From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V00 #220
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> archive/volume00/220
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="----------------------------"
To: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
Reply-To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
------------------------------
Content-Type: text/plain
blakes7-d Digest Volume 00 : Issue 220
Today's Topics:
Re: [B7L] Slave and Thinking [ "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.con ]
Re: [B7L] Slave and Thinking [ Iain Coleman <ijc@mail.nerc-bas.ac. ]
[B7L] Slave and Turing [ Alison Page <alison_page@becta.org. ]
Re: [B7L] Pressure Point [ "Dana Shilling" <dshilling@worldnet ]
Re: [B7L] Slave and Thinking [ "Dana Shilling" <dshilling@worldnet ]
Re: [B7L] Slave and Turing [ Iain Coleman <ijc@mail.nerc-bas.ac. ]
Re: [B7L] Pressure Point [ "Christine+Steve" <cgorman@idirect. ]
Re: [B7L] Slave and Turing [ Alison Page <alison_page@becta.org. ]
[B7L] SFX [ Steve Rogerson <steve.rogerson@mcr1 ]
[B7L] Of possible interest [ Mac4781@aol.com ]
Re: [B7L] Slave and Thinking [ "Marian de Haan" <maya@multiweb.nl> ]
Re: [B7L] Slave and Thinking [ "Marian de Haan" <maya@multiweb.nl> ]
Re: [B7L] Pressure Point [ "Marian de Haan" <maya@multiweb.nl> ]
[B7L] Parsec {was Orbit} [ "Lysias" <lysias@apexmail.com> ]
[B7L] Parsec {was Orbit} [ "Lysias" <lysias@apexmail.com> ]
Re: [B7L] Slave and Thinking [ Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.com ]
Re: [B7L] Slave and Thinking [ Iain Coleman <ijc@mail.nerc-bas.ac. ]
Re: [B7L] Slave and Thinking [ Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones. ]
Re: [B7L] Slave and Turing [ Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones. ]
Re: [B7L] Of possible interest [ "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com ]
Re: [B7L] Parsec {was Orbit} [ "Andrew Ellis" <Andrew.D.Ellis@btin ]
Re: [B7L] Parsec {was Orbit} [ "Andrew Ellis" <Andrew.D.Ellis@btin ]
Re: [B7L] Parsec {was Orbit} [ B7Morrigan@aol.com ]
Re: [B7L] Slave and Thinking [ "J MacQueen" <j_macqueen@hotmail.co ]
Re: [B7L] Of possible interest [ "J MacQueen" <j_macqueen@hotmail.co ]
Re: [B7L] Model of Servalan. [ "J MacQueen" <j_macqueen@hotmail.co ]
Re: [B7L] Parsec {was Orbit} [ huh@ccm.net ]
Re: [B7L] Model of Servalan. [ Betty Ragan <ragan@sdc.org> ]
Re: [B7L] Slave and Thinking [ Betty Ragan <ragan@sdc.org> ]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 13:07:18 +0100
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Slave and Thinking
Message-ID: <017b01bffd43$60794660$0d01a8c0@codex>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Iain:
> The Turing test simply says that any machine that can
> appear intelligent in the same way that a human does should be considered
> intelligent.
[snip]
> It's true that one could imagine some very alien machine intelligence that
> can't pass the Turing test. However, I don't think the test makes any
> claims about the intelligence or otherwise of entities which fail it, only
> about those which pass it.
Have people ever done the Turing test and failed it?
Una
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 13:18:10 +0100 (BST)
From: Iain Coleman <ijc@mail.nerc-bas.ac.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Slave and Thinking
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.96.1000803131721.18283C-100000@bsauasc>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Una McCormack wrote:
>
> Have people ever done the Turing test and failed it?
A few years ago I would have dismissed such a suggestion. Then I
discovered Usenet.
Iain
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 13:38:36 +0100
From: Alison Page <alison_page@becta.org.uk>
To: "'blakes7@lysator.liu.se'" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Slave and Turing
Message-ID: <21B0197931E1D211A26E0008C79F6C4AB0C6CD@BRAMLEY>
Content-Type: text/plain
Iain said
>>The Turing test simply says that any machine that can appear intelligent
in the same way that a human does should be considered intelligent.
I'm not thinking about intelligence so much as consciousness (I mean
sentience). As Satre said, that something exists 'for oneself' as a subject
as well as 'in itself' as an object. We effortlessly deduce that other
people live in the world in a way that we do, and that tables and chairs
don't. But what about non-human intelligences? Of course I don't have a clue
about that, except that I'd tend to pessimistic about the kind of computers
we have now ever exhibiting such a thing, and optimistic about artificial
entities getting there sometime in the future.
>>I think that you're underestimating how hard it is to simply program a
machine to mimic human responses.
To be fair I was just being flippant about the Pentium. However very low
powered computers back in the 1960's did manage to 'pass' as human in
experimental conditions. The way the programmers did it was to make them
mimic people with psychiatric illnesses, such as paranoid psychosis. Such
people do tend to reply in predictable ways, bringing everything back to the
same topic.
Or what about building a computer that just churned out swear words and
abuse? Could you be certain this was not a human being? Oh - I see that
Usenet has already been mentioned.
I suppose what I'm saying is that the Turing test fails, because some humans
act like machines, not because some machines act like humans.
Alison
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:18:34 -0400
From: "Dana Shilling" <dshilling@worldnet.att.net>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Pressure Point
Message-ID: <00b301bffd56$37073fe0$d56b4e0c@dshilling>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Responding to Judith:
> I always had the impression that sabotaging the computers was more what
they had
> in mind - that's why Avon felt that Blake would need him along. I don't
think
> they had any explosives on them at this point.
But as City at the Edge of the World shows us, resourceful crewmembers may
be in possession of explosives not only when we didn't see them bring any,
but
when they don't have anyplace to carry them.
-(Y)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:19:24 -0400
From: "Dana Shilling" <dshilling@worldnet.att.net>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Slave and Thinking
Message-ID: <00b401bffd56$3b843c80$d56b4e0c@dshilling>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Responding to Alison Page:
>
> I was going to make a flip comment about 'sounds like some people I know'.
> Then it occurred to me that Slave's motive might be the same as it is for
> people who don't like to offer an opinion. People who feel powerless, who
> lack confidence, and who expect that they won't be listened to, often seem
> to shut down that whole side of their character
So Zen is the analog/projection for Blake and Jenna, Orac for Avon, and
Slave for Vila?
BTW it always drives me right up a wall when my friends not only talk to
their pets but ask them questions, so I'm sure people also to the same to
non-self-aware computers.
-(Y)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 15:21:34 +0100 (BST)
From: Iain Coleman <ijc@mail.nerc-bas.ac.uk>
To: Alison Page <alison_page@becta.org.uk>
Cc: "'blakes7@lysator.liu.se'" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Slave and Turing
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.96.1000803150718.18283D-100000@bsauasc>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Alison Page wrote:
> Iain said
>
> >>The Turing test simply says that any machine that can appear intelligent
> in the same way that a human does should be considered intelligent.
>
> I'm not thinking about intelligence so much as consciousness (I mean
> sentience).
Fair enough, but I don't think that's what the Turing test is designed to
measure. A meter stick isn't very good at measuring time, either.
As Satre said, that something exists 'for oneself' as a subject
> as well as 'in itself' as an object. We effortlessly deduce that other
> people live in the world in a way that we do, and that tables and chairs
> don't.
Turing argued that we assume other humans are conscious as a matter of
courtesy.
Have you read Turing's papers about his test? He does enumerate and
discuss a whole host of objections like this. Some of them are a bit odd,
admittedly, (the telepathy objection, for example).
But what about non-human intelligences? Of course I don't have a clue
> about that, except that I'd tend to pessimistic about the kind of computers
> we have now ever exhibiting such a thing, and optimistic about artificial
> entities getting there sometime in the future.
>
My bet is that machine intelligence will gradually come about through the
integration of ever more complex expert systems. Much like human
intelligence.
>
> Or what about building a computer that just churned out swear words and
> abuse? Could you be certain this was not a human being? Oh - I see that
> Usenet has already been mentioned.
>
Are you familiar with Serdar Argic, usenet troll and suspected AI?
>
> I suppose what I'm saying is that the Turing test fails, because some humans
> act like machines, not because some machines act like humans.
>
cf the complete works of Philip K Dick, especially 'Do Androids Dream of
Electric Sheep' and 'A Scanner Darkly'.
Iain
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 10:52:59 -0400
From: "Christine+Steve" <cgorman@idirect.com>
To: "B7 Mailing List" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Pressure Point
Message-ID: <021c01bffd5a$98bd73e0$e0009ad8@cgorman>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Marian de Haan wrote :
> What I find much harder to swallow is that Avon is still prepared to go on
> with the mission when it has become clear that something is wrong ("He's
> failed to make contact with Kasabi.") and Blake is holding back
information.
I think Avon saw it as a major challenge to his computer skills - he
mentions in the episode that he's the only one qualified to tackle the
defense computers. Maybe he also had a secondary motive. Given some time
with Control (while the others kept guard) he could have done anything.
Transferred millions of credits, had Space Command self-destruct, stolen all
sorts of secret information - all to give him more of an advantage when he
takes control of the Liberator. Maybe this is enough to override his
feelings that this is a trap.
Steve Dobson.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 16:14:01 +0100
From: Alison Page <alison_page@becta.org.uk>
To: "'blakes7@lysator.liu.se'" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Slave and Turing
Message-ID: <21B0197931E1D211A26E0008C79F6C4AB0C6CE@BRAMLEY>
Content-Type: text/plain
Iain said
>>Are you familiar with Serdar Argic, usenet troll and suspected AI?
No, I don't know anything about that. Say more. Hope this is still on-topic
enough.
I read a funny book about women and the Internet where some female prof
linked her AI program into a chat room, using a girly name. The
transcriptions of the conversations that ensued were really funny. The guys
kept trying to chat 'her' up, and one of their most common lines was 'hey,
how come you type so fast?' heh heh.
>>the complete works of Philip K Dick, especially 'Do Androids Dream of
> Electric Sheep' and 'A Scanner Darkly'.
>
Scanner is just about one of my favourite SF books ever.
Alison
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 18:04:16 -0700
From: Steve Rogerson <steve.rogerson@mcr1.poptel.org.uk>
To: Lysator <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] SFX
Message-ID: <398A1690.5A6DDDDC@mcr1.poptel.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The current issue of SFX in the UK (September, No 63) has a form to fill
in asking readers what question they would like to ask Paul Darrow.
They'll put the best to him.
And congrats to Louise Rutter for again being an SFX compo winner.
--
cheers
Steve Rogerson
http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson
"In my world, there are people in chains and you can ride them like
ponies"
The alternative Willow, Buffy the Vampire Slayer
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 13:20:37 EDT
From: Mac4781@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se, freedom-city@blakes-7.org
Subject: [B7L] Of possible interest
Message-ID: <25.902d8a3.26bb03e5@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Maybe these info bits are already common knowledge, but in case not...
Jarriere spotting -- A friend tells me that Harry Jones plays a golf caddy in
a Highlander episode called "The Stone of Scone."
I've recently learned of an American source for the "Soldiers of Love" CDs
(with Gareth Thomas, Michael Keating, Jacqueline Pearce). Alien
Entertainment, P. O. Box 2660, Glen Ellyn Ilinois 60138. Toll Free phone/fax
1-888-734-7386. $14.95 each plus shipping (plus sales tax for IL residents).
They also offer the Dr Who Myth Maker tapes in NTSC. I wonder if they'll be
carrying, or could be persuaded to carry, the B7 Myth Maker tapes in NTSC. I
shall make an inquiry when their website is up and running. It's currently
under construction at www.doctorwhostore.com
Carol Mc
Carol Mc
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 19:42:09 +0200
From: "Marian de Haan" <maya@multiweb.nl>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Slave and Thinking
Message-ID: <003a01bffd72$2ac4c1a0$aced72c3@marian-de-haan.multiweb.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Erica Hayes wrote:
<interesting observations about Slave deleted>
>can a machine that insists it is one pass the Turing test for AI?<
How does one do a Turing test and what is an AI? [Can I be the only one on
this list who's never come across those terms before? :-)]
Marian
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 19:52:40 +0200
From: "Marian de Haan" <maya@multiweb.nl>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Slave and Thinking
Message-ID: <003f01bffd73$a01d3bc0$aced72c3@marian-de-haan.multiweb.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Betty Ragan wrote about Dorian:
>Or because he enjoys abusing things. Which is why he's programmed Slave in
such a way that he *invites* abuse. Personally, I find the whole thing
disgusting (which is probably why I've never much liked Slave as a
character). But disgusting and Dorian are *supposed* to go together. (The
fact that *Avon* seemed to kind of like it, too, bothers me rather more...)<
I always suspect Avon of having a far greater sense of humour (or
appreciation of the ridiculous) than he's showing the world, and that
Slave's grovelling simply amuses him.
Marian
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 20:00:57 +0200
From: "Marian de Haan" <maya@multiweb.nl>
To: "Dana Shilling" <dshilling@worldnet.att.net>,
"b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Pressure Point
Message-ID: <004401bffd74$d784c6e0$aced72c3@marian-de-haan.multiweb.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dana wrote:
>But as City at the Edge of the World shows us, resourceful crewmembers may
be in possession of explosives not only when we didn't see them bring any,
but when they don't have anyplace to carry them.<
But isn't B7 supposed to be situated a thousand years into the future? By
that time the human body may well have developed some cavity for carrying
things. :-)
Marian
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 12:33:27 -0800
From: "Lysias" <lysias@apexmail.com>
To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Parsec {was Orbit}
Message-Id: <1472919651965331207@apexmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
Gnog replies:
>Or are they quantum mechanical wavefunctions, or the manifestation in o=
ur
>dimension of a vibrational state of a superstring ..... I would urge yo=
u to
>re phase your rather certain claim "Well they can't" to the more correc=
t "to
>the limit of current scientific knowledge there is no known mechanism f=
or an
>interaction to take place", and then, like I requested, imagine that th=
ere
>was a finite collision cross section (by some mechanism as yet
>undiscovered).
Usually I would agree with you here, but in this particullar case, I do =
not. Tachyons are *theoretical* particles - they have never been observe=
d, and nor have their effects. An intrinsic part of the definition of a =
Tachyon is the fact that it does not interact with normal matter. If you=
see a particle that looks exactly like a Tachyon, except it does intera=
ct with normal matter, then it isn't a Tachyon. It's as simple as that.
Personally, I like the idea put forward by someone (?) that Egrorian had=
discovered *something* and decided to call it a Tachyon. He may well ha=
ve later discovered that it could not be one - because of the interactio=
ns - but the name stuck.
There's great historical evidence for this kind of thing happening. When=
the Atom was discovered, it was given its name in reference to Democrit=
us' "Atomos" - a theoretical particle which could not be divided, and th=
erefore made up the fundaments of matter. Later we discovered that they =
*could* be split.
However, if you're going to write SF about exotic particles like Tachyon=
s, you should give them the properties we know them to have. Otherwise y=
ou should invent a new particle - even if it's just the "Super Tachyon".=
To do otherwise is simply lazy, IMO.
I started to go through the calculations to show what would happen, but =
I can't really be bothered. So, in a rough, hand waving manner...
Firstly, throw away the idea of colliding with "a normal particle with t=
he same mass". A Tachyon has imaginary mass, so there's no *way* you're =
going to find a normal particle with the same mass. Instead (and this is=
what I think you meant) consider a collision between a Tachyon and a pa=
rticle of normal matter which has the same magnitude of mass squared.
Assuming that they annihilate (why?), the energy associated with the mas=
ses will cancel out, leaving the energy associated with the Tachyon's mo=
mentum.
The energy carried by a Tachyon is negative, thus you will need to suppl=
y additional energy in order for the interaction to take place. Not part=
icularly interesting. Far less exciting than, say, a normal matter-anti=
matter annihilation.
>Perhaps the FTL Tachion and its STL counterpart (which for conservation=
of
>Squirble factor, is an anti matter particle)
I fail to see why the antiparticle partner of a Tachyon should be STL. T=
here are no quantum numbers associated with this kind of thing. We don't=
need any more in the current system, so by postulating this you're actu=
ally throwing away the whole of Quantum Mechanics. Never mind, onward!
>could form a coupled pair, very
>much like an exciton,
A Tachyon cannot be slowed to light speed or below, just as a normal par=
ticle cannot be accelerated to light speed or above. Therefore in order =
for them to couple, they would have to sit on either side of the boundar=
y, very, very close to the edge. Slowing down a Tachyon requires energy.=
Accelerating a normal particle requires energy. This is intrinsic to th=
eir natures. Therefore it will not be energetically favourable for them =
to form this coupled pair.
Furthermore, I was imagining these two particles to be somewhat like neu=
trinos. After all, your Tachyons can't *usually* interact with matter, o=
therwise they'd be seen all the time. How are these two going to couple?=
Not via one of the standard forces, that's for sure. Too much of a stre=
tch for me.
which behaves in a rather distinct way with a strong,
>destructive, interaction with standard forms of matter.
Why? How is it destructive? What kind of effects are you talking about?
>Thus for example....
>In a Sci-Fi universe, where FTL travel is possible, it must be possible=
to
>break a few of todays physical laws.
Well, bend them. Hard SF which includes FTL (and there are some stories =
like this) tends to look at things like wormholes and so on. On the whol=
e, though, it ain't possible.
>So to allow FTL travel, a drive unit
>will gather together anti matter STL tachions,
Fine
>form tachion excitons by
>capturing FTL techions
How are you going to capture them? These things can't travel less than c=
, remember, and slowing them up to near that speed will cost huge amount=
s of energy. The only way I could see this kind of thing working would b=
e if space was streaming with the damn things and you could shield the S=
TL particles somehow. Then you just expose them in a particular way.
>and excerpt a significant force during the controlled
>interaction.
Controlled annihilation? Fine, but you'd do better with matter-antimatte=
r, because of the energy considerations.
>The nature of the tachion exciton (texton from now on) produces
>a distortion of certain dimensions, in particular in the field of human=
>consciousness, time.
Why?
>This is similar to the distortion of space time in
>general relativity by the presence of mass. Hence the results of the te=
xton
>drive are often referred to a time distortion, although this is a great=
>simplification, and only occurs for significant concentrations of texto=
ns.
Alright. Can't be bothered to pick at that.
>Whilst Squirbles law therefore allows the transport of people, spaceshi=
ps
>and messages at FTL speeds, in the absence of a strong texton field,
>Squirbles law approximates relativistic general relativity, which in tu=
rn,
>for practical distances, resembles normality.
Sounds like a good idea. ;-)
>Clearly, any technology used
>for propulsion could also be used as a weapon (eg an oar),
Hmmm... okay.
>and the tachion
>funnel makes good use of the Bose-Einstien condensation of textons
Not a chance. As mentioned above, there's no way you're going to slow th=
em that much. The only way to do it is by having them travel close to c.=
>when
>subject to strong gravitational confinement, such as that found in neut=
ron
>star material.
You'd have to do better than neutron star material to even confine these=
things. A black hole would confine the STLs, but not the FTLs. It just =
wouldn't be energetically favourable.
>The non-linear propagation through the condensate of
>probability wave functions allows for the controlled emission of chirpe=
d
>texton pulses, with an overall FTL velocity, but the FTL Tachion traili=
ng
>behind its STL partners.
Presumably you meant this the other way around!
>The weak interaction of such chirped texton pulses
>in the absence of a strong gravitation field (such as the field produce=
d by
>a grown human)
Eh? Humans producing strong gravitational fields? How fat mankind must h=
ave become!
>ensure that the pulse propagates with no attenuation and
>negligible broadening over vast distances.
Well, there will be certain 'optical' effects analogous to those seen in=
lasers that are going to be a problem. Other than that...
>However, once such a field is
>encountered, the texton pulse chirp is destroyed, and the normal texton=
>interaction with matter occurs, often with devastating results.
Okay. I suppose.
>Late 20th
>century government researchers observed this phenomena from spontaneous=
ly
>generated texton pulses in the region of the Horsehead Nebula.
Government researchers wouldn't have the equipment. Somewhere like SKK w=
ould be far more plausible.
>The results
>were publicly dismissed as spontaneous human combustion.
Why cover it up? Spontaneous human combustion is well known and now well=
understood (allegedly) to be a simple manifestation of the wick effect.=
An unneccessary 'tack-on' (sorry, couldn't resist) to your theory.
>In order to refute this argument, its no good saying that textons do no=
t
>exist,
I shall refute in whatever way I choose, thank you very much. Whether yo=
u choose to accept the refutation is entirely up to you.
>you must either spot the inconsistency in the argument (there is
>one),
Well, to be honest, it's so far from real world stuff, I can't see the e=
rror you're pointing at. Something that I've brushed aside as an assumpt=
ion could be what you call an error. Tell me please. <fx: sweet smile>
>or show how the proposed theoretical treatment of Squirbles law does
>not, in the limit of no textons, predict reality as we know it.
ROFL! It screws up at Baryogenesis for a start. If they interact, then t=
hey're going to annihilate like crazy. That'll throw off all the measure=
ments we have for the structure of the universe. We certainly wouldn't s=
ee the consistency we see now.
If you make them rare enough that it doesn't screw up the universe today=
, then you can't have enough to power your spacecraft.
There were loads more that I thought of last night, but I can't remember=
them now.
>Or finally,
>provide experimental evidence, from the series, that refutes a predicti=
on of
>the law.
Well, there's no evidence of time dilation anywhere in the series, for a=
start (apart from the end of 'Blake' <g>). The fact that Egrorian calls=
it a Tachyon Funnel, and not a Texton Funnel? Your theory doesn't expla=
in how they managed to see the planet explode, either.
Nothing immediately springs to mind. I still say it's bollocks though. =
;-)
--
Lysias
____________________________________
Email services provided by ApexMail
http://www.apexmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 12:38:24 -0800
From: "Lysias" <lysias@apexmail.com>
To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Parsec {was Orbit}
Message-Id: <1865454643965331504@apexmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
Gnog writes:
>As my previous post indicates, you can get a really good headache
>restricting yourself to control of exotic particles and / or high >ener=
gies.
I don't really agree. I think the reason your post was wince-inducing wa=
s that it is so far from real world physics, that it should be considere=
d AU physics. That's exactly the stuff that I said was hard to deal with=
in the first place.
--
Lysias
____________________________________
Get your free full featured email @
http://www.apexmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 08:12:11 +0100 (BST)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.com>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Slave and Thinking
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-0803071211-b49Rr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
On Thu 03 Aug, Erica Hayes wrote:
> Throughout series 4 he uses the phrase "I think" a few times, though maybe
> in the sense of "I reckon" or "I calculate". But in Rescue he says, "Thought
> is beyond my humble capacities".
>
> If that's true, then how can he 'know' that? If he can't 'think', how can he
> comprehend the concept of thought? OTOH, can a machine that insists it is
> one pass the Turing test for AI?
"Thought is beyond my humble capacities" could just be a standard programmed
phrase - it would be relatively easy to generate loads of those with simple
variants.
>
> The part in Blake where Slave calls Tarrant by his name always bugs me, too.
> In light of the above I can't think of a satisfactory explanation for it.
> Except as a plot device so Blake will know who Tarrant is, I suppose, but
> that's just not in the spirit of things, is it?
That's the hardest one to explain. It comes over as a little like Zen's final
words - a brief moment of something more self-aware. I suppose it is always
possible that Tarrant had got fed up of the servile personality and had ordered
Slave to use his real name now and then rather than 'sir'.
Judith
--
http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 - Fanzines for Blake's 7, B7 Filk songs,
pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth
Thomas, etc. (also non-Blake's 7 zines at http://www.knightwriter.org )
Redemption '01 23-25 Feb 2001 http://www.smof.com/redemption/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 22:00:30 +0100 (BST)
From: Iain Coleman <ijc@mail.nerc-bas.ac.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Slave and Thinking
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.96.1000803215858.14396A-100000@bsauasc>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Marian de Haan wrote:
>
> How does one do a Turing test and what is an AI? [Can I be the only one on
> this list who's never come across those terms before? :-)]
AI: Artificial Intelligence
Turing Test: The classic test for whether or not a machine is intelligent.
Basically, the machine communicates with a person via a remote terminal.
If the person can't tell it's a machine, then it's intelligent.
Iain
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 19:52:21 +0100
From: Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Slave and Thinking
Message-ID: <xoA7DEBl9bi5EwYA@jajones.demon.co.uk>
In message <Pine.OSF.3.96.1000803131721.18283C-100000@bsauasc>, Iain
Coleman <ijc@mail.nerc-bas.ac.uk> writes
>
>
>On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Una McCormack wrote:
>
>>
>> Have people ever done the Turing test and failed it?
>
>A few years ago I would have dismissed such a suggestion. Then I
>discovered Usenet.
>
Damn, beaten to it.
Less facetiously, yes. The usual routine in Turing competitions is to
have a mix of humans and AI. It is not unknown for some of the machines
to do better than some of the humans, although whether this has happened
in a test where the questioners were not restricted as to topic is
another matter. If you feel like running up your phone bill, spend a
while with New Scientist's online search engine.
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 19:55:40 +0100
From: Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Cc: "'blakes7@lysator.liu.se'" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Slave and Turing
Message-ID: <J$CFmQBsAci5EwOO@jajones.demon.co.uk>
In message <21B0197931E1D211A26E0008C79F6C4AB0C6CE@BRAMLEY>, Alison Page
<alison_page@becta.org.uk> writes
>Iain said
>
>
>>>the complete works of Philip K Dick, especially 'Do Androids Dream of
>> Electric Sheep' and 'A Scanner Darkly'.
>>
>Scanner is just about one of my favourite SF books ever.
>
Hardly surprising for a B7 fan, given the themes of that book.
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 21:28:14 GMT
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Of possible interest
Message-ID: <LAW-F150gak19YDBKL500005a5f@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Carol wrote:
<Jarriere spotting -- A friend tells me that Harry Jones plays a golf caddy
in a Highlander episode called "The Stone of Scone.">
Thank you!!! (Making mental note to wrote to all local TV stations and
demand they buy the series. Now.)
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 22:53:44 +0100
From: "Andrew Ellis" <Andrew.D.Ellis@btinternet.com>
To: <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Parsec {was Orbit}
Message-ID: <005301bfff28$76192f80$a852063e@leanet>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Gnog writes:
>>As my previous post indicates, you can get a really good headache
>>restricting yourself to control of exotic particles and / or high
>energies.
>Lysias
I> don't really agree. I think the reason your post was wince-inducing was
that it is so far from real world physics, that it should be considered >AU
physics. That's exactly the stuff that I said was hard to deal with in the
first place.
OK, give me an example of how the liberator might travel FTL, without going
to far beyond AU physics (and while you are at it, define AU physics).
I think your main wince however was that I claimed it was possible, in some
extreme circumstance, for Tachions to interact with something STL whilst the
current definition is that this does not happen. And yet so often in the
past, revolutions have turned established thinking on its head.
Gnog
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 22:44:38 +0100
From: "Andrew Ellis" <Andrew.D.Ellis@btinternet.com>
To: <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Parsec {was Orbit}
Message-ID: <005201bfff28$727f8e00$a852063e@leanet>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Gnog and Lysias,
> Firstly, throw away the idea of colliding with "a normal particle with the
same mass". A Tachyon has imaginary mass, so there's no *way* you're going
to find a normal particle with the same mass. Instead (and this is what I
think you meant) consider a collision between a Tachyon and a particle of
normal matter which has the same magnitude of mass squared.
OK same difference, I only said imagine.
> Assuming that they annihilate (why?), the energy associated with the
masses will cancel out, leaving the energy associated with the Tachyon's
momentum.
Never said they annihilated did I, its more interesting if they don't. Trust
a high energy physicist to think in terms of annihilation and looking for
exotic by products.
> The energy carried by a Tachyon is negative, thus you will need to supply
additional energy
By, for example, annihilating mass of STL particles, in the presence of a
strong gravitational field (note, aiming squarely at high energies AND short
distances with relativistic speeds - should be close to the edge of current
thinking).
> I fail to see why the antiparticle partner of a Tachyon should be STL.
I didn't say antiparticle. I said counterpart. A hole is not the anti
particle of an electron now is it ?
> There are no quantum numbers associated with this kind of thing. We don't
need any more in the current system
Once upon a time we didn't need stangeness and charm, but they are used to
tourture students all the time today.
> so by postulating this you're actually throwing away the whole of Quantum
Mechanics.
Actually, postulating that there is a regime where other effects take place,
where a new bit a physics takes over and allows Tachions to interact with
matter. Away from that regime, I assume that Quantum Mechanics remains
valid.
>A Tachyon cannot be slowed to light speed or below, just as a normal
particle cannot be accelerated to light speed or above. Therefore in order
for them to couple, they would have to sit on either side of the boundary,
very, very close to the edge. Slowing down a Tachyon requires energy.
Accelerating a normal particle requires energy. This is intrinsic to their
natures. Therefore it will not be energetically favourable for them to form
this coupled pair.
Energy is supplied in some unknown way from the intense gravitational field
required for the interaction.
> After all, your Tachyons can't *usually* interact with matter, otherwise
they'd be seen all the time. How are these two going to couple?
The experimental evidence (orbit) is that the interaction takes place in a
very strong gravitational field, such that the 21st century laws of physics
break down.
> How is it destructive? What kind of effects are you talking about?
Well, what happens when the Textons alter the gravitational fields. You
know, like turn gravity off and see what happens to a star.
>In a Sci-Fi universe, where FTL travel is possible, it must be possible to
>break a few of todays physical laws.
>Well, bend them. On the whole, though, it ain't possible.
If you refuse to play the game .....
>>So to allow FTL travel, a drive unit
>will gather together anti matter STL tachions,
> How are you going to capture them?
In a TACHION FUNNEL, which comprises at its core nuetron star material to
provide the required strong gravitiation field. Obviously. They are not held
stationary, the are maintained as textons within the Bose Einstein
condensate later refered to.
> These things can't travel less than c, remember,
Never said you had to.
> The only way I could see this kind of thing working would be if space was
streaming with the damn things and you could shield the STL particles
somehow. Then you just expose them in a particular way.
Ah, you are playing the game.....
>>and excerpt a significant force during the controlled
>interaction.
> Controlled annihilation?
Interaction, NOT annihilation. We are playing with relativistic grativy
here.
>>The nature of the tachion exciton (texton from now on) produces
>a distortion of certain dimensions, in particular in the field of human
>consciousness, time.
> Why?
Experimental evidence from the series.
>and the tachion
>funnel makes good use of the Bose-Einstien condensation of textons
Not a chance. As mentioned above, there's no way you're going to slow them
that much. The only way to do it is by having them travel close to c.
>when
>subject to strong gravitational confinement, such as that found in neutron
>star material.
You'd have to do better than neutron star material to even confine these
things. A black hole would confine the STLs, but not the FTLs. It just
wouldn't be energetically favourable.
>>the controlled emission of chirped
>texton pulses, with an overall FTL velocity, but the FTL Tachion trailing
>behind its STL partners.
> Presumably you meant this the other way around!
No, I said chirped.
>>The weak interaction of such chirped texton pulses
>in the absence of a strong gravitation field (such as the field produced by
>a grown human)
>Eh? Humans producing strong gravitational fields? How fat mankind must have
become!
OK, you got me, I stuck the grown human in to tie into the rather feeble
spontanious combustion bit at the end, should realy mean medium to large
planet.
>ensure that the pulse propagates with no attenuation and
>negligible broadening over vast distances.
Well, there will be certain 'optical' effects analogous to those seen in
lasers that are going to be a problem. Other than that...
You mean diffraction of course, and to get self focusing (to overcome
diffraction over long distances) I need to turn the nonlinearity not only
back on, but change its sign. But if I do that, the Textons (and probably
Tachions) WOULD interact with matter quite often, and current experimental
evidence (21st Century) proves that is not the case. Internal inconsistency
number 2.
> Spontaneous human combustion is well known and now well understood
(allegedly) to be a simple manifestation of the wick effect. An unneccessary
'tack-on' (sorry, couldn't resist) to your theory.
Yes, a silly addition to try and keep it interesting for the rest of the
list.
>>In order to refute this argument, its no good saying that textons do not
>exist,
> I shall refute in whatever way I choose, thank you very much. Whether you
choose to accept the refutation is entirely up to you.
Please do. I don't (obviously).
>you must either spot the inconsistency in the argument (there is
>one),
The other one is that you don't generally get a nonlinear interaction on a
wavefunction, since the nonlinear interaction could be constued as a
measurement
> If you make them rare enough that it doesn't screw up the universe today,
then you can't have enough to power your spacecraft.
In the same way that if I make nuclear fission common enough it would blow
up the planet ?
> there's no evidence of time dilation anywhere in the series, for a start
(apart from the end of 'Blake' <g>).
Ah, but Squirbles law actually allows for that by compensating time
dillation with time distortion. Put that in specifically you see.
> The fact that Egrorian calls it a Tachyon Funnel, and not a Texton Funnel?
Because it funnels Tachyons to make Textons.
> Your theory doesn't explain how they managed to see the planet explode,
either.
I'm leaving that to the corrolory of Squirbles law that allows messages to
be transmitted at FTL speeds through subspace.
> Nothing immediately springs to mind. I still say it's bollocks though.
;-)
And long live your right to do so (and it was bolloxks wasn't it !).
I enjoyed that, thanks.
But what we have illustrated is the problem with trying to understand the
science of SciFi. You need to keep an eye on reality, because in the limit,
whatever laws have been discovered, they must approximate to the laws that
went previously. Simultaneously, they must be as alien to us as the Earth
not being the centre of the universe was in ancient times. Any proposals
will get knee jerk hostility from the experts of the time. So, as we said
yesterday, or the day before, its best just to turn the scientist off and
enjoy the adventure. Perhaps that's part of why I like B7, there is actually
less "science" to prick, and more social angst to relate to.
(role call, who made it to the end ?)
Gnog
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 18:09:39 EDT
From: B7Morrigan@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Parsec {was Orbit}
Message-ID: <c1.5b3c7b2.26bb47a3@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Gnog wrote:
> (role call, who made it to the end ?)
>
I did and it was very educational. Thank you both.
Morrigan
"When I get a little money I buy zines; and if any is left I buy food and
clothes."
(apologies to Erasmus)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 08:48:45 EST
From: "J MacQueen" <j_macqueen@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Slave and Thinking
Message-ID: <F169qivGlx0nGtGYXoH00005bbf@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>From: Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk>
>If you feel like running up your phone bill, spend a
>while with New Scientist's online search engine.
That reminds me of a link to an article on the web that very journal had a
few years back about human interaction with AI. The writer suggested that
one human being might've failed the Turing test. <grin> The name given to
the AI happened to be Julia, by the way...
Regards
Joanne
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 08:53:51 EST
From: "J MacQueen" <j_macqueen@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Of possible interest
Message-ID: <F187uz3URRvvNn8VD8o000014e5@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>From: Mac4781@aol.com
>Jarriere spotting -- A friend tells me that Harry Jones plays a golf caddy
>in
>a Highlander episode called "The Stone of Scone."
This reminds me - I found Harry Jones listed in the credits for An
Ungentlemanly Act. Next time I watch it, I shall have to be on the look out
for him, and not be distracted so much by the performances of Ian Richardson
and Bob Peck.
Regards
Joanne
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 08:55:40 EST
From: "J MacQueen" <j_macqueen@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Model of Servalan.
Message-ID: <F55hur860EWmRj4fXIA0000634a@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
><grin> whereas the Soolin model will be much more simple. We can have any
>colour outfit we like as long as it's grey ...
Oh Lord, Soolin Model T. Or something like that...
Regards
Joanne
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 100 18:33:42 +0000
From: huh@ccm.net
To: <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Parsec {was Orbit}
Message-Id: <200008032333.SAA24003@bowe.ccm.net>
>
> (role call, who made it to the end ?)
I did. It was so nice to see a sentence I could actually read and understand.
I kept thinking there HAD to be one in there somewhere....
-----------------------------------------------------
This message was sent via the CCMnet Mailman.
Visit our website: http://www.ccm.net
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 17:51:00 -0600
From: Betty Ragan <ragan@sdc.org>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Model of Servalan.
Message-ID: <398A0564.6EA445A6@sdc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sally Manton wrote:
> <grin> whereas the Soolin model will be much more simple. We can have any
> colour outfit we like as long as it's grey ...
But you could do Soolin with interchangeable hairstyles... Package her
with a comb and some bobby pins or whatever, like they do with some
Barbie dolls... :)
--
Betty Ragan ** ragan@sdc.org ** http://www.sdc.org/~ragan/
"Imposing Latin rules on English structure is a little
like trying to play baseball in ice skates." -- Bill Bryson
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 17:57:23 -0600
From: Betty Ragan <ragan@sdc.org>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Slave and Thinking
Message-ID: <398A06E3.C42FC7A9@sdc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Iain Coleman wrote:
> It's true that one could imagine some very alien machine intelligence that
> can't pass the Turing test. However, I don't think the test makes any
> claims about the intelligence or otherwise of entities which fail it, only
> about those which pass it.
I don't think such a machine intelligence need be very alien at all.
It's *not* a human being, after all, and it would be a bit silly to
expect it to respond exactly like one. Personally, I regard passing the
Turing Test as a sufficient condition for being regarded as sentient
(under the "if it quacks like a duck" theory), but definitely not as a
necessary one.
Um, drifting a bit from B7 here... OK, what do people think about
Vinni? Or the Avalon android? They both seem to have passed the Turing
test...
--
Betty Ragan ** ragan@sdc.org ** http://www.sdc.org/~ragan/
"Imposing Latin rules on English structure is a little
like trying to play baseball in ice skates." -- Bill Bryson
--------------------------------
End of blakes7-d Digest V00 Issue #220
**************************************