And we come to the main event

I'm wondering about tomorrow because Ender's Game is one of my favorite books. What are we going to be debating? When I mentioned this to one friend, he was hoping that we would discuss Ender's flawed military tactics--we argued about this for a while, until I told him that I expected us to discuss the policies of social isolation in the book. "Well, yeah, speaking of flawed military strategies" he said. But I was talking about the creation of the population laws in the society.These types of laws are the most frightening type to me. And this is why we need space flight, to spread out of this world before it gets too crowded.

Another thing that has always surprised me was how I always love Demosthenes' philosophy of individual freedom, but he is seen by most as heading an unreasonable army. But, then, even Valentine comes to believe in Demosthenes, despite finding his views foolish at first. The type of world where defending such freedoms is foolish is something I hope we aren't approaching. At first read, the world of Ender's Game is not so different, but on closer inspection, damn man, it's scary.

Computer Culture

I enjoy discussions of artificial intelligence as much as the next scifi kid, but when we get into a serious argument over whether our home PCs are awake, there's something wrong.

First, they don't have the required hardware! The reason we're really awake is the number of neurons we have, and current home computers don't have anywhere near that many circuits. Too small, not awake.

Okay, and the statement that common computer errors may be computer culture? No! It's not culture! It's just bad programming all around! Errors don't just happen, there's a reason somewhere for them and they can be fixed.

And, a bit off topic. The fact that many different, far separate societies have myths and folk tales in common is not because it's actually built into us. It's because we have common fears that are built in, like of the dark, of bleeding, and of floating lights in the sky, I don't know. We have common myths about vampires, for instance, because it's scary as fuck to have something lurking around sucking your blood so we made stories about it.

Blade Runner and Such

Okay, first of all, I don't understand the rumors that Harrison Ford was also a replicant. Wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of blade runners, to make them robots? After all, they're smart enough to catch other robots, so what if they realize what they are. Well, I guess it would make the scene where Harrison Ford almost rapes that girl a little less disturbing, if only because they're the same species this time. I personally interpreted the unicorn as a reference to the way the blond guy dies later, because the music and camera was similar.

Anyways, I'm not sure this movie is a great commentary on "What is human?" I saw the replicants at first as mostly non-human, maybe too advanced to pass for human. But I guess if I gave them a few years, provided they didn't die, they could gain the memories that are probably the difference between us and them at first glance. Rachel, though, was closer, but her characterization didn't actually make me care, I kinda wanted her to die. So, I guess if Ford was the best of them, then they win, because he's the only character I cared about. Oh, and the inventor and the geneticist. But then, they were human.

So yeah, this movie was more interesting to me for its characterization of robots as distinctly non-human. The addition of the lifespan problem was interesting because it further separated them. By limiting their lives, really being human was prevented and I support this measure.

Yeah, a week off

So, like the others, I wrote my post about next week. Oh well..

I though that the combination between Planet of the Apes and structure of paradigms should have been further discussed. I'll agree with you guys that paradigm is a more complicated word than I previously thought. In fact my view of it is more confused than before. I figure now that my definition of paradigm as a basic theoretical framework to build upon can be retooled. Planet of the Apes shows this completely and simply with the apes' continuous assumptions that all scientific discoveries must be in line with scripture. However, their departure from the scientific method is also complete, as they ignore contradictions to their current paradigm.

In this sense, though, I understand some of the apes' actions because to change a major paradigm such as what their science is based on is painful and would have completely changed their society and often societies aren't ready to be changed. One day though, the apes will have a more liberal leader with support in place and the change to a more equal society will be welcomed and their science can actually advance. This stuff doesn't happen overnight and it always fails at first.

Soft Core Robot Porn

So as I described this book, as I read it, to my friends, they questioned the validity as science fiction of what they surmised to be soft core robot porn. Actually, I suppose the subject was handled pretty well, that is, the humanizing of robots and artificial intelligence. By the end, I was entirely surprised that she didn't just remake Yod. If she had really loved him, remaking him with free will would have been appropriate.

One of the biggest pleasures I got from this novel was reading the story of the golem again. I visited Prague once and I'm going back next semester and the Jewish quarter was selling thousands of tiny dolls that looked vaguely like the Hulk, only brown. If that was how the golem had looked, I'd bee worried, but Piercy's vision of Joseph as just a big guy was interesting. The whole legend is probably based in something of that sort in reality, just a really big guy coming out of nowhere and helping people out, which is almost as romantic.

Anyways, what is human? This is a hard quesstion for me, so I'll assume human means sentient and "ramen" if you know the reference, not Asian noodles. However, any sufficiently designed computer system will be able to say "I'm human" or "I'm a person" and maybe convince you. Deciding where the line could be drawn on that one is the first step, and I'm not sure a difference between intelligent programming and sentience could ever be located, or if it exists.