatural' or 'paranormal'. But, if not in terms of spells, etc., then in what sense are these phenomena 'magical'? (I think I normally think there has to be some human agency in terms of cooperation with greater powers through arcane [and usually uncertain] rules or rituals. That's the kind of stuff I feel I don't see in BotNS. If the Thecla ritual eating is to be thought of this way, then, for once, I'd probably tend toward a more 'scientific' explanation as has been discussed.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "To me, goety and theurgy are only one branch of magic. Another is the kind that works by sympathy and contagion, such as sticking pins in dolls or keeping one's accidental cut from being infected by cleaning the knife that caused it. Maybe in the same category is the kind that works by less obvious correspondences, such as Renaissance alchemy and astrology, or indigenous medicine that works by kinships among species that are based on stories. Then there's knowing true names, as on Earthsea. Another kind is magical devices, such as the One Ring. And the kind that's just an inherent power, and is or isn't the same as psi. I don't think I can classify all the kinds of magic, but \"I know it when I see it\" (and don't expect everyone to agree).\n\nJerry Friedman" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-21T21:25:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<8A698AD2D397431780A7ED5D233F0E11@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:\nBecause Wolfe is not such a fool as to offer a scientific (or\npsientific -- which can also mean \"pseudo-scientific\") explanation for\nthe soul." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What powers of Mucor are you saying are magic?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "All of them." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The Whorl gods? possession\nof people is explicitly glossed as technology rather than magic," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Correct." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "and that surely also involves the soul." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not so fast. We get nothing from the point of view of a possessed\nperson, except at a double remove (what is told to Silk, as re-related\nfrom him to the authors of the Book of Silk). We really don't know\nwhether the possessed person is conscious in any way of being/having\nbeen possessed -- indeed, when a possessor leaves the possessee, Wolfe\nseems to deliberately skim around the question of what it was like for\nthe possessee." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Do chems have souls?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "They seem to!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "One imagines so, and Mucor doesn’t mistake Quetzal for one. Yet\ntheir soul presumably starts off as a computer program." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No. A chem's _mind_ starts as a program. The mind is not the soul." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-21T21:30:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<1324502718.91721.YahooMailNeo@web114714.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jerry Friedman wrote:\nTo me, goety and theurgy are only one branch of magic.\nAnother is the kind that works by sympathy and contagion,\n?such as sticking pins in dolls or keeping one's accidental\ncut from being infected by cleaning the knife that caused it....." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Exactly so. The big distinction is between magia, the application of\nnatural laws like sympathy and contagion; and goetia, dealings with\nsupernatural powers. Some years ago I wrote a mini essay on this for a\nfriend who was defending the Harry Potter books for her church:\nhttp://www.molthagen.de/kerstin/buecher/hp_anleit_ddo.html" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "<03E08FF1EDFE40FB9D7C92DB1C407535@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-21T22:05:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "What powers of Mucor are you saying are magic?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "All of them." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But she has a modified brain, and the things she does are similar to the things done by others, who do not seem to do them by magic. Why do you say Mucor in particular is magic?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The Whorl gods? possession\nof people is explicitly glossed as technology rather than magic," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Correct." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "and that surely also involves the soul." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Not so fast. We get nothing from the point of view of a possessed\nperson, except at a double remove (what is told to Silk, as re-related\nfrom him to the authors of the Book of Silk). " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, but since neither Silk nor Horn was ever possessed, that is the only information we can have. It is intrinsic in the structure of the book, and not a reason to be suspicious. \nPossession by a god seems to be quite similar to possession by Mucor. It leaves similar traces: Mamelta says “I feel I am Mucor”. While the possessee may not remember events, they seem to be compatible with what we are told by Kypris-in-Chenille" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Do chems have souls?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "They seem to!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "One imagines so, and Mucor doesn’t mistake Quetzal for one. Yet\ntheir soul presumably starts off as a computer program." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "No. A chem's _mind_ starts as a program. The mind is not the soul." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If a chem’s soul is not its mind, what is it?\n\nAnd what about the Whorl gods? We are told what they put inside possessees is the pattern of the god, the program. That seems to identify the soul with the program, and by extension the mind. \n\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-21T22:16:43+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<03E08FF1EDFE40FB9D7C92DB1C407535@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I see the basic problem. You do not know the difference between a soul\nand a mind.\n\nI suggest you read some basic pneumatic theology." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n\n\nFrom: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "What powers of Mucor are you saying are magic?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "All of them." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But she has a modified brain, and the things she does are similar to the\nthings done by others, who do not seem to do them by magic. Why do you say\nMucor in particular is magic?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "The Whorl gods? possession\nof people is explicitly glossed as technology rather than magic," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Correct." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "and that surely also involves the soul." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Not so fast. We get nothing from the point of view of a possessed\nperson, except at a double remove (what is told to Silk, as re-related\nfrom him to the authors of the Book of Silk)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yes, but since neither Silk nor Horn was ever possessed, that is the only\ninformation we can have. It is intrinsic in the structure of the book, and\nnot a reason to be suspicious.\n\nPossession by a god seems to be quite similar to possession by Mucor. It\nleaves similar traces: Mamelta says “I feel I am Mucor”. While the\npossessee may not remember events, they seem to be compatible with what we\nare told by Kypris-in-Chenille" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Do chems have souls?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "They seem to!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "One imagines so, and Mucor doesn’t mistake Quetzal for one. Yet\ntheir soul presumably starts off as a computer program." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "No. A chem's _mind_ starts as a program. The mind is not the soul." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If a chem’s soul is not its mind, what is it?\n\nAnd what about the Whorl gods? We are told what they put inside possessees\nis the pattern of the god, the program. That seems to identify the soul\nwith the program, and by extension the mind.\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n\n\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<75D542A70B8646C99A865BA0543778FD@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-21T22:46:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I see the basic problem. You do not know the difference between a soul\nand a mind." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I suggest you read some basic pneumatic theology." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Has theology advanced so far as to have a standard answer regarding the souls of robots, or digitised personalities running in a computer?\nThe Catholic Encyclopaedia (presumably referring only to humans and animals) says:\n“The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated. The term \"mind\" usually denotes this principle as the subject of our conscious states, while \"soul\" denotes the source of our vegetative activities as well.\nOn ?mind” it says:\nIf we define the soul as the principle within me, by which I feel, think, will, and by which my body is animated, we may provide a definition of mind of fairly wide acceptance by merely omitting the last clause. That is, in this usage mind designates the soul as the source of conscious life, feeling, thought, and volition, abstraction being made from the vegetative functions. On the other hand the term soul emphasizes the note of substantiality and the property of animating principle.\nSo while they are not identical, they are rather strongly linked. And that is in humans, not the digitised personalities we have been discussing. What do you think their souls consist of?\nAnd you didn’t answer my question about Mucor.\n- Gerry Quinn" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n\n\nFrom: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "What powers of Mucor are you saying are magic?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "All of them." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But she has a modified brain, and the things she does are similar to the\nthings done by others, who do not seem to do them by magic. Why do you say\nMucor in particular is magic?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "The Whorl gods? possession\nof people is explicitly glossed as technology rather than magic," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Correct." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "and that surely also involves the soul." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Not so fast. We get nothing from the point of view of a possessed\nperson, except at a double remove (what is told to Silk, as re-related\nfrom him to the authors of the Book of Silk)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yes, but since neither Silk nor Horn was ever possessed, that is the only\ninformation we can have. It is intrinsic in the structure of the book, and\nnot a reason to be suspicious.\n\nPossession by a god seems to be quite similar to possession by Mucor. It\nleaves similar traces: Mamelta says “I feel I am Mucor”. While the\npossessee may not remember events, they seem to be compatible with what we\nare told by Kypris-in-Chenille" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Do chems have souls?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "They seem to!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "One imagines so, and Mucor doesn’t mistake Quetzal for one. Yet\ntheir soul presumably starts off as a computer program." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "No. A chem's _mind_ starts as a program. The mind is not the soul." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If a chem’s soul is not its mind, what is it?\n\nAnd what about the Whorl gods? We are told what they put inside possessees\nis the pattern of the god, the program. That seems to identify the soul\nwith the program, and by extension the mind.\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n\n\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "David Duffy", "address": "david.duffy at qimr.edu.au" }, "date": "2011-12-21T23:08:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nJerry Friedman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "To me, goety and theurgy are only one branch of magic.\nAnother is the kind that works by sympathy and contagion,\n?such as sticking pins in dolls or keeping one's accidental\ncut from being infected by cleaning the knife that caused it....." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Exactly so. The big distinction is between magia, the application of\nnatural laws like sympathy and contagion; and goetia, dealings with\nsupernatural powers. Some years ago I wrote a mini essay on this for a\nfriend who was defending the Harry Potter books for her church:\nhttp://www.molthagen.de/kerstin/buecher/hp_anleit_ddo.html" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"Practising yoga is Satanic, it leads to evil just like reading Harry \nPotter\" ;)\n\nhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/harry-potter/8915691/Harry-Potter-and-yoga-are-evil-says-Catholic-Church-exorcist.html\n\nCheers, David Duffy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-21T23:16:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<1324502718.91721.YahooMailNeo@web114714.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:\n\nDaniel Petersen wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Ok, Jerry, so I think you, like me, have 'magical' as a subset of\n'supernatural' or 'paranormal'. But, if not in terms of spells, etc., then\nin what sense are these phenomena 'magical'? (I think I normally think\nthere has to be some human agency in terms of cooperation with greater\npowers through arcane [and usually uncertain] rules or rituals. That's the\nkind of stuff I feel I don't see in BotNS. If the Thecla ritual eating is\nto be thought of this way, then, for once, I'd probably tend toward a more\n'scientific' explanation as has been discussed.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "To me, goety and theurgy are only one branch of magic. Another is the\nkind that works by sympathy and contagion, such as sticking pins in dolls\nor keeping one's accidental cut from being infected by cleaning the knife\nthat caused it. Maybe in the same category is the kind that works by less\nobvious correspondences, such as Renaissance alchemy and astrology, or\nindigenous medicine that works by kinships among species that are based on\nstories. Then there's knowing true names, as on Earthsea. Another kind is\nmagical devices, such as the One Ring. And the kind that's just an\ninherent power, and is or isn't the same as psi. I don't think I can\nclassify all the kinds of magic, but \"I know it when I see it\" (and don't\nexpect everyone to agree)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ah, that's very helpful. I really need to study what 'magic' might\nencompass. All these are plausible, but I would not normally have called\n'inherent power' a magical quality. That's why I don't think Gandalf is\nmagical in LotR - because he's a 'being with powers', not a 'worker' of\nmagic, someone who goes through certain motions (he may do that as well,\nbut it seems to me his 'race' have these sort of inherent powers you speak\nof). Gandalf is more like one of the X-Men to me (or even a 'god' or\n'titan') than like a traditional warlock or something. I would put both\nthe Neighbours and Inhumi in this category (perhaps *even if* they can also\nbe explained more 'scientifically'). All that is connected to the Claw in\nBotNS is NOT magical to me: rather, it is supernatural and miraculous\n(perhaps prophetic, apocalyptic, and eschatological as well) - all rooted\nin the person, mission, and character of the Conciliator. Kind of the\nopposite of most kinds of magic to me: more missional than manipulative we\nmight say.\n\n-DOJP" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T01:41:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<75D542A70B8646C99A865BA0543778FD@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The \"Catholic Encyclopedia,\" while convenient, is actually no more\nauthoritative than Wikipedia.\n\nThe soul is the underlying principle which gives life to both body and mind." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n\n\nFrom: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I see the basic problem. You do not know the difference between a soul\nand a mind." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I suggest you read some basic pneumatic theology." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Has theology advanced so far as to have a standard answer regarding the\nsouls of robots, or digitised personalities running in a computer?\n\nThe Catholic Encyclopaedia (presumably referring only to humans and animals)\nsays:\n“The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we\nthink, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated. The term \"mind\"\nusually denotes this principle as the subject of our conscious states, while\n\"soul\" denotes the source of our vegetative activities as well.”\n\nOn “mind” it says:\nIf we define the soul as the principle within me, by which I feel, think,\nwill, and by which my body is animated, we may provide a definition of mind\nof fairly wide acceptance by merely omitting the last clause. That is, in\nthis usage mind designates the soul as the source of conscious life,\nfeeling, thought, and volition, abstraction being made from the vegetative\nfunctions. On the other hand the term soul emphasizes the note of\nsubstantiality and the property of animating principle.\n\nSo while they are not identical, they are rather strongly linked. And that\nis in humans, not the digitised personalities we have been discussing. What\ndo you think their souls consist of?\n\nAnd you didn’t answer my question about Mucor.\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n\nOn Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "What powers of Mucor are you saying are magic?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "All of them." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But she has a modified brain, and the things she does are similar to the\nthings done by others, who do not seem to do them by magic. Why do you\nsay\nMucor in particular is magic?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "The Whorl gods? possession\nof people is explicitly glossed as technology rather than magic," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Correct." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "and that surely also involves the soul." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Not so fast. We get nothing from the point of view of a possessed\nperson, except at a double remove (what is told to Silk, as re-related\nfrom him to the authors of the Book of Silk)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Yes, but since neither Silk nor Horn was ever possessed, that is the only\ninformation we can have. It is intrinsic in the structure of the book,\nand\nnot a reason to be suspicious.\n\nPossession by a god seems to be quite similar to possession by Mucor. It\nleaves similar traces: Mamelta says “I feel I am Mucor”. While the\npossessee may not remember events, they seem to be compatible with what we\nare told by Kypris-in-Chenille" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Do chems have souls?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "They seem to!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "One imagines so, and Mucor doesn’t mistake Quetzal for one. Yet\ntheir soul presumably starts off as a computer program." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "No. A chem's _mind_ starts as a program. The mind is not the soul." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "If a chem’s soul is not its mind, what is it?\n\nAnd what about the Whorl gods? We are told what they put inside\npossessees\nis the pattern of the god, the program. That seems to identify the soul\nwith the program, and by extension the mind.\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n\n\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF2B088.9010008@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T04:22:32+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/21/2011 10:58 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n\"psi\" is a fancy word for magic." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Outside the context of speculative fiction, perhaps. It was intended to \nmean a physical process that could occasionally be mistaken for the \nmagic of myth and legend but could be studied objectively They have \nvery different connotations and spiritual implications." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T04:29:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF2B088.9010008@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jeff Wilson wrote:\nOn 12/21/2011 10:58 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "\"psi\" is a fancy word for magic." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Outside the context of speculative fiction, perhaps." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "More specifically, outside the hobbyhorses of John W. Campbell, who\nalso took up Dianetics, the Dean Drive, and the Hieronymus machine. He\nwas a nutbar in his later years, but still a pretty good editor." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It was intended to mean\na physical process that could occasionally be mistaken for the magic of myth\nand legend but could be studied objectively ?They have very different\nconnotations and spiritual implications." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "More to the point, it was intended to give the impression that such a\nphysical process was being discussed. However, no serious physical\nmechanism was ever proposed (beyond unspecified \"brain mutations\" with\nno mechanism attached to _them_)." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF3205E.3060202@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T12:19:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF2B088.9010008@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson wrote (22-12-2011 04:22):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/21/2011 10:58 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "\"psi\" is a fancy word for magic." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Outside the context of speculative fiction, perhaps. It was intended to mean\na physical process that could occasionally be mistaken for the magic of myth\nand legend but could be studied objectively They have very different\nconnotations and spiritual implications." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But one can't just decree something to be 'psi'. There has to be a shred of \nplausibility." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF322DE.6060701@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T12:30:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Daniel Petersen wrote (21-12-2011 23:16):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Jerry Friedman > wrote:\n\n\nDaniel Petersen wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Ok, Jerry, so I think you, like me, have 'magical' as a subset of\n'supernatural' or 'paranormal'. But, if not in terms of spells, etc.,\nthen in what sense are these phenomena 'magical'? (I think I normally\nthink there has to be some human agency in terms of cooperation with\ngreater powers through arcane [and usually uncertain] rules or rituals." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That's the kind of stuff I feel I don't see in BotNS. If the Thecla\nritual eating is to be thought of this way, then, for once, I'd probably\ntend toward a more 'scientific' explanation as has been discussed.)\n\nTo me, goety and theurgy are only one branch of magic. Another is the\nkind that works by sympathy and contagion, such as sticking pins in dolls\nor keeping one's accidental cut from being infected by cleaning the knife\nthat caused it. Maybe in the same category is the kind that works by\nless obvious correspondences, such as Renaissance alchemy and astrology,\nor indigenous medicine that works by kinships among species that are\nbased on stories. Then there's knowing true names, as on Earthsea.\nAnother kind is magical devices, such as the One Ring. And the kind\nthat's just an inherent power, and is or isn't the same as psi. I don't\nthink I can classify all the kinds of magic, but \"I know it when I see\nit\" (and don't expect everyone to agree).\n\n\nAh, that's very helpful. I really need to study what 'magic' might\nencompass. All these are plausible, but I would not normally have called\n 'inherent power' a magical quality. That's why I don't think Gandalf is\n magical in LotR - because he's a 'being with powers', not a 'worker' of\n magic, someone who goes through certain motions (he may do that as well,\nbut it seems to me his 'race' have these sort of inherent powers you\nspeak of). Gandalf is more like one of the X-Men to me (or even a 'god'\nor 'titan') than like a traditional warlock or something. I would put\nboth the Neighbours and Inhumi in this category (perhaps *even if* they\ncan also be explained more 'scientifically'). All that is connected to\nthe Claw in BotNS is NOT magical to me: rather, it is supernatural and\nmiraculous (perhaps prophetic, apocalyptic, and eschatological as well) -\nall rooted in the person, mission, and character of the Conciliator.\nKind of the opposite of most kinds of magic to me: more missional than\nmanipulative we might say." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In my opinion there's no magic in the 'LotR universe', but I won't enter an\nargument over that.\n\nI'll just say that all 'powers' present in it, even those transferred to \nobjects, seem to come from Eru and exist by Eru - even if some of their \nwielders are evil, their powers are the same Eru gave them, just misused and \nconsequently diminished - cf. Sauron's increasing inability to take an \nappealing shape.\n\nFor me, magic is something that breaks the physical laws of the universe it \nexists in. Otherwise, it's just a universe with different laws." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF32E2F.6030106@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-22T13:18:39+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF3205E.3060202@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/22/2011 7:19 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:\nJeff Wilson wrote (22-12-2011 04:22):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 12/21/2011 10:58 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "\"psi\" is a fancy word for magic." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Outside the context of speculative fiction, perhaps. It was intended \nto mean\na physical process that could occasionally be mistaken for the magic \nof myth\nand legend but could be studied objectively They have very different\nconnotations and spiritual implications." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But one can't just decree something to be 'psi'. There has to be a \nshred of plausibility." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Normally this is accomplished by setting a story far enough in the \nfuture that it can't be contradicted, then giving an explanation of how \npsi powers were discovered or brought forth in the population. But this \nis just sf convention. \"Thirty years after the Heiserman Effect was \ndiscovered, Terran ships with Heiserman engines had colonized the three \nhabitable planets of the Tau Ceti system ....\"" } ] }, { "message_id": "<2BA612EE69CC425486438A5F11FBD392@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T16:09:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The \"Catholic Encyclopedia,\" while convenient, is actually no more\nauthoritative than Wikipedia." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The soul is the underlying principle which gives life to both body and mind." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And in chems? Or Whorl gods?\n- Gerry Quinn\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4FA3D54242D7457D96E28B0A8D404638@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T16:13:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jeff Wilson wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "It was intended to mean\na physical process that could occasionally be mistaken for the magic of myth\nand legend but could be studied objectively They have very different\nconnotations and spiritual implications." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "More to the point, it was intended to give the impression that such a\nphysical process was being discussed. However, no serious physical\nmechanism was ever proposed (beyond unspecified \"brain mutations\" with\nno mechanism attached to _them_)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It’s the difference between a hyperdrive and a magic carriage. No real science is involved in the discussion of the hyperdrive, but the reader is to understand that it is a technology made possible by advanced understanding of physics.\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T16:25:49+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<2BA612EE69CC425486438A5F11FBD392@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:\nThe soul is the underlying principle which gives life to both body and\nmind." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And in chems?\n? Or Whorl gods?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Precisely." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T16:27:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4FA3D54242D7457D96E28B0A8D404638@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:\nMore to the point, it was intended to give the impression that such a\nphysical process was being discussed. However, no serious physical\nmechanism was ever proposed (beyond unspecified \"brain mutations\" with\nno mechanism attached to _them_)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It’s the difference between a hyperdrive and a magic carriage. No real\nscience is involved in the discussion of the hyperdrive, but the reader is\nto understand that it is a technology made possible by advanced\nunderstanding of physics." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Correct, so far as it goes. But there is an implied technology behind\n\"hyperdrive.\" In the case of psi, something just -- magically? --\nhappens to give these people powers and abilities far beyond those of\nmortals. Calling it a brain mutation is just handwaving; and while\n\"hyperdrive\" is handwaving also, it is handwaving that suggests\nsomething, years of technological and theoretical advances which are\n_not_ implied in \"psi.\"" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "<2D86F6ABA9A64B2CA745901811F86471@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T16:42:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "The soul is the underlying principle which gives life to both body and\nmind." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "And in chems? Or Whorl gods?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Precisely." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The trouble is, I am finding it hard to tell what you are apparently being so precise about.\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T16:46:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "More to the point, it was intended to give the impression that such a\nphysical process was being discussed. However, no serious physical\nmechanism was ever proposed (beyond unspecified \"brain mutations\" with\nno mechanism attached to _them_)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "It’s the difference between a hyperdrive and a magic carriage. No real\nscience is involved in the discussion of the hyperdrive, but the reader is\nto understand that it is a technology made possible by advanced\nunderstanding of physics." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Correct, so far as it goes. But there is an implied technology behind\n\"hyperdrive.\" In the case of psi, something just -- magically? --\nhappens to give these people powers and abilities far beyond those of\nmortals. Calling it a brain mutation is just handwaving; and while\n\"hyperdrive\" is handwaving also, it is handwaving that suggests\nsomething, years of technological and theoretical advances which are\n_not_ implied in \"psi.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It’s usually glossed more as an innate ability rather than a “mechanical” technology. But it’s implied that it is scientifically understood.\nTo you, maybe, the handwaving does not suggest anything. But I think to most readers it does. For most readers, hyperdrives and psi will be accepted as being on somewhat similar footing.\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T16:47:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<2D86F6ABA9A64B2CA745901811F86471@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:\nThe soul is the underlying principle which gives life to both body and\nmind." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "And in chems? Or Whorl gods?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Precisely." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The trouble is, I am finding it hard to tell what you are apparently being\nso precise about." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Would that I had the humility to have such candor about my ignorance\nand/or misunderstanding!\n\nI am suggesting -- no, I am _saying_ that the soul is precisely the\nsame thing in chems and Whorl gods, and that the soul is personally\nand directly created by God (or, if you will, the Outsider)\nirrespective of whether the body is produced by biology or technology.\nThat is, if a being is ensoulled, it is ensoulled by God.\n\nThus, when Typhon uploads his memories as Pas, his soul does not\ntravel with them. If Pas has a soul, it is a new soul created by God." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T17:20:48+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: I am suggesting -- no, I am _saying_ that the soul is precisely the\nsame thing in chems and Whorl gods, and that the soul is personally and directly created \nby God (or, if you will, the Outsider) irrespective of whether the body is produced by \nbiology or technology. That is, if a being is ensoulled, it is ensoulled by God." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes! I think that's it. I almost chimed in earlier with a similar suggestion but I'm glad\nyour pas de deux with Gerry got there on its own. Wolfe is Catholic and it is common for\nsharers of a belief (not only religious) to speak to each other during public addresss in\na certain recognizable code.\n \nIt is possible, with patience, study AND empathy, for non-believers like Gerry and me to\npick up on the code. But it takes a certain awareness and effort to do so, where it comes\nalmost subconsciously for sharers of the belief.\n \nThus I think the debates about the \"real science\" behind alzabo and inhumi memory/personality\nsharing are moot. What we are supposed to pick up on is the cannibalism/eucharistic aspects;\nthe magic/spirituality of it. I think for Gerry, science=real and magic/spirituality=fake, and\nhe applies this personal world-view principle to the works of Wolfe (where they may not belong).\nIs he Dr. Gerry Crane in Wolfe's eyes? I think it is possible. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T17:30:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Lee Berman wrote:\nThus I think the debates about the \"real science\" behind alzabo and inhumi memory/personality\nsharing are moot. What we are supposed to pick up on is the cannibalism/eucharistic aspects;\nthe magic/spirituality of it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Bingbingbingbingbing! That is _exactly_ what I am getting at. Thank you." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think for Gerry, science=real and magic/spirituality=fake, and\nhe applies this personal world-view principle to the works of Wolfe (where they may not belong)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, except in that \"science=real\" allows for imaginary science like,\nwell, hyperdrives and psionics. Perhaps, more nuanced, and I do not\nmean to speak for Gerry, but here's what I _think_ he might say:\nScience involves a realistic _process_, and magic/spirituality do not;\nthus, brushing hyperdrives and psionics with the brush of that process\nimbues them, at least for the duration of a story, with a certain\nplausibility.\n\nGerry, please chime in and speak for yourself ;)" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF36AB3.4040606@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-22T17:36:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/22/2011 11:47 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nGerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "The soul is the underlying principle which gives life to both body and\nmind." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "And in chems? Or Whorl gods?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Precisely." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The trouble is, I am finding it hard to tell what you are apparently being\nso precise about." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Would that I had the humility to have such candor about my ignorance\nand/or misunderstanding!\n\nI am suggesting -- no, I am _saying_ that the soul is precisely the\nsame thing in chems and Whorl gods, and that the soul is personally\nand directly created by God (or, if you will, the Outsider)\nirrespective of whether the body is produced by biology or technology.\nThat is, if a being is ensoulled, it is ensoulled by God.\n\nThus, when Typhon uploads his memories as Pas, his soul does not\ntravel with them. If Pas has a soul, it is a new soul created by God." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Face it, despite the theology, souls are not things we can pin down with \ncertainty. Famously, cows were judged to have souls in the Middle Ages, \nbut are no longer considered to have them. Science changes its mind too, \nbut in this case presumably the Church changed its mind.\n\nI don't know the difference between a cow and a robot, but the \ninterchangeability of characters in the Sun Cycle pretty clearly \nrequires that all characters be constructed in the same manner. If one \nhas a mind and a soul, so do all." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF36ABF.8050707@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-22T17:37:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/22/2011 11:27 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nGerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "More to the point, it was intended to give the impression that such a\nphysical process was being discussed. However, no serious physical\nmechanism was ever proposed (beyond unspecified \"brain mutations\" with\nno mechanism attached to _them_)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "It’s the difference between a hyperdrive and a magic carriage. No real\nscience is involved in the discussion of the hyperdrive, but the reader is\nto understand that it is a technology made possible by advanced\nunderstanding of physics." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Correct, so far as it goes. But there is an implied technology behind\n\"hyperdrive.\" In the case of psi, something just -- magically? --\nhappens to give these people powers and abilities far beyond those of\nmortals. Calling it a brain mutation is just handwaving; and while\n\"hyperdrive\" is handwaving also, it is handwaving that suggests\nsomething, years of technological and theoretical advances which are\n_not_ implied in \"psi.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Unless \"years of technological and theoretical advances\" are actually \nimplied by the narration, of course. I hate it when there is none \nimplied whatsoever but the fictional world appears to be our own." } ] }, { "message_id": "<3850EDE39C6542408D247D83E4BD7317@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T18:04:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, except in that \"science=real\" allows for imaginary science like,\nwell, hyperdrives and psionics. Perhaps, more nuanced, and I do not\nmean to speak for Gerry, but here's what I _think_ he might say:\nScience involves a realistic _process_, and magic/spirituality do not;\nthus, brushing hyperdrives and psionics with the brush of that process\nimbues them, at least for the duration of a story, with a certain\nplausibility." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, that is a good summary of what I think. And I treat the powers of Mucor, for example, as theoretically explicable in terms of such an imaginary realistic process.\nWe are also told something of the process by which Whorl gods possess people — it involves data transmission of the “pattern” of the god, presumably the program. And that pattern gets mixed with the mind and personality, at least, of the recipient.\nI don’t think Wolfe talks much about souls as such. I’m not sure we can flatly state that he is postulating that they are an entirely separate thing from the mind and its connection to the universe. \n- Gerry Quinn " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T18:11:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF36AB3.4040606@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: David Stockhoff " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/22/2011 11:47 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nFace it, despite the theology, souls are not things we can pin down with \ncertainty. Famously, cows were judged to have souls in the Middle Ages, \nbut are no longer considered to have them. Science changes its mind too, \nbut in this case presumably the Church changed its mind." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I thought the thinking was that animals do have souls, but not immortal ones.\n- Gerry Quinn\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T18:14:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:\nI thought the thinking was that animals do have souls, but not immortal\nones." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Depends on who's doing the thinking.\n\nAquinas, for example, somewhat-following Aristotle, believed that\nsouls came in three varieties:\n\nThe _vegetable_ soul, which gives life and the power of growth and reproduction.\nThe _animal_ soul, which gives the power of movement.\nAnd the _rational_ soul, which gives the power of, well, reason.\n\nIn Aquinas' schema, only humans have all three souls -- angels do not\nhave the first two but are pure rational soul." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T18:20:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<3850EDE39C6542408D247D83E4BD7317@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:\nYes, that is a good summary of what I think." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thank you. I'm glad I didn't misrepresent you." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And I treat the powers of\nMucor, for example, as theoretically explicable in terms of such an\nimaginary realistic process." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Okay, so far as it goes. But..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "We are also told something of the process by which Whorl gods possess people\n? it involves data transmission of the “pattern” of the god, presumably the\nprogram. And that pattern gets mixed with the mind and personality, at\nleast, of the recipient." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Agreed: we are _told_ this. But..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don’t think Wolfe talks much about souls as such. I’m not sure we can\nflatly state that he is postulating that they are an entirely separate thing\nfrom the mind and its connection to the universe." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "...but I think that talking about Lupine fiction, and _especially_ the\nBriah cycle, without seeing souls everywhere, is akin to Dr. Crane's\nexplanation of Silk's enlightenment as a cerebral accident. It is\nself-contained and in its way complete, but it misses the point. To\ninsist that everything be \"scientifically\" explicable is reasonable;\nto say that this is the true explanation is to cut oneself off from\nentire layers of meaning.\n\nAnd the sad thing is that Crane cannot even conceive of what he is\ncutting himself off from. Is that true of you also?\n\n(This is a sincere question. I am not trying to \"convert\" you, but to\nunderstand where you're coming from.)" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T18:47:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I don’t think Wolfe talks much about souls as such. I’m not sure we can\nflatly state that he is postulating that they are an entirely separate thing\nfrom the mind and its connection to the universe." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "...but I think that talking about Lupine fiction, and _especially_ the\nBriah cycle, without seeing souls everywhere, is akin to Dr. Crane's\nexplanation of Silk's enlightenment as a cerebral accident. It is\nself-contained and in its way complete, but it misses the point. To\ninsist that everything be \"scientifically\" explicable is reasonable;\nto say that this is the true explanation is to cut oneself off from\nentire layers of meaning.\n\nAnd the sad thing is that Crane cannot even conceive of what he is\ncutting himself off from. Is that true of you also?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don’t think *everything* has to be scientifically explicable. Silk’s enlightenment seems to be, in essence, a kind of miracle.\nWhat I’m not convinced by is your particular dualistic understanding of the soul; I’m not sure what it adds to the story. I’m content to leave the concept of the soul as a little mysterious. Perhaps that makes me in your mind like Crane.\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T18:57:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: Well, except in that \"science=real\" allows for imaginary science like,\nwell, hyperdrives and psionics. Perhaps, more nuanced, and I do not mean to speak for Gerry, \nbut here's what I _think_ he might say: Science involves a realistic _process_, and \nmagic/spirituality do not; thus, brushing hyperdrives and psionics with the brush of that \nprocess imbues them, at least for the duration of a story, with a certain plausibility." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I really feel that Wolfe is trying to send a diffferent message. What the ancients called\nmagic, we call science and we tend to denigrate magic to fakery. But 10,000 years hence won't \nsome people snicker at the ridiculous belief in \"science\" we have; laughing at such folly as\nneurology and sub-atomic physics as we snicker at thunderbolts from Zeus and witches riding\nbrooms?\n \nThere is a Wolfe story about his correspondence with someone who (iirc) wanted to convince him\nthere was no such thing as cheese because it was really just denatured, re-organized lactose and \nproteins, etc. And wolfe saying, no he was eating a sandwich at the moment and it had cheese\non it (not a scientific reductionist explanation for cheese). In another quote, Wolfe notes \nthat some people don't believe in witches but he could produce one, if asked. There is \nso-called \"objective reality\" and there is \"experiential reality\" and neither is sufficent by\nitself to understand the world." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l: To insist that everything be \"scientifically\" explicable is reasonable;\nto say that this is the true explanation is to cut oneself off from entire layers of meaning. And \nthe sad thing is that Crane cannot even conceive of what he is cutting himself off from. Is that \ntrue of you also? (This is a sincere question. I am not trying to \"convert\" you, but to\nunderstand where you're coming from.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI have had discussions myself with Gerry on layers of meaning so I hate to interfere in the current\nproductive (imho) conversation. But I would like to ask Dan'l if, when he is discussing missing\nlayers of meaning if he means only in the context of Wolfe literature or also in the realm of our\nlives and the universe. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Antonin Scriabin", "address": "kierkegaurdian at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T19:04:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sorry to chime in kind of late, but I just wanted to say that, like Gerry,\nI am content to leave notions of the soul (and many other things) as mostly\nmysterious in Wolfe's books. Wolfe tends to avoid writing \"hard science\nfiction\" or straight allegory and never (at least, as far as the books I\nhave read go) offers explicit scientific or spiritual explanation for some\nthings. The explanation of deep space travel that Father Inire gives is as\nmuch mystical as scientific, for example; whatever the \"truth\" is, it is so\nwell hidden behind the motives and understanding of Inire, Severian, and\nthe other speakers / narrators that it probably can't be uncovered.\nPersonally, I get more out of the story *not* knowing or pursuing the ins\nand outs of the scientific or theological explanations that might hold for\na given phenomenon. There is something distinctly otherworldly about the *New\nSun *books that makes trying to force the events therein into the confines\nof 20th century physics or Catholic theology inconsequential to my\nenjoyment of them." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n\n\n *From:* Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \n\n > Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I don’t think Wolfe talks much about souls as such. I’m not sure we\ncan\nflatly state that he is postulating that they are an entirely separate\nthing\nfrom the mind and its connection to the universe." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "...but I think that talking about Lupine fiction, and _especially_ the\nBriah cycle, without seeing souls everywhere, is akin to Dr. Crane's\nexplanation of Silk's enlightenment as a cerebral accident. It is\nself-contained and in its way complete, but it misses the point. To\ninsist that everything be \"scientifically\" explicable is reasonable;\nto say that this is the true explanation is to cut oneself off from\nentire layers of meaning." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "And the sad thing is that Crane cannot even conceive of what he is\ncutting himself off from. Is that true of you also?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " I don’t think *everything* has to be scientifically explicable. Silk’s\nenlightenment seems to be, in essence, a kind of miracle.\n\n What I’m not convinced by is your particular dualistic understanding of\nthe soul; I’m not sure what it adds to the story. I’m content to leave the\nconcept of the soul as a little mysterious. Perhaps that makes me in your\nmind like Crane.\n\n - Gerry Quinn\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T19:11:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Lee Berman wrote:\nI really feel that Wolfe is trying to send a diffferent message. What the ancients called\nmagic, we call science and we tend to denigrate magic to fakery. But 10,000 years hence won't\nsome people snicker at the ridiculous belief in \"science\" we have; laughing at such folly as\nneurology and sub-atomic physics as we snicker at thunderbolts from Zeus and witches riding\nbrooms?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm not sure what people 10000 hence will laugh at. I hope they have\nsomething to laugh at." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I have had discussions myself with Gerry on layers of meaning so I hate to interfere in the current\nproductive (imho) conversation. But I would like to ask Dan'l if, when he is discussing missing\nlayers of meaning if he means only in the context of Wolfe literature or also in the realm of our\nlives and the universe." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "By all means, I believe that there are such layers of meaning in\nexperiential reality." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T19:13:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:\nI don’t think *everything* has to be scientifically explicable. Silk’s\nenlightenment seems to be, in essence, a kind of miracle." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Then you are not like Crane, who insists that everything have a clear\nscientific explanation." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What I’m not convinced by is your particular dualistic understanding of the\nsoul; I’m not sure what it adds to the story. I’m content to leave the\nconcept of the soul as a little mysterious." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "To me, the soul is extremely mysterious. My \"dualism\" merely seeks to\ndefine the area in which mystery operates, not to explain away that\nmystery." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1324581550.55399.YahooMailNeo@web114711.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T19:19:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes danldo at gmail.com\nLee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Thus I think the debates about the \"real science\" behind alzabo \nand inhumi memory/personality\nsharing are moot. What we are supposed to pick up on is the \ncannibalism/eucharistic aspects;\nthe magic/spirituality of it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Bingbingbingbingbing! That is _exactly_ what I am getting at. Thank you." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "...\n\nCertainly we're supposed to pick up those aspects. This would all be fine, if it weren't for Wolfe's article in /Thrust/ as quoted in LU:\n\n\"There are?/no/ fantasy elements involved -- no \"magic\" in the fantasy sense. There is time-travel, but that belongs to sf, not fantasy. There are hypnotism, sleight of hand, and a few other things, but those belong to the world of reality, if not the world of science.\" (/Thrust/ no. 19, winter-spring 1983)\n\nSo my problem isn't with the books but with this quotation. Of course I could just ignore it.\n\nJerry Friedman" } ] }, { "message_id": "<590226FE768D4FE08104C1B80C02BF0F@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T19:20:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Lee Berman " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I really feel that Wolfe is trying to send a diffferent message. What the ancients called\nmagic, we call science and we tend to denigrate magic to fakery. But 10,000 years hence won't \nsome people snicker at the ridiculous belief in \"science\" we have; laughing at such folly as\nneurology and sub-atomic physics as we snicker at thunderbolts from Zeus and witches riding\nbrooms?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Some people do even now. However, I don’t think our understanding of such matters is likely to be reversed, though it may be deepened. \n\nWhen I say there is no magic in the Sun books, I’m not talking about fakery, just saying that it is the kind of universe that runs on natural rather than magical laws. By contrast, there is magic in Aelfrice, because that’s how stuff works in that other universe.\n \n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF384E0.9020802@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T19:28:32+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<1324498759.21606.YahooMailNeo@web114711.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/21/2011 2:19 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:\nFrom: David Stockhoff dstockhoff at verizon.net\nOn 12/20/2011 11:03 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "On 12/20/2011 7:23 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "[the analeptic alzabo]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Yes, but RNA in cooked flesh? Surely it would have to be in the brain, but nothing in that scene (CotC, Ch. XI) seems to suggest that they ate Thecla's brain. On the other hand, nothing seems to rule it out, either.\n..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "The leech and the old autarch mention that brains work best, but the extremely well informed Ultan says that hands are sufficient. I think that the memory RNA hypothesis of the time was license to go there, but the exact mechanism is not important, similar to the way a solution to transplant and implant rejection exists by implication in the accounts of the leech and Jonas and Severian's comments on them. The memory transfer is acknowledged subtextually by the author to be more involved in that it requires a special animal, while the rejection cure is apparently so well understood or had been at one time that it is still readily available wherever surgeons are to be found.\n\nOr possibly, Urthers have undergone a change or a culling so that they don't reject implants or one another's tissue." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "To me, the problem of rejection seems quite different, as we know ways to deal with that. Most simply, the boy who \"donated\" blood may have been O-, and the leech may have known that." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It may have, but there's never any mention of bad blood mixing, Sev \nspeaks as if he's observed several people with artificial limbs before, \nand Jonah's crew apparently had access to technology that allowed \narbitrary combinations of flesh and machine to restore his frame. Jonah \nhas apparently been half-man, half-machine for decades, where is he \ngetting the anti-rejection drugs that no one sees him taking? What about \nTyphon and Piaton?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And whether the beliefs of the '70s licensed the alzabo or not, I don't see that the beliefs of the '90s licensed the still less plausible inhumi." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "They don't need to, the Inhumi's borrowed sapience can proceed by \nextrapolation from the alzabo's. Not that the continuity between the \nseries is particularly tight." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF38BAC.90308@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T19:57:32+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/21/2011 3:30 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nJerry Friedman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "To me, goety and theurgy are only one branch of magic.\nAnother is the kind that works by sympathy and contagion,\n such as sticking pins in dolls or keeping one's accidental\ncut from being infected by cleaning the knife that caused it....." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Exactly so. The big distinction is between magia, the application of\nnatural laws like sympathy and contagion; and goetia, dealings with\nsupernatural powers. Some years ago I wrote a mini essay on this for a\nfriend who was defending the Harry Potter books for her church:\nhttp://www.molthagen.de/kerstin/buecher/hp_anleit_ddo.html" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "As you note, this very broad definition of magia envelops science and \ntechnology and medicine and 2-3 other chunks of the Dewey Decimal System \nwithin \"magic.\" In this sense, almost every cause and effect in the \nBotNS is magical, because it is also material." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF38DEB.5030603@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T20:07:07+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/21/2011 10:29 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nJeff Wilson wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 12/21/2011 10:58 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "\"psi\" is a fancy word for magic." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Outside the context of speculative fiction, perhaps." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "More specifically, outside the hobbyhorses of John W. Campbell, who\nalso took up Dianetics, the Dean Drive, and the Hieronymus machine. He\nwas a nutbar in his later years, but still a pretty good editor." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "It was intended to mean\na physical process that could occasionally be mistaken for the magic of myth\nand legend but could be studied objectively They have very different\nconnotations and spiritual implications." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "More to the point, it was intended to give the impression that such a\nphysical process was being discussed. However, no serious physical\nmechanism was ever proposed (beyond unspecified \"brain mutations\" with\nno mechanism attached to _them_)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You speak as if it's necessary to have actual science behind one's \nappeal to its authority.\n\n\"Ever\" is overstated, IIRC Wheeler conjectured at length that \nmicrtubules within brain cells were at the correct scale to yoke \nconscious states' biological processes to quantum events." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T20:20:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF38DEB.5030603@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But 10,000 years hence won't some people snicker at the ridiculous belief in \n\"science\" we have; laughing at such folly as neurology and sub-atomic physics \nas we snicker at thunderbolts from Zeus and witches riding brooms?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn: Some people do even now. However, I don’t think our understanding \nof such matters is likely to be reversed, though it may be deepened." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nWell of course you would think that. Your belief in science is akin to the ancient\nGreek's belief in Zeus or a Medieval villager's belief in witchcraft. If asked, they\nwould predict a future in 2011 where knowledge and belief in Zeus or witches would \nremain intact though perhaps deepened. \n \nI hope you won't try the argument that Zeus' thunderbolts and witches crop hexings was \nfake while sub-atomic physics and neurosurgery are real. Ancient experts predicted \nthunderstorms and crop failures and they were usually right and came to be believed.\nYou have never seen an electron and you have not done original research on the subject. \nElectricity seems to work so you believe the experts who tell you how it works. Same for \nbrain surgery when you submit to the knife. Belief in science and technology is fully a \nmatter of faith as much as mythology/religion." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "When I say there is no magic in the Sun books, I’m not talking about fakery, just saying \nthat it is the kind of universe that runs on natural rather than magical laws." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI tend to agree. But don't discount fakery. Wolfe doesn't, as Jerry's quote illustrates.\nIn our discussion on inhumi you expressed the belief that they really do achieve escape\nvelocity using muscles and survive for long periods in the void because Wolfe doesn't worry \nmuch about natural laws in his work. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF3924A.4060208@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T20:25:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF3205E.3060202@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/22/2011 6:19 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:\nJeff Wilson wrote (22-12-2011 04:22):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 12/21/2011 10:58 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "\"psi\" is a fancy word for magic." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Outside the context of speculative fiction, perhaps. It was intended\nto mean\na physical process that could occasionally be mistaken for the magic\nof myth\nand legend but could be studied objectively They have very different\nconnotations and spiritual implications." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But one can't just decree something to be 'psi'. There has to be a shred\nof plausibility." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Severian perceives that he is being zapped by the twin hemispheres of \nDecuman's brain in a way that illuminates him but also imposes a \nparticular depressive emotion that saps his will to continue in the \ncontest. This is apparently direct brain to brain coersion." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF39298.8020604@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-22T20:27:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/22/2011 1:14 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nGerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I thought the thinking was that animals do have souls, but not immortal\nones." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Depends on who's doing the thinking.\n\nAquinas, for example, somewhat-following Aristotle, believed that\nsouls came in three varieties:\n\nThe _vegetable_ soul, which gives life and the power of growth and reproduction.\nThe _animal_ soul, which gives the power of movement.\nAnd the _rational_ soul, which gives the power of, well, reason.\n\nIn Aquinas' schema, only humans have all three souls -- angels do not\nhave the first two but are pure rational soul." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Now THAT'S food for thought, in the context of Long Sun." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF39553.5020207@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-22T20:38:43+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/22/2011 2:04 PM, Antonin Scriabin wrote:\nSorry to chime in kind of late, but I just wanted to say that, like \nGerry, I am content to leave notions of the soul (and many other \nthings) as mostly mysterious in Wolfe's books. Wolfe tends to avoid \nwriting \"hard science fiction\" or straight allegory and never (at \nleast, as far as the books I have read go) offers explicit scientific \nor spiritual explanation for some things. The explanation of deep \nspace travel that Father Inire gives is as much mystical as \nscientific, for example; whatever the \"truth\" is, it is so well hidden \nbehind the motives and understanding of Inire, Severian, and the other \nspeakers / narrators that it probably can't be uncovered. Personally, \nI get more out of the story /not/ knowing or pursuing the ins and outs \nof the scientific or theological explanations that might hold for a \ngiven phenomenon. There is something distinctly otherworldly about \nthe /New Sun /books that makes trying to force the events therein into \nthe confines of 20th century physics or Catholic theology \ninconsequential to my enjoyment of them." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I totally agree with this sentiment, but I see physics and theology as \ninspirations and jumping off points for Wolfe, not as restrictions. I do \nget the sense that they are wielded as such by some here. But I don't \nthink talking about them is the same as enforcing them." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF3969E.5020903@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-22T20:44:14+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<1324581550.55399.YahooMailNeo@web114711.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 12/22/2011 2:19 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:\nFrom: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes danldo at gmail.com\nLee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Thus I think the debates about the \"real science\" behind alzabo\nand inhumi memory/personality\nsharing are moot. What we are supposed to pick up on is the\ncannibalism/eucharistic aspects;\nthe magic/spirituality of it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Bingbingbingbingbing! That is _exactly_ what I am getting at. Thank you." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "...\n\nCertainly we're supposed to pick up those aspects. This would all be fine, if it weren't for Wolfe's article in /Thrust/ as quoted in LU:\n\n\"There are /no/ fantasy elements involved -- no \"magic\" in the fantasy sense. There is time-travel, but that belongs to sf, not fantasy. There are hypnotism, sleight of hand, and a few other things, but those belong to the world of reality, if not the world of science.\" (/Thrust/ no. 19, winter-spring 1983)\n\nSo my problem isn't with the books but with this quotation. Of course I could just ignore it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Granting that that comment was made in a particular context, even so I \nthink it leaves room for everything discussed above. After all, belief \nin ritual magic is quite real; eating brains for magical purposes \nactually happened. That phrase \"a few other things\" could hide anything." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF39730.8080508@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-22T20:46:40+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF38BAC.90308@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/22/2011 2:57 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:\nOn 12/21/2011 3:30 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Jerry Friedman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "To me, goety and theurgy are only one branch of magic.\nAnother is the kind that works by sympathy and contagion,\n such as sticking pins in dolls or keeping one's accidental\ncut from being infected by cleaning the knife that caused it....." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Exactly so. The big distinction is between magia, the application of\nnatural laws like sympathy and contagion; and goetia, dealings with\nsupernatural powers. Some years ago I wrote a mini essay on this for a\nfriend who was defending the Harry Potter books for her church:\nhttp://www.molthagen.de/kerstin/buecher/hp_anleit_ddo.html" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As you note, this very broad definition of magia envelops science and \ntechnology and medicine and 2-3 other chunks of the Dewey Decimal \nSystem within \"magic.\" In this sense, almost every cause and effect in \nthe BotNS is magical, because it is also material." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes!" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T21:01:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF39730.8080508@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jeff Wilson: Severian perceives that he is being zapped by the twin hemispheres of \nDecuman's brain in a way that illuminates him but also imposes a particular depressive \nemotion that saps his will to continue in the contest. This is apparently direct brain \nto brain coersion." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But IIRC, Decuman is humming and chanting the whole time. I think this might be the \n\"hypnotism\" Wolfe mentions in Jerry's quote. The \"twin hemispheres\" brain might be\njust Severian's self-experiential description of the event, much like the initially \nreal-seeming hallucinations he gets later from eating mushrooms. (makes sense for\na torturer to picture another's mind in anatomically correct brain fashion; I'll guess\nLittle Severian didn't picture it the same way, though they share the emotion of fear) \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T21:08:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF39730.8080508@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Stockhoff wrote:\nOn 12/22/2011 2:57 PM, Jeff Wilson wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "As you note, this very broad definition of magia envelops science and\ntechnology and medicine and 2-3 other chunks of the Dewey Decimal System\nwithin \"magic.\" In this sense, almost every cause and effect in the BotNS is\nmagical, because it is also material." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yes!" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I second this \"Yes!\" -- and so, I add would Aleister Crowley." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T21:30:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Lee Berman " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "But 10,000 years hence won't some people snicker at the ridiculous belief in \n\"science\" we have; laughing at such folly as neurology and sub-atomic physics \nas we snicker at thunderbolts from Zeus and witches riding brooms?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry Quinn: Some people do even now. However, I don’t think our understanding \nof such matters is likely to be reversed, though it may be deepened." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well of course you would think that. Your belief in science is akin to the ancient\nGreek's belief in Zeus or a Medieval villager's belief in witchcraft. If asked, they\nwould predict a future in 2011 where knowledge and belief in Zeus or witches would \nremain intact though perhaps deepened. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I thought this kind of relativism was one of the concepts that have been superseded! Are you trying to resuscitate the Science Wars?\nThere’s a difference between science and the study of Zeus and witches (and the ideas of the ancients regarding these may well retain validity in their own sphere, but not the sphere of science). " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I hope you won't try the argument that Zeus' thunderbolts and witches crop hexings was \nfake while sub-atomic physics and neurosurgery are real. Ancient experts predicted \nthunderstorms and crop failures and they were usually right and came to be believed.\nYou have never seen an electron and you have not done original research on the subject. \nElectricity seems to work so you believe the experts who tell you how it works. Same for \nbrain surgery when you submit to the knife. Belief in science and technology is fully a \nmatter of faith as much as mythology/religion." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sorry, but that is incorrect. The epistemology by which we learn the truths of science is different and more robust than the epistemology which led to the type of explanations you are talking about.\n\nNow for purposes of discussing Gene Wolfe’s books, the balance tilts a little more in your direction compared to the study of the natural world. Nevertheless, the books describe a universe that, like our own, is under the rule of natural and permanent laws. The speed of light will be about the same in a million years, even if we can measure it more accurately. It was the same when it was first usefully measured in the seventeenth century, though Romer was out by about 20%." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "When I say there is no magic in the Sun books, I’m not talking about fakery, just saying \nthat it is the kind of universe that runs on natural rather than magical laws." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I tend to agree. But don't discount fakery. Wolfe doesn't, as Jerry's quote illustrates.\nIn our discussion on inhumi you expressed the belief that they really do achieve escape\nvelocity using muscles and survive for long periods in the void because Wolfe doesn't worry \nmuch about natural laws in his work. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "He doesn’t worry too much about accurate science. But natural laws are very important to him. It’s the sort of world he’s creating that matters, not the exact laws that are applicable.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF3A637.9030804@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-22T21:50:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote (22-12-2011 21:30):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "There’s a difference between science and the study of Zeus and witches\n(...)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In abstract and technical terms, yes, but not really in the people who\ncombine these terms with many other things in order to do real life work. \nMotivations, approaches, imagination, prejudice, outlooks, may have been \ntentatively epistemised, but not commoditised." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "David Duffy", "address": "david.duffy at qimr.edu.au" }, "date": "2011-12-22T22:56:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nGerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I don't think Wolfe talks much about souls as such. I'm not sure we \ncan flatly state that he is postulating that they are an entirely \nseparate thing from the mind and its connection to the universe." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "...but I think that talking about Lupine fiction, and _especially_ the\nBriah cycle, without seeing souls everywhere, is akin to Dr. Crane's\nexplanation of Silk's enlightenment as a cerebral accident." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It's pretty clear (to me at least) that Wolfe is very interested in souls, \nand how they can be consistent with modern neuroscience and \"strong AI\". \nThat is, answering questions like\n\nIf there is an immortal soul that underlies our personality and cognition, \nwhat happens to it when a brain injury causes a permanent change in \npersonality or thinking? What qualities persist despite drastic changes \nin the personality and thinking?\n\nIn split brain experiments, with competing sources of intentionality, are \nthere one or two souls?\n\nIf there are multiple souls present in the same individual (eg demonic \npossession, multiple personality disorder), how do they interact? Can \nthey merge?\n\nIf sufficiently advanced technology can replicate minds, are there \nassociated souls, and are they copies of the original?\n\nIf sufficiently advanced technology can design, control, engineer minds, \nwhat happens to the soul?\n\nWolfe has played with various answers to all these questions in different \nstories. Broadly, his type of soul continues to make choices in \nthose domains where it is free to do so, but those domains might be \nextremely narrowed eg Piaton [who is possessed, in every sense], Sand [who \ncannot choose to reject orders, but can think freely about other matters].\n\n\nCheers, David Duffy." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF3CAE7.4050705@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-23T00:27:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/22/2011 5:56 PM, David Duffy wrote:\nOn Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I don't think Wolfe talks much about souls as such. I'm not sure we \ncan flatly state that he is postulating that they are an entirely \nseparate thing from the mind and its connection to the universe." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "...but I think that talking about Lupine fiction, and _especially_ the\nBriah cycle, without seeing souls everywhere, is akin to Dr. Crane's\nexplanation of Silk's enlightenment as a cerebral accident." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It's pretty clear (to me at least) that Wolfe is very interested in \nsouls, and how they can be consistent with modern neuroscience and \n\"strong AI\". That is, answering questions like\n\nIf there is an immortal soul that underlies our personality and \ncognition, what happens to it when a brain injury causes a permanent \nchange in personality or thinking? What qualities persist despite \ndrastic changes in the personality and thinking?\n\nIn split brain experiments, with competing sources of intentionality, \nare there one or two souls?\n\nIf there are multiple souls present in the same individual (eg demonic \npossession, multiple personality disorder), how do they interact? Can \nthey merge?\n\nIf sufficiently advanced technology can replicate minds, are there \nassociated souls, and are they copies of the original?\n\nIf sufficiently advanced technology can design, control, engineer \nminds, what happens to the soul?\n\nWolfe has played with various answers to all these questions in \ndifferent stories. Broadly, his type of soul continues to make \nchoices in those domains where it is free to do so, but those domains \nmight be extremely narrowed eg Piaton [who is possessed, in every \nsense], Sand [who cannot choose to reject orders, but can think freely \nabout other matters]." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Also the replication of bodies via cloning." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF406A9.1070206@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2011-12-23T04:42:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/22/2011 3:01 PM, Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Jeff Wilson: Severian perceives that he is being zapped by the twin hemispheres of\nDecuman's brain in a way that illuminates him but also imposes a particular depressive\nemotion that saps his will to continue in the contest. This is apparently direct brain\nto brain coersion." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But IIRC, Decuman is humming and chanting the whole time. I think this might be the\n\"hypnotism\" Wolfe mentions in Jerry's quote." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Doubtless it serves several purposes, like keeping the subject's \nattention on the coercer, coordinating different parts of the coercer's \nbrain, keeping the other sorcerers informed of his progress, etc." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF414CF.3000700@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2011-12-23T05:42:39+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/22/2011 2:20 PM, Lee Berman wrote:\nI hope you won't try the argument that Zeus' thunderbolts and witches crop hexings was\nfake while sub-atomic physics and neurosurgery are real. Ancient experts predicted\nthunderstorms and crop failures and they were usually right and came to be believed.\nYou have never seen an electron and you have not done original research on the subject.\nElectricity seems to work so you believe the experts who tell you how it works. Same for\nbrain surgery when you submit to the knife. Belief in science and technology is fully a\nmatter of faith as much as mythology/religion." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You're overlooking reproducible results. Preindustrial crop hexings are \nnot reproducible by witches, while electrons are tamed well enough that \nwe can reproduce Zeus-strength lightning as necessary and prevent it \nfrom striking houses when it occurs naturally." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF462C8.909@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-23T11:15:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF414CF.3000700@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson wrote (23-12-2011 05:42):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/22/2011 2:20 PM, Lee Berman wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I hope you won't try the argument that Zeus' thunderbolts and witches\ncrop hexings was fake while sub-atomic physics and neurosurgery are\nreal. Ancient experts predicted thunderstorms and crop failures and\nthey were usually right and came to be believed. You have never seen an\nelectron and you have not done original research on the subject.\nElectricity seems to work so you believe the experts who tell you how\nit works. Same for brain surgery when you submit to the knife. Belief\nin science and technology is fully a matter of faith as much as\nmythology/religion." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You're overlooking reproducible results. Preindustrial crop hexings are\nnot reproducible by witches, while electrons are tamed well enough that\nwe can reproduce Zeus-strength lightning as necessary and prevent it from\nstriking houses when it occurs naturally." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It may be so, but we could do much of that with classical science. 'Our \nTheory of Gravitation is as good as perfect', ironical or not, was written \nin the first half of the 19th century. 'We' got to the Moon without the \nfancy computers and mobile communications of today. Current science may be \nimpresssive in comparison to that of just a few decades ago, but it doesn't \nfollow that it has a technological import of the same magnitude. At the end \nof the day, it works better than praying to Zeus, but so does Classical \nPhysiscs. For the common man, it's a matter of having access to services. \nThis is a matter in which I find myself in complete agreement with Lee - \n'[y]ou have never seen an electron and you have not done original research \non the subject', '[e]lectricity seems to work so you believe the experts who \ntell you how it works' express very well my own view on the subject. The \nonly thing missing - unless it was there but you haven't quoted it - is ... \nafter a 2 hour break for a meeting, I don't remember anymore what it was \nthat I thought was worth mentioning here, only that it was worth it." } ] }, { "message_id": "<6850562C3B1A4D9BA2DED54E5910C581@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-23T13:44:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF462C8.909@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Ant?nio Pedro Marques \n\nJeff Wilson wrote (23-12-2011 05:42):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "You're overlooking reproducible results. Preindustrial crop hexings are\nnot reproducible by witches, while electrons are tamed well enough that\nwe can reproduce Zeus-strength lightning as necessary and prevent it from\nstriking houses when it occurs naturally." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It may be so, but we could do much of that with classical science. 'Our \nTheory of Gravitation is as good as perfect', ironical or not, was written \nin the first half of the 19th century. 'We' got to the Moon without the \nfancy computers and mobile communications of today. Current science may be \nimpresssive in comparison to that of just a few decades ago, but it doesn't \nfollow that it has a technological import of the same magnitude. At the end \nof the day, it works better than praying to Zeus, but so does Classical \nPhysiscs. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, but classical physics *is* part of modern science. Our understanding is deeper now, but we still use Newtonian gravity over 99% of the time because the equations are simpler and it’s more than accurate enough for most purposes. The same applies to Newtonian dynamics; 99% of the time you don’t have to care about relativistic mass increase with velocity. A million years from now, Newtonian gravity will still be applicable if there are humans on Earth. [Newton himself knew, by the way, that his theory wasn’t quite there — he accepted instantaneous action at a distance most reluctantly because he could find no way around it. That’s been fixed now, though general relativity is still under persistent challenge (even special relativity is under an unusual degree of challenge at the moment from these neutrino experiments). If GR is superseded, it will still be useful in many domains though, because it’s a safe bet that the equations of the more accurate theory will be even harder.]\nZeus and witches are an entirely different kettle of fish." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "For the common man, it's a matter of having access to services. \nThis is a matter in which I find myself in complete agreement with Lee - \n'[y]ou have never seen an electron and you have not done original research \non the subject', '[e]lectricity seems to work so you believe the experts who \ntell you how it works' express very well my own view on the subject." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The experts don’t just tell me how it works, they produce extensive and consistent mathematical models covering a wide range of domains and invite me to pick holes in them, or carry out any experiment that might invalidate them. \nLee is spouting a tired old argument which uses cultural relativism to assail all notions of objective truth.\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-23T14:10:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<6850562C3B1A4D9BA2DED54E5910C581@Rover>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn: Sorry, but that is incorrect. The epistemology by which we \nlearn the truths of science is different and more robust than the epistemology \nwhich led to the type of explanations you are talking about." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nSo you say. An understandable sentiment of faith from a believer of the religion\nof science. Likewise believers in other modern religions often think their own\ncurrent belief in God is light years more advanced than the religion of the ancient \nGreeks. Gene Wolfe explicitly disagrees.\n \nI am only suggesting that in 3-4000 years, humans may be doing something to understand\nthe universe which is so advanced it lumps our modern science and ancient religion into \nthe same category. (of course even that new tool will be subject to the limitations of \nthe human and human-created minds)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "He (Gene Wolfe) doesn’t worry too much about accurate science. But natural laws are very \nimportant to him." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nThis sounds like a contradiction to me. Anyway, the example of the inhumi really achieving\nescape velocity by using flaps of skin and flying unprotected through space seems to violate\nnumerous natural laws of physics and biology. Until we have seen them do it, Inhumi lying is \nthe parsimonious explanation. I think Wolfe believes in lying a lot more than he believes in\nflying reptiles in the void." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "There’s a difference between science and the study of Zeus and witches" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Antonio Pedro Marques: In abstract and technical terms, yes, but not really in the people who\ncombine these terms with many other things in order to do real life work." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jeff Wilson: You're overlooking reproducible results. Preindustrial crop hexings are \nnot reproducible by witches, while electrons are tamed well enough that we can reproduce \nZeus-strength lightning as necessary and prevent it from striking houses when it occurs naturally." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI don't overlook or discount reproducible results. They are a human thing to want. But ancient\nreligions were based on it also. Do something to anger Zeus and within a few months you'll get\na thunderstorm. You might have to wait a few years after angering a witch but you'll eventually\nget your crop failure also.\n \nScience currently rules much of the faith and beliefs of humanity because the reproducible results\nare faster and more accurate than superstition. But they are not perfect. Lightning still strikes\nunpredictably. Disease and earthquakes and famine also. When a more perfect system of predicting and\ncontrolling these events is invented, science will be dropped like Zeus worship was.\n \nIn my (and perhaps Antonio's) view, math and science are human tools created by humans and subject to\nall the error and fallibility of the human brain. I know some people, perhaps some here, feel that math\nand science transcend humanity and are above it, creating a window to a higher, universal truth.\n \nI think this is more evidence that science and religion are very much the same. Priests and scientists\nboth feel they are in touch with a superhuman truth, which is sometimes worn as mantle of superiority \nabove those not privy to knowledge found in holy or scientific scriptures. But at the end of the day,\nwe are all, even scientists and priests, just a bunch of guys trying to get some food, stay comfortable,\nand in our spare time, make a little sense of the world. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF48E8C.2000102@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-23T14:22:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 12/23/2011 9:10 AM, Lee Berman wrote:\nJeff Wilson: You're overlooking reproducible results. Preindustrial crop hexings are\nnot reproducible by witches, while electrons are tamed well enough that we can reproduce\nZeus-strength lightning as necessary and prevent it from striking houses when it occurs naturally." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't overlook or discount reproducible results. They are a human thing to want. But ancient\nreligions were based on it also. Do something to anger Zeus and within a few months you'll get\na thunderstorm. You might have to wait a few years after angering a witch but you'll eventually\nget your crop failure also." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Nothing is more reproducible than witchcraft or God. Look at all the \ndamage homosexuals have done to the tornado/hurricane belt by angering him.\n\nIn the real world, I don;t find myself making this point often. But in \nfiction, the necessary suspension of disbelief does a lot of work to put \nscience and \"magic\" on an equal footing. If the proper formulas are \nfollowed, as in my example regarding hyperdrives, then the appropriate \nauthority is invoked and the narrative may proceed." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF495C8.90405@hyraxes.com>", "from": { "name": "Dave Lebling", "address": "dlebling at hyraxes.com" }, "date": "2011-12-23T14:52:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<6850562C3B1A4D9BA2DED54E5910C581@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "http://blogearth.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/electron-filmed-for-the-first-time/\n\nI have seen a photo of an electron. The link above is one of many that \nwill enable you to see one for yourself.\n\n-- Dave Lebling" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/23/2011 8:44 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n*From:* Ant?nio Pedro Marques \nJeff Wilson wrote (23-12-2011 05:42):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "You're overlooking reproducible results. Preindustrial crop \nhexings are\nnot reproducible by witches, while electrons are tamed well enough \nthat\nwe can reproduce Zeus-strength lightning as necessary and prevent \nit from\nstriking houses when it occurs naturally." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "It may be so, but we could do much of that with classical science. 'Our\nTheory of Gravitation is as good as perfect', ironical or not, was \nwritten\nin the first half of the 19th century. 'We' got to the Moon without the\nfancy computers and mobile communications of today. Current science \nmay be\nimpresssive in comparison to that of just a few decades ago, but it \ndoesn't\nfollow that it has a technological import of the same magnitude. At \nthe end\nof the day, it works better than praying to Zeus, but so does Classical\nPhysiscs." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yes, but classical physics *is* part of modern science. Our \nunderstanding is deeper now, but we still use Newtonian gravity over \n99% of the time because the equations are simpler and it's more than \naccurate enough for most purposes. The same applies to Newtonian \ndynamics; 99% of the time you don't have to care about relativistic \nmass increase with velocity. A million years from now, Newtonian \ngravity will still be applicable if there are humans on Earth. \n[Newton himself knew, by the way, that his theory wasn't quite there \n-- he accepted instantaneous action at a distance most reluctantly \nbecause he could find no way around it. That's been fixed now, though \ngeneral relativity is still under persistent challenge (even special \nrelativity is under an unusual degree of challenge at the moment from \nthese neutrino experiments). If GR is superseded, it will still be \nuseful in many domains though, because it's a safe bet that the \nequations of the more accurate theory will be even harder.]\nZeus and witches are an entirely different kettle of fish." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "For the common man, it's a matter of having access to services.\nThis is a matter in which I find myself in complete agreement with \nLee -\n'[y]ou have never seen an electron and you have not done original \nresearch\non the subject', '[e]lectricity seems to work so you believe the \nexperts who\ntell you how it works' express very well my own view on the subject." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The experts don't just tell me how it works, they produce extensive \nand consistent mathematical models covering a wide range of domains \nand invite me to pick holes in them, or carry out any experiment that \nmight invalidate them.\nLee is spouting a tired old argument which uses cultural relativism to \nassail all notions of objective truth.\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF496B3.7030604@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-23T14:56:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF495C8.90405@hyraxes.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/23/2011 9:52 AM, Dave Lebling wrote:\nhttp://blogearth.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/electron-filmed-for-the-first-time/\n\nI have seen a photo of an electron. The link above is one of many that \nwill enable you to see one for yourself.\n\n-- Dave Lebling" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm not usually playing advocate for this particular devil, but (a) \nvideos can be faked and (b) we have all seen Jesus and Mary on a potato \nchip. Get back, Satan!\n\nThe funny thing here is that, to most people, SF fans are *more* \ngullible than the common run of humanity, not *less.* Go figure." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF49B4F.3060806@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-23T15:16:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<6850562C3B1A4D9BA2DED54E5910C581@Rover>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Gerry Quinn wrote (23-12-2011 13:44):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "*From:* Ant?nio Pedro Marques \nJeff Wilson wrote (23-12-2011 05:42):\n\n > > You're overlooking reproducible results. Preindustrial crop hexings are\n > > not reproducible by witches, while electrons are tamed well enough that\n > > we can reproduce Zeus-strength lightning as necessary and prevent it from\n > > striking houses when it occurs naturally.\n\n > It may be so, but we could do much of that with classical science. 'Our\n > Theory of Gravitation is as good as perfect', ironical or not, was written\n > in the first half of the 19th century. 'We' got to the Moon without the\n > fancy computers and mobile communications of today. Current science may be\n > impresssive in comparison to that of just a few decades ago, but it doesn't\n > follow that it has a technological import of the same magnitude. At the end\n > of the day, it works better than praying to Zeus, but so does Classical\n > Physiscs.\n\nYes, but classical physics *is* part of modern science. Our understanding is\ndeeper now, but we still use Newtonian gravity over 99% of the time because\nthe equations are simpler and it’s more than accurate enough for most\npurposes (...)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What we use doesn't matter, because this discussion is about how things \n_really_ are. Classical Physics is very at odds with Current Science in \nrespect to how the Universe works. This discussion is about giving credence \nto explanations of the Universe, and Jeff pointed out the usefulness of a \ngiven explanation is the criterion for credibility. The criterion works \npsychologically, but not scientifically, so it actually supports rather than \nnegates Lee's original assertion that people function by belief." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " > For the common man, it's a matter of having access to services.\n > This is a matter in which I find myself in complete agreement with Lee -\n > '[y]ou have never seen an electron and you have not done original research\n > on the subject', '[e]lectricity seems to work so you believe the experts who\n > tell you how it works' express very well my own view on the subject.\nThe experts don’t just tell me how it works, they produce extensive and\nconsistent mathematical models covering a wide range of domains and invite\nme to pick holes in them, or carry out any experiment that might invalidate\nthem." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And since you don't, you _believe_ they are correct. Unless you _do_, and \nthen you are not merely a believer _in that domain_." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Lee is spouting a tired old argument which uses cultural relativism to\nassail all notions of objective truth." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Such an argument, tired and old or not, may exist somewhere, but that's not \nwhat's being discussed here." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF49D3C.4090605@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-23T15:24:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF495C8.90405@hyraxes.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Dave Lebling wrote (23-12-2011 14:52):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "http://blogearth.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/electron-filmed-for-the-first-time/\n\nI have seen a photo of an electron. The link above is one of many that will\nenable you to see one for yourself." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No, you haven't seen a photo of an electron, nor will the link above allow \nyou to." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-23T15:32:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF49D3C.4090605@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/23/2011 9:52 AM, Dave Lebling wrote:\nhttp://blogearth.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/electron-filmed-for-the-first-time/\n\nI have seen a photo of an electron. The link above is one of many that \nwill enable you to see one for yourself." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Stockhoff: I'm not usually playing advocate for this particular devil, but (a) \nvideos can be faked and (b) we have all seen Jesus and Mary on a potato \nchip. Get back, Satan!" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Heh, yep. Not to detract from the coolness of Dave's link! It is on a par with that\nphoto spelling of \"IBM\" with atoms. \n \nBut I think it is an important part of retaining our essential humanity to remember that \nDave's link is not \"seeing an electron\" but rather seeing a photo of an electron. A photo \nwhich, even with the best intentions of veracity has been enhanced so that human eyes may \nperceive the image in a way which makes sense to our brains.\n \nRemembering that we cannot see an electron is, to me, a way of retaining a sense of our\nessential humanity. Tools such as nanotechnology, math and science do not show us \"reality\".\nWhat they do is bend and distort reality, whatever that may be, so that we may perceive it \nby our limited human facilities." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The funny thing here is that, to most people, SF fans are *more* \ngullible than the common run of humanity, not *less.* Go figure." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nThat is funny. I had a short stint in the world of professional sales and some things I noticed\nabout the top salesmen are: 1. They are very nice, good people. 2. They are liars, often without\nbeing conscious of it in the moment. 3. They are highly susceptible to the lies of other salesmen.\nSo many times those fat commission checks were blown on the dumbest scams. Later met with a shrug \nof the shoulders and \"hey, that's business\".\n \nAcademicians (in science and other fields) are stereotypically proud of their ability to reject the \nillusions of religion which entrance the populace, but are often susceptible to the pitfalls of their \nown professional beliefs. Not a surprise that academicians often divide into rival camps which operate\nmuch like religious sects. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF4A01C.9070008@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-23T15:37:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/23/2011 10:32 AM, Lee Berman wrote:\nWhat they do is bend and distort reality, whatever that may be, so that we may perceive it\nby our limited human facilities." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ooh, that almost sounds like it could be applied to theology!" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF4A467.6080908@hyraxes.com>", "from": { "name": "Dave Lebling", "address": "dlebling at hyraxes.com" }, "date": "2011-12-23T15:55:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF49D3C.4090605@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm curious what you think I (and you, if you followed the link) have \nseen, then. Stockhoff's response, puerile as it is, is at least \ncomprehensible.\n\nDave Lebling" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/23/2011 10:24 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:\nDave Lebling wrote (23-12-2011 14:52):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "http://blogearth.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/electron-filmed-for-the-first-time/ \n\n\nI have seen a photo of an electron. The link above is one of many \nthat will\nenable you to see one for yourself." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "No, you haven't seen a photo of an electron, nor will the link above \nallow you to.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF4A87C.3010104@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-23T16:12:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF4A467.6080908@hyraxes.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ah, the online slinging of insults without the slightest attempt at \neither comprehension or explanation. It must be Christmas!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/23/2011 10:55 AM, Dave Lebling wrote:\nI'm curious what you think I (and you, if you followed the link) have \nseen, then. Stockhoff's response, puerile as it is, is at least \ncomprehensible.\n\nDave Lebling\n\nOn 12/23/2011 10:24 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Dave Lebling wrote (23-12-2011 14:52):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "http://blogearth.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/electron-filmed-for-the-first-time/ \n\n\nI have seen a photo of an electron. The link above is one of many \nthat will\nenable you to see one for yourself." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "No, you haven't seen a photo of an electron, nor will the link above \nallow you to.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF4AA10.6070503@hyraxes.com>", "from": { "name": "Dave Lebling", "address": "dlebling at hyraxes.com" }, "date": "2011-12-23T16:19:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually it is much more impressive. The \"IBM\" photo created by using a \nscanning tunneling electron microscope to move xenon atoms around on a \nmetal substrate is about 30 years old. A xenon atom is on the order of \n100 picometres (10 ^ -12 metres) in size (I don't know the number \nexactly). An electron is at least 1000 and possibly even 1,000,000 times \nsmaller. In fact, there is really no reason to believe electrons have \nany sort of small hard point-mass type existence at all. If they do it \nis smaller than 10 ^ -18 metres.\n\nSo, imaging an electron is a significantly harder thing than imaging an \narray of xenon atoms.\n\nAs to the second point, Plato's Cave is an old and well-worn thing. \nEverything we see is \"enhanced\" so that the human brain can construct an \nimage. This happens in the eyes first, and continues in the visual \ncortex. Does anyone on the list doubt the reality of telescopic images \nbecause they have been \"enhanced\"?\n\nTo get back to the topic of Wolfe, he is clearly an engineer (and \n\"scientist\" in the lay sense) who also happens to believe in God (though \nin a heretical way, or so he says). Some on the list seem to be arguing \nthat science is useless or on a par with religious belief in terms of \nprovability. I doubt Wolfe would agree. Science is provable, religion is \nall about faith: believing the unprovable. In tBotLS, Silk repeatedly \nwrestles with the idea that his enlightenment might have been a brain \naneurysm rather than a true revelation. He ultimately decides that it \ndoesn't matter.\n\nDave Lebling" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/23/2011 10:32 AM, Lee Berman wrote:\nHeh, yep. Not to detract from the coolness of Dave's link! It is on a par with that\nphoto spelling of \"IBM\" with atoms.\n\nBut I think it is an important part of retaining our essential humanity to remember that\nDave's link is not \"seeing an electron\" but rather seeing a photo of an electron. A photo\nwhich, even with the best intentions of veracity has been enhanced so that human eyes may\nperceive the image in a way which makes sense to our brains." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF4ABBE.80006@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-23T16:26:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF4A467.6080908@hyraxes.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Dave Lebling wrote (23-12-2011 15:55):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm curious what you think I (and you, if you followed the link) have \nseen, then. Stockhoff's response, puerile as it is, is at least \ncomprehensible." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "My reply is perfectly comprehensible, even if it may not be explanatory.\nWhat you and everyone else have seen who followed the link is a 'video' of \nconcentric bluish circles. Through _belief_ in Science and its round shape, \nyou accepted the description of it as a photo of an electron. However, it is \nnot one. If it really is true, it's a rendering of the difraction caused on \na stream of photons by the successive electron ionisation events. But that \nis not a photo as is commonly understood, which involves reflection, nor of \n'an electron', nor is it a photo in a sense that would constitue autonomous \nevidence for the reality of electrons, though it may be corroborating of the \nmodel. Images of electrons, as the term 'image' is understood, are not \npossible, if they were there'd be something seriously wrong with the \nStandard Model. Electrons aren't little rubber balls." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/23/2011 10:24 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Dave Lebling wrote (23-12-2011 14:52):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "http://blogearth.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/electron-filmed-for-the-first-time/ \n\n\nI have seen a photo of an electron. The link above is one of many that will\nenable you to see one for yourself." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "No, you haven't seen a photo of an electron, nor will the link above \nallow you to.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF4AC39.70005@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-23T16:28:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF4AA10.6070503@hyraxes.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Dave Lebling wrote (23-12-2011 16:19):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Some on the list seem to be arguing that science is useless or on a par \nwith religious belief in terms of provability." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Some of the Lee's recent statements I've seen look a bit like that, but they \nwere made in a context." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF4ADCB.4080503@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-23T16:35:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF4AA10.6070503@hyraxes.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/23/2011 11:19 AM, Dave Lebling wrote:\nSome on the list seem to be arguing that science is useless or on a \npar with religious belief in terms of provability." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm not sure anyone is actually arguing this, nor that the topic under \ndiscussion actually extends beyond the realm of fiction to the real \nworld. I can follow the work of scientists, as I do, and still be a \nbeliever in God, or not, and I can trust the science for the wrong \nreasons as well as for the right ones. What is interesting is that the \nstandards of proof in science can change---as indeed they should and \nmust. What was proven 2 decades ago may not be proven today. So some \ndegree of faith is needed to accept proof, especially to accept it \nwithout any doubt.\n\nAs for the distinction between scientific proof and religious faith, \nobviously I see it much the way you do and I don't see the two domains \nas in direct conflict. But I have spoken to supposedly religious people \n(Prot fundies) who have told me the existence (and superiority to all \nothers) of God was proven. They were confused, but clearly \"faith in the \nunprovable\" and \"proof\" can be *functionally* interchangeable in the \nhuman mind, however contradictory they plainly are. If you can't \ntolerate doubt, either source of authority will serve. That's what Lee's \non about." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF4AE41.5010302@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-23T16:37:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF4AA10.6070503@hyraxes.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Dave Lebling wrote (23-12-2011 16:19):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As to the second point, Plato's Cave is an old and well-worn thing.\nEverything we see is \"enhanced\" so that the human brain can construct an\nimage. This happens in the eyes first, and continues in the visual\ncortex. Does anyone on the list doubt the reality of telescopic images\nbecause they have been \"enhanced\"?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It all depends on degree. Like interpretation of Scripture, beyond a point, \nenhancement is just superimposing your paradigm on the data.\n\nLee's 'photo' idiom is quite clear - something which is as close to \nimmediately understandable raw data as possible. In the case of subatomic \nparticules, nothing close to raw data is immediately understandable, since \nthey are more than order of magnitude away from us." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF4AEAF.6070605@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-23T16:39:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF4ADCB.4080503@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "David Stockhoff wrote (23-12-2011 16:35):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If you can't tolerate doubt, either source of authority will serve.\nThat's what Lee's on about." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And authority is what so many people are looking for. Those aren't usually \nthe people who contribute." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF4B5C2.3080400@irit.fr>", "from": { "name": "Sergei SOLOVIEV", "address": "soloviev at irit.fr" }, "date": "2011-12-23T17:09:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF495C8.90405@hyraxes.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You should not trust so much journalists, even scientific. Once I've \nseen a picture of a sort of orange solar disk\nand a smaller black disk crossing it - with the title \"an exoplanet \nphotographed. This was rubbish, because\nno telescope is powerful enough to make a star (except our Sun) visible \nas a disk, not to speak about\nan exoplanet. It was just a reconstruction (star is dimmer when the \nplanet passes before it). And when they\nwrite \"a photo of an electron\" - what is it? The trace of some process \non photographic film, usually\nwith many intermediate steps and a lot of mathematical formulas and \nnuclear physics to convince\nyou that it is related to an electron. Like they photograph flashes of \nlight in big tank of pure water\nunderground and they say that they photograph neitrinos (and you have to \nbelieve).\n\nregards\n\nSergei Soloviev" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dave Lebling wrote:\nhttp://blogearth.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/electron-filmed-for-the-first-time/\n\nI have seen a photo of an electron. The link above is one of many that \nwill enable you to see one for yourself.\n\n-- Dave Lebling\n\nOn 12/23/2011 8:44 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "*From:* Ant?nio Pedro Marques \nJeff Wilson wrote (23-12-2011 05:42):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "You're overlooking reproducible results. Preindustrial crop \nhexings are\nnot reproducible by witches, while electrons are tamed well \nenough that\nwe can reproduce Zeus-strength lightning as necessary and prevent \nit from\nstriking houses when it occurs naturally." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "It may be so, but we could do much of that with classical science. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "'Our\nTheory of Gravitation is as good as perfect', ironical or not, was \nwritten\nin the first half of the 19th century. 'We' got to the Moon without \nthe\nfancy computers and mobile communications of today. Current science \nmay be\nimpresssive in comparison to that of just a few decades ago, but it \ndoesn't\nfollow that it has a technological import of the same magnitude. At \nthe end\nof the day, it works better than praying to Zeus, but so does \nClassical\nPhysiscs.\nYes, but classical physics *is* part of modern science. Our \nunderstanding is deeper now, but we still use Newtonian gravity over \n99% of the time because the equations are simpler and it’s more than \naccurate enough for most purposes. The same applies to Newtonian \ndynamics; 99% of the time you don’t have to care about relativistic \nmass increase with velocity. A million years from now, Newtonian \ngravity will still be applicable if there are humans on Earth. \n[Newton himself knew, by the way, that his theory wasn’t quite there \n? he accepted instantaneous action at a distance most reluctantly \nbecause he could find no way around it. That’s been fixed now, though \ngeneral relativity is still under persistent challenge (even special \nrelativity is under an unusual degree of challenge at the moment from \nthese neutrino experiments). If GR is superseded, it will still be \nuseful in many domains though, because it’s a safe bet that the \nequations of the more accurate theory will be even harder.]\nZeus and witches are an entirely different kettle of fish." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "For the common man, it's a matter of having access to services.\nThis is a matter in which I find myself in complete agreement with \nLee -\n'[y]ou have never seen an electron and you have not done original \nresearch\non the subject', '[e]lectricity seems to work so you believe the \nexperts who\ntell you how it works' express very well my own view on the subject." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The experts don’t just tell me how it works, they produce extensive \nand consistent mathematical models covering a wide range of domains \nand invite me to pick holes in them, or carry out any experiment that \nmight invalidate them.\nLee is spouting a tired old argument which uses cultural relativism \nto assail all notions of objective truth.\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF4B78E.9050802@irit.fr>", "from": { "name": "Sergei SOLOVIEV", "address": "soloviev at irit.fr" }, "date": "2011-12-23T17:17:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF4A87C.3010104@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Merry Christmas!\n\n(About New Sun - recently I had on my car radio a \"spiritual\" - \"Jesus \nshine on me\" ... )\n\nSergei Soloviev" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Stockhoff wrote:\nAh, the online slinging of insults without the slightest attempt at \neither comprehension or explanation. It must be Christmas!\n\nOn 12/23/2011 10:55 AM, Dave Lebling wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I'm curious what you think I (and you, if you followed the link) have \nseen, then. Stockhoff's response, puerile as it is, is at least \ncomprehensible.\n\nDave Lebling\n\nOn 12/23/2011 10:24 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Dave Lebling wrote (23-12-2011 14:52):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "http://blogearth.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/electron-filmed-for-the-first-time/ \n\n\nI have seen a photo of an electron. The link above is one of many \nthat will\nenable you to see one for yourself." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "No, you haven't seen a photo of an electron, nor will the link above \nallow you to.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF4BA11.1030302@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-23T17:27:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF4AEAF.6070605@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote (23-12-2011 16:39):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Stockhoff wrote (23-12-2011 16:35):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "If you can't tolerate doubt, either source of authority will serve.\nThat's what Lee's on about." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And authority is what so many people are looking for. Those aren't usually\nthe people who contribute." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "...contribute to Humankind, not the list, of course." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1324662522.67225.YahooMailClassic@web161802.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-12-23T17:48:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF4ADCB.4080503@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- On Fri, 12/23/11, David Stockhoff wrote:\nFrom: David Stockhoff \nSubject: Re: (urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nDate: Friday, December 23, 2011, 8:35 AM\nOn 12/23/2011 11:19 AM, Dave Lebling\nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Some on the list seem to be arguing that science is\nuseless or on a par with religious belief in terms of\nprovability." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm not sure anyone is actually arguing this, nor that the\ntopic under discussion actually extends beyond the realm of\nfiction to the real world. I can follow the work of\nscientists, as I do, and still be a believer in God, or not,\nand I can trust the science for the wrong reasons as well as\nfor the right ones. What is interesting is that the\nstandards of proof in science can change---as indeed they\nshould and must. What was proven 2 decades ago may not be\nproven today. So some degree of faith is needed to accept\nproof, especially to accept it without any doubt.\n\nAs for the distinction between scientific proof and\nreligious faith, obviously I see it much the way you do and\nI don't see the two domains as in direct conflict. But I\nhave? spoken to supposedly religious people (Prot\nfundies) who have told me the existence (and superiority to\nall others) of God was proven. They were confused, but\nclearly \"faith in the unprovable\" and \"proof\" can be\n*functionally* interchangeable in the human mind, however\ncontradictory they plainly are. If you can't tolerate doubt,\neither source of authority will serve. That's what Lee's on\nabout." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And I, at times a scientist, (biochemistry degree but not a practicing scientist now), a narcissist, and a Catholic, have no problem with OBJECTIVE ABSOLUTES. I am that most awful of creatures: one who believes the evidence of his senses, and when those senses encounter a mirror, see a being so profoundly perfect that an eternal all powerful unlimited God must have existed to have made something like this.\n\nThe ancient Greek mathematician Eratosthenes who predicted the size of the spherical earth and the distance to the sun based on shadows in a well was using what he could to come to correct conclusions when thousands of years of incorrect thought would follow him. But he was using scientific practice and his approximations were GOOD. There is a bottom to get to, and reproducibility is key. Thus I, who believe God set everything in motion but allowed the freedom of that creation, would never deny evolution, when on a small scale with simple organisms it can be reproduced in a lab. So I believe in the inifinite wisdom of man to get to the bottom of things completely accurately and in the absolute power of God to never be limited by words on a page." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF4C0AA.4090904@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-23T17:55:54+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF4AEAF.6070605@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/23/2011 11:39 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:\nDavid Stockhoff wrote (23-12-2011 16:35):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "If you can't tolerate doubt, either source of authority will serve.\nThat's what Lee's on about." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And authority is what so many people are looking for. Those aren't \nusually the people who contribute." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "To this list? No, with exceptions." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF4C0E0.6000409@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-23T17:56:48+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF4BA11.1030302@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/23/2011 12:27 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:\nAnt?nio Pedro Marques wrote (23-12-2011 16:39):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "David Stockhoff wrote (23-12-2011 16:35):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "If you can't tolerate doubt, either source of authority will serve.\nThat's what Lee's on about." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "And authority is what so many people are looking for. Those aren't \nusually\nthe people who contribute." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "...contribute to Humankind, not the list, of course." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "OH! Thanks for the clarification." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF4C2F0.4010800@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-12-23T18:05:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<1324662522.67225.YahooMailClassic@web161802.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/23/2011 12:48 PM, Marc Aramini wrote:\n\n--- On Fri, 12/23/11, David Stockhoff wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "From: David Stockhoff\nSubject: Re: (urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\"\nDate: Friday, December 23, 2011, 8:35 AM\nOn 12/23/2011 11:19 AM, Dave Lebling\nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Some on the list seem to be arguing that science is\nuseless or on a par with religious belief in terms of\nprovability." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I'm not sure anyone is actually arguing this, nor that the\ntopic under discussion actually extends beyond the realm of\nfiction to the real world. I can follow the work of\nscientists, as I do, and still be a believer in God, or not,\nand I can trust the science for the wrong reasons as well as\nfor the right ones. What is interesting is that the\nstandards of proof in science can change---as indeed they\nshould and must. What was proven 2 decades ago may not be\nproven today. So some degree of faith is needed to accept\nproof, especially to accept it without any doubt.\n\nAs for the distinction between scientific proof and\nreligious faith, obviously I see it much the way you do and\nI don't see the two domains as in direct conflict. But I\nhave spoken to supposedly religious people (Prot\nfundies) who have told me the existence (and superiority to\nall others) of God was proven. They were confused, but\nclearly \"faith in the unprovable\" and \"proof\" can be\n*functionally* interchangeable in the human mind, however\ncontradictory they plainly are. If you can't tolerate doubt,\neither source of authority will serve. That's what Lee's on\nabout." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And I, at times a scientist, (biochemistry degree but not a practicing scientist now), a narcissist, and a Catholic, have no problem with OBJECTIVE ABSOLUTES. I am that most awful of creatures: one who believes the evidence of his senses, and when those senses encounter a mirror, see a being so profoundly perfect that an eternal all powerful unlimited God must have existed to have made something like this.\n\nThe ancient Greek mathematician Eratosthenes who predicted the size of the spherical earth and the distance to the sun based on shadows in a well was using what he could to come to correct conclusions when thousands of years of incorrect thought would follow him. But he was using scientific practice and his approximations were GOOD. There is a bottom to get to, and reproducibility is key. Thus I, who believe God set everything in motion but allowed the freedom of that creation, would never deny evolution, when on a small scale with simple organisms it can be reproduced in a lab. So I believe in the inifinite wisdom of man to get to the bottom of things completely accurately and in the absolute power of God to never be limited by words on a page." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Man! What a piece of work.\n\n(Hamlet, Act II, Sc. 2)" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-23T18:58:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF4C2F0.4010800@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dave Lebling: So, imaging an electron is a significantly harder thing than imaging an \narray of xenon atoms." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nBut isn't the question more on whether it was harder to do that 30 years ago or image an\nelectron today? Anyway, I still think it is cool. But I temper the temptation to pride in\nthis accomplishment (\"Homo sapiens scientistensis- masters of the universe!\") with Antonio's\nreminder that electrons are not and cannot be round or blue. Our deficiencies created that\nimage. (and yes, many question the reality or \"truth\" of astronomical photo renditions)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "To get back to the topic of Wolfe, he is clearly an engineer (and \n\"scientist\" in the lay sense) who also happens to believe in God (though \nin a heretical way, or so he says). Some on the list seem to be arguing \nthat science is useless or on a par with religious belief in terms of \nprovability. I doubt Wolfe would agree. Science is provable, religion is \nall about faith: believing the unprovable. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nThis dichotomy of science and religion is a common one. I understand it. But for me, (my education\nand professional experience is in science) I am willing to take the further step of understanding \nscience with science. I don't accept the principles of science on faith. But many (most?) scientists\ndo. And I think there is a reason. It is difficult to maintain the drive of being a successful \nscientist in that competitive, dog-eat-dog world if you waste time doubting your own methods.\n \nWhat I mean is that most scientists are willing to recognize that religion works because it appeals \nto the human psyche. It gives people what they want. It makes them feel good about themselves and\ntheir place in the world. But who is willing to recognize that science operates on the same sort\nof appeal?\n \nWhy are \"hypothesis testing\" and \"replicable results\" and \"mathematical modelling\" so popular among\nscientists? Who decided these criteria constitute \"proof\"? Scientists did. And they did it for one\nbasic reason. Agreement on these things make scientists feel good about what they are doing; about \nthemselves and their place in the world. It just feels right to most scientists. There is no other \npossible reason. (is there?) \n \n[btw, rigorous application of scientific method involves disproof only. There is no \"proof\"]\n \nMy reading of Wolfe suggests that he is aware of the faith and feel-good component inherent in science.\nYou could be projecting your own philosophy on him. But so could I. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF4EEEC.8070706@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2011-12-23T21:13:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/23/2011 8:10 AM, Lee Berman wrote:\nIn my (and perhaps Antonio's) view, math and science are human tools created by humans and subject to\nall the error and fallibility of the human brain." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The scientific method and mathematical rigor are human behaviors that \nare used to discover and refine knowledge of abstract and objective \nconcepts, many of which are found in analagous physical processes that \nevidently continue independently of human agency. For example, circular \ncraters are observed on the surfaces of planets and satellites where \nhumans are simply not equipped to go, establishing the independence of \ncircular geometry from imperfect humanity." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't overlook or discount reproducible results. They are a human \nthing to want. But ancient\nreligions were based on it also. Do something to anger Zeus and \nwithin a few months you'll get\na thunderstorm. You might have to wait a few years after angering a \nwitch but you'll eventually\nget your crop failure also.\n\nScience currently rules much of the faith and beliefs of humanity \nbecause the reproducible results\nare faster and more accurate than superstition. But they are not \nperfect. Lightning still strikes\nunpredictably. Disease and earthquakes and famine also. When a more \nperfect system of predicting and\ncontrolling these events is invented, science will be dropped like " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Zeus worship was.\n\nYou have departed the land of rational thought freely and of your own \nwill. Good luck on your journey into magical thinking, and I look \nforward to your speedy return." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "David Duffy", "address": "david.duffy at qimr.edu.au" }, "date": "2011-12-23T23:45:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Lee Berman wrote:\nBut who is willing to recognize that science operates on the same sort\nof appeal \n[...as religion]? \n\nWhy are \"hypothesis testing\" and \"replicable results\" and \"mathematical modelling\" so popular among\nscientists? Who decided these criteria constitute \"proof\"? Scientists did. And they did it for one\nbasic reason. Agreement on these things make scientists feel good about what they are doing; about\nthemselves and their place in the world. It just feels right to most scientists. There is no other\npossible reason. (is there?)\n\n[btw, rigorous application of scientific method involves disproof only. There is no \"proof\"]" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The only problem with Popperian falsificationism is that it doesn't say \nanything about where the hypothesis that is being tested comes from - it \ndeals with experimental design, and with a bare-bones minimum of decision \nmaking after seeing the results. Sure, in one sense all scientific \nknowledge is contingent, but logical and mathematical consistency, and \ncoherence with all other currently accepted scientific bodies of \nobservation are all vital. In the Popperian framework, these properties \nare modelled as being a large number of failures to falsify (\"my \nhypothesis is not falsified by an inconsistency with the laws of \narithmetic\" ;)).\n\nMathematical modelling is \"popular\" because mathematics summarizes or \nabstracts what _is_. We don't have to have faith that \"2+2=4\": it \nis a simple tautology. We don't have arguments about this, \nand we don't bother designing experiments to falsify it. Sure, Newtonian \nand Einsteinian geometries are different, and we use experiments to decide \nwhich one best describes our universe, but each model is logically and \nmathematically internally consistent.\n\nAnd finally, replication shows you understand something, you can do it again.\nEven nonscientists like to be able to do the same thing twice and get the same\nresult.\n\nAnyway, these are not things I read Gene Wolfe for ;).\n\nCheers, David Duffy." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF518E3.8000805@hyraxes.com>", "from": { "name": "Dave Lebling", "address": "dlebling at hyraxes.com" }, "date": "2011-12-24T00:12:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No one suggests that any scientific \"proof\" is the case in any absolute \nsense. \"Proof\" means that if you tweak the universe in a certain way, it \nresponds in a particular predictable way. Scientists do this not because \nit \"feels good,\" but because if you have building blocks of \npredictability, you can create further and deeper edifices. Eventually \nyou come to the part you don't yet understand, and can attempt to move \non. The idea that scientists do this because it \"feels right\" \ntrivializes a lot of intense philosophical discussion about what makes \nscience work. To use an ugly phrase, it is \"methodological naturalism.\" \nThat is, predictable effects flow from observed causes. If you do X, \nthen Y happens.\n\nThus the \"possible reason\" is that if you understand some aspect of the \nuniverse, you can accurately predict its behavior. In the mundane world, \nthis leads to degrees, Nobel prizes, the approbation of their peers, \netc. In the intellectual world, this means that you know the microcode \nof the universe. The more we know of it, the less we need superstition \nand false enlightenment.\n\nDave L." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/23/2011 1:58 PM, Lee Berman wrote:\nWhy are \"hypothesis testing\" and \"replicable results\" and \"mathematical modelling\" so popular among\nscientists? Who decided these criteria constitute \"proof\"? Scientists did. And they did it for one\nbasic reason. Agreement on these things make scientists feel good about what they are doing; about\nthemselves and their place in the world. It just feels right to most scientists. There is no other\npossible reason. (is there?)" } ] }, { "message_id": "<0B385BC542F649CAAF4A286F702A837B@Rover>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2011-12-24T02:15:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<1324662522.67225.YahooMailClassic@web161802.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Marc Aramini \n\n\n\nThe ancient Greek mathematician Eratosthenes who predicted the size of the spherical earth and the distance to the sun based on shadows in a well was using what he could to come to correct conclusions when thousands of years of incorrect thought would follow him. But he was using scientific practice and his approximations were GOOD. There is a bottom to get to, and reproducibility is key. Thus I, who believe God set everything in motion but allowed the freedom of that creation, would never deny evolution, when on a small scale with simple organisms it can be reproduced in a lab. So I believe in the inifinite wisdom of man to get to the bottom of things completely accurately and in the absolute power of God to never be limited by words on a page.\n\nI was scanning this list tonight, I have no time to reply for some days. But I must say to this: well said, Marc!\n\nAnd Happy Christmas all.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF58D75.60506@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2011-12-24T08:29:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF4ABBE.80006@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/23/2011 10:26 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:\nBut that is not a photo as is commonly understood,\nwhich involves reflection, nor of 'an electron', nor is it a photo in a\nsense that would constitue autonomous evidence for the reality of\nelectrons, though it may be corroborating of the model." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "How are the sun and other luminous objects photographed then, sans \nrefelction?" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF58E84.9080208@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2011-12-24T08:34:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF49B4F.3060806@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/23/2011 9:16 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:\nThis discussion is about giving\ncredence to explanations of the Universe, and Jeff pointed out the\nusefulness of a given explanation is the criterion for credibility. The\ncriterion works psychologically, but not scientifically, so it actually\nsupports rather than negates Lee's original assertion that people\nfunction by belief." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think I was speaking about how credibility aids suspension of \ndisbelief in a given work of science fiction. Demonstated scientific \naccuracy greatly aids credibility, but it's totally optional: Wells \narticulated that his books were based on impossibilities, yet they are \nundeniably science fiction by the standards of their time as well as ours." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF59128.8040109@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2011-12-24T08:45:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF4B5C2.3080400@irit.fr>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/23/2011 11:09 AM, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote:\nYou should not trust so much journalists, even scientific. Once I've\nseen a picture of a sort of orange solar disk\nand a smaller black disk crossing it - with the title \"an exoplanet\nphotographed. This was rubbish, because\nno telescope is powerful enough to make a star (except our Sun) visible\nas a disk, not to speak about\nan exoplanet. It was just a reconstruction (star is dimmer when the\nplanet passes before it)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_detecting_extrasolar_planets#Direct_imaging" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And when they\nwrite \"a photo of an electron\" - what is it? The trace of some process\non photographic film, usually\nwith many intermediate steps and a lot of mathematical formulas and\nnuclear physics to convince\nyou that it is related to an electron. Like they photograph flashes of\nlight in big tank of pure water\nunderground and they say that they photograph neitrinos (and you have to\nbelieve)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Do you believe any images that you see on television are truly \nrepresentative? They also require many intermediate steps and \nmanipulation via mathematical formulas and electromagnetic physics to \nrelate them to the scene observed by those present.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_correction\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC#Color_encoding\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAL#PAL_signal_details\n\n\nCan you name an instrument that produces a photograph that you agree is \ntruly re3presentational?" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<8717182A-DA4F-4D2D-BC6D-F34A2B074301@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "entonio at gmail.com", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-24T10:11:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF58D75.60506@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No dia 24 de Dez de 2011, ?s 08:29, Jeff Wilson escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/23/2011 10:26 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But that is not a photo as is commonly understood,\nwhich involves reflection, nor of 'an electron', nor is it a photo in a\nsense that would constitue autonomous evidence for the reality of\nelectrons, though it may be corroborating of the model." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "How are the sun and other luminous objects photographed then, sans refelction?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That's grasping at straws and you know it." } ] }, { "message_id": "<53C9B3A7-385E-4AD4-9DB2-AD7AD4F25A5A@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "entonio at gmail.com", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-24T10:13:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF59128.8040109@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No dia 24 de Dez de 2011, ?s 08:45, Jeff Wilson escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/23/2011 11:09 AM, Sergei SOLOVIEV wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "You should not trust so much journalists, even scientific. Once I've\nseen a picture of a sort of orange solar disk\nand a smaller black disk crossing it - with the title \"an exoplanet\nphotographed. This was rubbish, because\nno telescope is powerful enough to make a star (except our Sun) visible\nas a disk, not to speak about\nan exoplanet. It was just a reconstruction (star is dimmer when the\nplanet passes before it)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_detecting_extrasolar_planets#Direct_imaging" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "And when they\nwrite \"a photo of an electron\" - what is it? The trace of some process\non photographic film, usually\nwith many intermediate steps and a lot of mathematical formulas and\nnuclear physics to convince\nyou that it is related to an electron. Like they photograph flashes of\nlight in big tank of pure water\nunderground and they say that they photograph neitrinos (and you have to\nbelieve)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Do you believe any images that you see on television are truly representative? They also require many intermediate steps and manipulation via mathematical formulas and electromagnetic physics to relate them to the scene observed by those present.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_correction\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC#Color_encoding\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAL#PAL_signal_details\n\n\nCan you name an instrument that produces a photograph that you agree is truly re3presentational?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I covered this with my 'understandable raw data' comments. " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "entonio at gmail.com", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-24T10:18:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF58E84.9080208@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No dia 24 de Dez de 2011, ?s 08:34, Jeff Wilson escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think I was speaking about how credibility aids suspension of disbelief in a given work of science fiction. Demonstated scientific accuracy greatly aids credibility," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But if the science is demonstrably accurate, where does said disbelief come from? Is it something like the rejection of technology by magic folks in _changeling_, where the guy to no avail claims that what he's doing is just like boiling water?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "but it's totally optional: Wells articulated that his books were based on impossibilities, yet they are undeniably science fiction by the standards of their time as well as ours." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sure thing. " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-24T13:25:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jeff Wilson: For example, circular craters are observed on the surfaces of " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "planets and satellites where humans are simply not equipped to go, establishing " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "the independence of circular geometry from imperfect humanity." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't see that. It is still a human being who is calling the crater circular.\n\nPeople see a crater as resembling a round bowl. An alien intelligence might find \n\nnothing in common between these objects." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Duffy: The only problem with Popperian falsificationism is that it doesn't say \nanything about where the hypothesis that is being tested comes from." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nI agree. The hypothesis came from a person's guess, hunch, intuition or whatever. In his\n\nquest for establishing an objective process for science, Karl couldn't fully eliminate the\n\nhuman factor." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Mathematical modelling is \"popular\" because mathematics summarizes or abstracts what _is_. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "We don't have to have faith that \"2+2=4\": it is a simple tautology. We don't have arguments " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "about this, and we don't bother designing experiments to falsify it.\n\n \n\nTautologies are also based on human agreement. \"It is what it is\" as the saying goes. Sane \n\nhuman beings all agree that 2+2=4. But by what criteria do we know that insane people are \n\nwrong? We voted, and majority rules. And don't we sometimes benefit from out-of-the-box \"insane\"\n\nthinking. (I think Einstein would sound insane to Euclid)\n\n \n\nBut even counting insane people, there is one box we cannot think outside of: the box of \n\nhuman intelligence. Our every thought is confined within it. And I have trouble thinking\n\nit must be the be-all, end-all way of understanding the universe. I will need confirmation\n\nfrom a number of independently evolved alien life forms before I accept that ape brains on\n\na small planet on the fringe of the Milky Way have managed to discover a method for understanding\n\neverything in the universe in the only way they can be figured out (i.e. science)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And finally, replication shows you understand something, you can do it again.\nEven nonscientists like to be able to do the same thing twice and get the same\nresult." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nYes, we humans do like replication of results. But I don't see how that makes our view so\n\nuniversally perfect. Other intelligences may be more attuned to indeterminacy and for them\n\nquantum physics might make perfect sense to every child while bouncing a ball is a deep mystery." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dave Lebling: The idea that scientists do this because it \"feels right\" trivializes a lot of intense " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "philosophical discussion about what makes science work." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \n\nNot for me. Science is an amazing tool. Surely the best tool we currently have for understanding the \n\nworld. But I don't feel the need to think it grants us the potential for total understanding of \n\neverything in every possible dimension. That's where I think science starts to fill the role\n\nthat religion fills among the faithful. Since I don't need that \"master of the universe\" feeling, I am \n\nwilling to recognize the limits of science and enjoy its fruits in my own small slice of the cosmos. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF6BF59.7010301@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2011-12-25T06:14:49+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<8717182A-DA4F-4D2D-BC6D-F34A2B074301@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/24/2011 4:11 AM, entonio at gmail.com wrote:\nNo dia 24 de Dez de 2011, ?s 08:29, Jeff Wilson escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 12/23/2011 10:26 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "But that is not a photo as is commonly understood,\nwhich involves reflection, nor of 'an electron', nor is it a photo in a\nsense that would constitue autonomous evidence for the reality of\nelectrons, though it may be corroborating of the model." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "How are the sun and other luminous objects photographed then, sans refelction?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That's grasping at straws and you know it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sunlight comes from the luminous gas that makes up the solar \nphotosphere. And from what part of an atom of that luminous gas does \nthat luminosity emanate?\n\n\nThe electrons. When you look at the sun, you're seeing light given off \nby electrons shifting from higher to lower energy states.\n\nAlong the way, that light encounters electrons of the atoms in the \natmosphere and undergoes some refraction.\n\nAnd even when it does illuminate non-luminous, opaque materials here on \nearth. what is the light reflecting from? The nucleus of each atom?\n\nLight is reflected by electrons. While it's unusual and difficult to see \nthe light emitted from a single electron, it's also unusual to encounter \nlight the doesn't come from, through, or bounce off of, electrons. And \nthe receptive cells in your eye, with chemicals that absorb light? Yup, \nthey do it with electrons.\n\nIt's electrons all the way down, and you know it." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "entonio at gmail.com", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-25T07:47:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<4EF6BF59.7010301@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No dia 25 de Dez de 2011, ?s 06:14, Jeff Wilson escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/24/2011 4:11 AM, entonio at gmail.com wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "No dia 24 de Dez de 2011, ?s 08:29, Jeff Wilson escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "On 12/23/2011 10:26 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "But that is not a photo as is commonly understood,\nwhich involves reflection, nor of 'an electron', nor is it a photo in a\nsense that would constitue autonomous evidence for the reality of\nelectrons, though it may be corroborating of the model." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "How are the sun and other luminous objects photographed then, sans refelction?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "That's grasping at straws and you know it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sunlight comes from the luminous gas that makes up the solar photosphere. And from what part of an atom of that luminous gas does that luminosity emanate?\n\n\nThe electrons. When you look at the sun, you're seeing light given off by electrons shifting from higher to lower energy states.\n\nAlong the way, that light encounters electrons of the atoms in the atmosphere and undergoes some refraction.\n\nAnd even when it does illuminate non-luminous, opaque materials here on earth. what is the light reflecting from? The nucleus of each atom?\n\nLight is reflected by electrons. While it's unusual and difficult to see the light emitted from a single electron, it's also unusual to encounter light the doesn't come from, through, or bounce off of, electrons. And the receptive cells in your eye, with chemicals that absorb light? Yup, they do it with electrons.\n\nIt's electrons all the way down, and you know it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I also know that has no relevance for the matter at hand. Letters are composed of strokes. That doesn't mean you can determine the phonetic value of a given stroke." } ] }, { "message_id": "<3306A8A0-BDE1-45ED-AC8D-D6F9A968354C@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "entonio at gmail.com", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-12-25T07:51:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No dia 25 de Dez de 2011, ?s 07:47, entonio at gmail.com escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Letters are composed of strokes. That doesn't mean you can determine the phonetic value of a given stroke." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Or semantic. " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4EF700AF.1040702@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2011-12-25T10:53:35+00:00", "subject": "(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS", "in_reply_to": "<3306A8A0-BDE1-45ED-AC8D-D6F9A968354C@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 12/25/2011 1:51 AM, entonio at gmail.com wrote:\nNo dia 25 de Dez de 2011, ?s 07:47, entonio at gmail.com escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Letters are composed of strokes. That doesn't mean you can determine the phonetic value of a given stroke." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Or semantic." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "O I C" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com\nComputational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana\n< http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >" } ] } ] }