Seasons

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.

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 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].

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.

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.

There are levels or nonverbal communication so subtle and primitive that we don't even acknowledge them. I agree totally! BUT..I think it is that type of communication that gets us into trouble in the end. That's the type of communication that sends us off after the tall dark haired lover with gleeming eyes and great teeth, and a black and villianous heart. If we had only judged on deeds and not chemical signature, we might be better off.

We are only the sum of our actions.

That's certainly who we think we are, but I'm not convinced.
We value the sum of what we do and think (itself just another sort of "doing",) so much that we refer to it by the use of pronouns "I" and "me" - "myself", we even say. It's such a very strong intuition to identify our sense of a 'continuous self' entirely in terms of what a 'self' continuously does, and claim it as our own.

But in a very real way I think it's just another case of mapping the map. If all we are is what we do and think, then we have no being - we just have doings and thinkings.
There must presumably be an entity to do and think these things, but it seems to me paradoxical to regard it as the same as the doings and thinkings themselves. I guess calling it God is a bit of a cop out, but I haven't found a better label yet.

I have been SO wrong about people, all the facial movements and voice intonations can be as virtual as a bots!

Just wait until MRI lie detector scans become mandatory for the criminal justice system, and reliable consumer "point-and-test" pocket truth meters start being marketed by the gadget-mongers.
A 100% reliable, non-invasive system is on the cards sooner or later, and I know the civil liberties brigade have strong reservations about how it's used (I do too - safeguards must be taken to implement it impartially,) but I'm looking forward to the day that televised debates between aspiring presidential candidates are accompanied by a split screen readout from their lie detectors.

I read a sci-fi story many years ago (I forgot who wrote it - John Wyndham?) about something similar (it was a crystal you could stick on your forehead that shone red whenever you lied, and the politicians foolishly made it compulsory without considering the implications for their own more than averagely dishonest conduct )

Just wait until MRI lie detector scans become mandatory for the criminal justice system, and reliable consumer "point-and-test" pocket truth meters start being marketed by the gadget-monge

I think you are over estimating what MRI's can do. All they can show is what area of the brain you use at certain times. They cannot read the content of the thoughts. There was a study Prob123 brought up a while back where they were able to predict whether someone would use addition or subtraction based on what area light up right before the person did the problem, but that is still just a question of mapping the brain, not reading your mind.

Even the matter of mapping the brain is complicated because there is an elasticity involved. This means that even though a certain part of the brain usually is associated with a given function, the brain may not always follow the same pattern. The brain may re-rout certain functions if there is nerve damage or if another function is used more. You grow dendrites when you use certain nerve connections (actually making your brain bigger) and you can loose the connections if they are not used. It's a wonderfully complex hard drive, but you can't read the data without logging in and opening the files.

we just have doings and thinkings. I find the thinking can be easier than the doing. I am probably going to misquote terribly..but 'wretched man that I am, I do the things that I would not, and the things I would do, I do not'. I often think I am much better than I am. Somehow..(maybe God) my shortcomings get pushed to my nose. I still believe we are known by our deeds. What is a painter that doesn't paint, or a lover that doesn't love?

Just wait until MRI lie detector scans become mandatory That's when I run off to the woods and start a commune of masked people that live off of roots and berries.

I think you are over estimating what MRI's can do. All they can show is what area of the brain you use at certain times. They cannot read the content of the thoughts.

The studies I have seen suggest that conscious dishonesty produces patterns that are reliably different from conscious honesty. It's the mismatch between a fiction that is formulated as verbal expression in one part of the brain, and what is simultaneously thought to be true elsewhere that's detectable, rather than the data itself - a sort of distinctive heterodyning between truth and fiction. It does rely on the suspect speaking, of course. If he makes no comment, there's nothing to match a lie to.

Admittedly, trying to read the contents of thought is a problem many orders of magnitude larger. But you can read a hard disk without logging into it - data recovery from damaged or deleted disks can be surprisingly effective. And you could always scan the disk with an electron microscope and map the bits visually.
I don't underestimate the scale of the problem - with 10^14 bits encoded at a synaptic level, it looks as absurdly complicated to us now as putting a man on the moon would to a neanderthal. But we still put a man on the moon using technology that looks pitifully inadequate 40 years later (the apollo 11 onboard computer had a quarter of the memory of a SIM card!)
But distinguishing conscious truth from conscious lie is a great deal less complex than that.