Pike's ghost

David Stockhoff · 28 Nov 2011, 23:58 · from 2011-November.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: dstockhoff at verizon.net (David Stockhoff)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:58:02 -0500
Subject: (urth) Pike's ghost
In-Reply-To: <4ED41277.9040204 at gmail.com>
References: <SNT123-W32DE1E1E63A572375FA831CFB20 at phx.gbl>
	<70C71EDFDC3B4AEBA0FD38FD41FB8551@Rover>	<4ED39725.9090804 at gmail.com>
	<4ED3ABE8.8060807 at verizon.net>	<4ED3BEAA.1080107 at gmail.com>
	<4ED3CB92.40502 at verizon.net>	<4ED3D4DC.3000409 at gmail.com>
	<4ED3DFF2.8050208 at verizon.net>	<4ED3F57B.8050104 at gmail.com>
	<4ED40796.8030108 at verizon.net> <4ED41277.9040204 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4ED4200A.6000905 at verizon.net>

On 11/28/2011 6:00 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:
> David, I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. 

I heartily agree (I think).
> You may go on, but as far as I can tell our only disagreements are on 
> two points (to sum up what I also wrote below):
>
> - You (as many others) often like to assert "there's no reason to 
> believe X" when in fact it's merely that "though the odds are for X, 
> it may well be otherwise". That seriously gets on my nerves. If you 
> don't see yourself in this picture, then maybe it's my wrong 
> impression. If you don't like it as well, that's very good.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to put odds on anything, but I'm pretty 
sure that kind of argument pisses me off too. You can't prove negatives, 
so why argue for them? All that does is shoot down other people's 
suggestions.
>
> - You (as probably others) seem to believe phenotypic plasticity can 
> lead to clones being very different from their originals. That is just 
> not the case in what regards higher animals, the more since the 
> environments aren't radically different, and specifically it won't 
> give you two persons with really different faces. Nor do I think that 
> could have been GW's intention.
>

I have a few comments which may or may not be counterarguments:

(1) You and I have never seen a human clone. Therefore, we really have 
no idea of that plasticity or how much control one may have over it or 
how we would react to it: Would you recognize your own cloned brother? 
Maybe you would think so at first and then dismiss it for many reasons.

(2) Human faces are as different from other species as one could 
imagine. We have little facial fur and have evolved brains that focus to 
an amazing degree on facial recognition and distinction. We see 
resemblances easily, but also see differences: "Hey, that guy looks like 
Tom Hanks, except for the beard and the hair and the clothes...."

(3) Yet our memories are poor and we really only recognize well about 80 
face types. But most of the research on this came out since BNS if not BLS.

My point is that there is enough plasticity here for Wolfe to do 
whatever he needs to do. It's a major plot problem for characters to 
recognize one another when they can't be allowed to, as well as a great 
tactic to have characters suspect one another when they "just can't" be 
that person. Wolfe does all of this and more with great deviousness and 
precision. If there are strong signals that Silk is a clone of Typhon 
and strong signals that Silk doesn't look enough like him to be 
recognized (even by himself!) in a whorl where Typhon is forgotten or 
distorted, then that's the way it is. But this is not a "just so" 
story---I hate those too.

Both are true, and if you want a biological explanation it lies in these 
3 points and the fact that genotype is not phenotype, and the cloning 
techniques are unknown anyway. Certainly we know embryos are grown in 
vivo rather than in a vat, and that means "maternal" hormones will 
directly and possibly hugely affect phenotype.

I prefer text-based arguments such as those I laid out in my post to 
Dan'l: Pas has been dead 30 years, the windows are all dark, and Typhon 
is unknown.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net