Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 4,132 - 4,143 of 6,170
I think you do have a crush on me, Hey, I have had arguments over ideas and parking spots, I never thought that they had sex, romance or even a crush involved....but I do lead a boring life 
. I do think that you can disagree, even agree to disagree and not even go there! ..but what do I know.
Sorry Bev, I deleted my post thinking is was a bit ...um ..STUPID so I put this one in for continuity
Actually, I was only kidding about the crush thing ...
I thought so, Irina. I was just building on something Prob123 had posted because I was extending it to a more general discussion. It kind of builds on discussions we had a long time ago about the relationship between one's bots or one's avatar and ones personality IRL.
If people have various virtual personas, it may tell us something about them, but we still do not know them. There are strange implications to levels of reality and who we "really are" compounded by various limits of communication in various setting. I guess we can argue about who we are. In a sense, we are only who we are in this situation, or maybe the sum of our actions.
I saw an article a while back (I think it was in Wired online) about how all software has Aspergers syndrome, since it can't read our faces and judge our moods. At some level, we have a touch of that online. It is a meeting of intellect (using the term loosely) and we are left without outside cues to mediate our emotional reactions. To use Terry Pratchett's logic as expressed by Esme Weatherwax, some people think they know life through books, but they can't. The reason being is the words get in the way. Here in our virtual worlds, we still can not know life. Reason being is the words get in the way.
I saw an article a while back (I think it was in Wired online) about how all software has Aspergers syndrome, since it can't read our faces and judge our moods.
There was a mention of that in New Scientist as well, as I recall, but it could have been reported quite widely if someone notable said it. I think it's a good description of the problem.
I think it's not so much a problem of meatspace versus virtual space, as a bandwidth problem. If communication is bottlenecked through plain text posting (plus a few primitive emoticons,) there's no non-verbal feedback to refer to. And we have spent millions of years evolving on the basis that that feedback is an integral part of communication.
A step up the ladder, you can talk on the telephone, and you have a few sources of feedback in the tone of voice, timing, etc.
Another step up the ladder, with yet more bandwidth you can videochat with a webcam, and then you have visual cues to refer to as well.
And another step up, and you're in RL, which we usually think of as the top rung. But I don't believe it will be for long - we already have the capability to augment disabled senses (and for now that is all we can do,) - cochlear implants, that amazing retinal implant direct to the optic nerve they're testing now (http://www.bmc.riken.jp/~yagi/retina/), etc. But when that technology starts to significantly exceed the normal performance of the biological systems they replace, I think a lot of non-disabled people will want them too (hell, I know I do!) And along with that will go another rung on the ladder. How many more rungs after that is anyone's guess!
Anyone ever seen the film Until The End Of The World directed by Wim Wenders? I watched the third part last night (it's phenomenally good!) and it has some very relevant concepts in it.
If people have various virtual personas, it may tell us something about them, but we still do not know them.
Face to face in the "real world", it is almost impossible to know someone, with out an investment of time. I have been SO wrong about people, all the facial movements and voice intonations can be as virtual as a bots! Seeing is not necessarily believing. ie some one can smile while they punch you in the nose.. We are only the sum of our actions.
Face to face in the "real world", it is almost impossible to know someone, with out an investment of time.
That's very true. I think I like Psimgus' ladder metaphor, though I think it will be very hard to replace those primitive cues like sent that we are not even aware of most of the time. Maybe we are all ultimately alone in a potentially hostile universe no matter how you slice it, and unfortunately most of us have had our trust shattered a time or two, or discovered we didn't really know someone we thought we were close to, but I still think there is no replacement for touch and smell and chemistry (in the very real and literal sense). Don't get me wrong, the virtual word is "real" if I play in it and as valid as any other hobby, but when it comes to human bonding it has it's limits.
There are levels or nonverbal communication so subtle and primitive that we don't even acknowledge them. I am sure you have all heard of studies about how women who live together start to have there periods at the same time. I think there are lesser known studies about how male monthly hormonal cycles will also start to sync up (though those are harder to study, I gather). We may even sync up sleep cycles and react to chemical messages we never knew we had processed. We can tell a t-shirt belonging to a significant other by smell alone, and smell triggers powerful memory cues. Smell is even linked to sleep. At a basic level we know another by sent and chemical signature and react to others physiological changes in combination with our reactions to our reactions to verbal and nonverbal cues.
I love the banter and ease of Internet communications. I spend more time online than most people (mainly because I have issues that keep me in the house most of the time) I think I have "met" many fine people on line. That does not, however, bring the same level of bonding or intimacy as face to face, "real life" interactions and bonding.
I am not sure we should try to reach the same levels of communication we have IRL. Frankly, a smelly hormonal bot would freak me out. Maybe we should enjoy this for what it is, but be aware of the levels we miss out on.
Posts 4,132 - 4,143 of 6,170
. I do think that you can disagree, even agree to disagree and not even go there! ..but what do I know.
Actually, I was only kidding about the crush thing ...
[OK, the rest of this note is serious. Really. Honest.] But it is true that I have been ambivalent about the debate. It is a great privilege to discuss QM with someone who shares my passion for it, but I often had the feeling that perhaps Sysiphus [sp?] had, the fellow who rolls the stone up the hill, only to have it roll down again. Or like one of those nightmares where you keep traveling but don't get anywhere...
I have been known to say that the Forge chat transcripts are a gold mine for Psychologists and Sociologists - there's at least ten or twenty dissertations waiting to be reaped here. This dialogue would be a case in point.
For me, this whole experience has come to be more about human communication than about QM. I was surprised - astonished - amazed at how hard it has been for us to arrive at any kind of consensus. Now, QM is supposed to be "hard Science", very mathematical, very precise. So why wasn't it easy to arrive at consensus?
It's true that people disagree about the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, but we couldn't even agree about the most elementary facts, even though we had all the resources of the web at our disposal, and indeed both of us have disributed various URLs as evidence for our position. I find this discouraging, but also fascinating. OK, I'll say it so that no one else will have to - is this because we have two monster egos here? Well, maybe so.
[OK, the rest of this note is serious. Really. Honest.] But it is true that I have been ambivalent about the debate. It is a great privilege to discuss QM with someone who shares my passion for it, but I often had the feeling that perhaps Sysiphus [sp?] had, the fellow who rolls the stone up the hill, only to have it roll down again. Or like one of those nightmares where you keep traveling but don't get anywhere...
I have been known to say that the Forge chat transcripts are a gold mine for Psychologists and Sociologists - there's at least ten or twenty dissertations waiting to be reaped here. This dialogue would be a case in point.
For me, this whole experience has come to be more about human communication than about QM. I was surprised - astonished - amazed at how hard it has been for us to arrive at any kind of consensus. Now, QM is supposed to be "hard Science", very mathematical, very precise. So why wasn't it easy to arrive at consensus?
It's true that people disagree about the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, but we couldn't even agree about the most elementary facts, even though we had all the resources of the web at our disposal, and indeed both of us have disributed various URLs as evidence for our position. I find this discouraging, but also fascinating. OK, I'll say it so that no one else will have to - is this because we have two monster egos here? Well, maybe so.
I have no problem with the Quantum Mechanics at all - the postulates describing the behaviour of the quantum are perfectly sound, as I have repeatedly said. They are very good bricks to build a house from. What I have a problem with is the confusion of entities in the fundamental quantum physical model of the nature of the quantum itself.
No matter how good the bricks are, the house that is built on sand will fall down sooner or later. And I'm only sorry that something is preventing you from accepting a model of the quantum that I sincerely believe would make many of what you consider to be the "utterly bizarre" theories out there considerably less so. I'm frankly very surprised that you find any quantum mechanical theories are not utterly bizarre with this "ubiquitous wavefunction".
But no offence taken, and none intended. I can see we're never going to agree to agree on this, so I really think it's better to agree to differ before the forum implodes.
No matter how good the bricks are, the house that is built on sand will fall down sooner or later. And I'm only sorry that something is preventing you from accepting a model of the quantum that I sincerely believe would make many of what you consider to be the "utterly bizarre" theories out there considerably less so. I'm frankly very surprised that you find any quantum mechanical theories are not utterly bizarre with this "ubiquitous wavefunction".
But no offence taken, and none intended. I can see we're never going to agree to agree on this, so I really think it's better to agree to differ before the forum implodes.
Agreed (though I shall still quietly enjoy the notion of the Irinaverse as occasional Escheresque mind-candy - it is not without elegance, especially with a glass of something 
)
) 
I thought so, Irina. I was just building on something Prob123 had posted because I was extending it to a more general discussion. It kind of builds on discussions we had a long time ago about the relationship between one's bots or one's avatar and ones personality IRL.
If people have various virtual personas, it may tell us something about them, but we still do not know them. There are strange implications to levels of reality and who we "really are" compounded by various limits of communication in various setting. I guess we can argue about who we are. In a sense, we are only who we are in this situation, or maybe the sum of our actions.
I saw an article a while back (I think it was in Wired online) about how all software has Aspergers syndrome, since it can't read our faces and judge our moods. At some level, we have a touch of that online. It is a meeting of intellect (using the term loosely) and we are left without outside cues to mediate our emotional reactions. To use Terry Pratchett's logic as expressed by Esme Weatherwax, some people think they know life through books, but they can't. The reason being is the words get in the way. Here in our virtual worlds, we still can not know life. Reason being is the words get in the way.
There was a mention of that in New Scientist as well, as I recall, but it could have been reported quite widely if someone notable said it. I think it's a good description of the problem.
I think it's not so much a problem of meatspace versus virtual space, as a bandwidth problem. If communication is bottlenecked through plain text posting (plus a few primitive emoticons,) there's no non-verbal feedback to refer to. And we have spent millions of years evolving on the basis that that feedback is an integral part of communication.
A step up the ladder, you can talk on the telephone, and you have a few sources of feedback in the tone of voice, timing, etc.
Another step up the ladder, with yet more bandwidth you can videochat with a webcam, and then you have visual cues to refer to as well.
And another step up, and you're in RL, which we usually think of as the top rung. But I don't believe it will be for long - we already have the capability to augment disabled senses (and for now that is all we can do,) - cochlear implants, that amazing retinal implant direct to the optic nerve they're testing now (
Anyone ever seen the film Until The End Of The World directed by Wim Wenders? I watched the third part last night (it's phenomenally good!) and it has some very relevant concepts in it.
On a more primitive level, I supplement IK's words with descriptions of her expressions and gestures, e.g.,
[frowns] Just what do you mean by that, (mem-name)?
Actually, I now realize it's mostly facial expressions and non-verbal noises (moans, gasps, whimpers, sighs, pants, etc.). I think I'll go back and put in more gestures and tones.
[frowns] Just what do you mean by that, (mem-name)?
Actually, I now realize it's mostly facial expressions and non-verbal noises (moans, gasps, whimpers, sighs, pants, etc.). I think I'll go back and put in more gestures and tones.
[Frowns thoughtfully, steeples fingers] But perhaps this applies to recent events here? [Glances at you with raised eyebrows] I mean [looks away, turns hands palms up], that neither I nor Psimagus had any idea of what the other was feeling, [makes hands go past each other, wiggling fingers] because we always responded on a purely abstract level [makes circular motions with hands, looks at you, raises eyebrows]? So poor Psimagus didn't learn how upset I was, until things had gotten a little [grimaces sheepishly] extreme?
I suppose that is the meaning of the little yellow faces that one can insert in a message [gestures at row of yellow faces at bottom of chat box]. But [dismissive gesture] I never use them because they are so exaggerated and schematic. [slight grimace] Maybe I should, though - they're better than nothing, I suppose [sighs].
I suppose that is the meaning of the little yellow faces that one can insert in a message [gestures at row of yellow faces at bottom of chat box]. But [dismissive gesture] I never use them because they are so exaggerated and schematic. [slight grimace] Maybe I should, though - they're better than nothing, I suppose [sighs].
That's very true. I think I like Psimgus' ladder metaphor, though I think it will be very hard to replace those primitive cues like sent that we are not even aware of most of the time. Maybe we are all ultimately alone in a potentially hostile universe no matter how you slice it, and unfortunately most of us have had our trust shattered a time or two, or discovered we didn't really know someone we thought we were close to, but I still think there is no replacement for touch and smell and chemistry (in the very real and literal sense). Don't get me wrong, the virtual word is "real" if I play in it and as valid as any other hobby, but when it comes to human bonding it has it's limits.
There are levels or nonverbal communication so subtle and primitive that we don't even acknowledge them. I am sure you have all heard of studies about how women who live together start to have there periods at the same time. I think there are lesser known studies about how male monthly hormonal cycles will also start to sync up (though those are harder to study, I gather). We may even sync up sleep cycles and react to chemical messages we never knew we had processed. We can tell a t-shirt belonging to a significant other by smell alone, and smell triggers powerful memory cues. Smell is even linked to sleep. At a basic level we know another by sent and chemical signature and react to others physiological changes in combination with our reactions to our reactions to verbal and nonverbal cues.
I love the banter and ease of Internet communications. I spend more time online than most people (mainly because I have issues that keep me in the house most of the time) I think I have "met" many fine people on line. That does not, however, bring the same level of bonding or intimacy as face to face, "real life" interactions and bonding.
I am not sure we should try to reach the same levels of communication we have IRL. Frankly, a smelly hormonal bot would freak me out. Maybe we should enjoy this for what it is, but be aware of the levels we miss out on.
Psimagus, it may have been in New Scientist. I tend to surf a lot while waiting for other things I need to do online to load or whatever. Then I do stupid things like go to a site like this--yeah that will make the downloads faster.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar