Page 2 of 4

Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 5:18 am
by tbaker2500
Hey! LajesticVantrashellofLob is using my namesake as an avatar! If anyone should have a picture of Tom Baker here, it should be me! :-)

Anywho, on to the question. In the drabble Navy Wife, I don't understand the very last line. Why did the Chaplain come to her door on Monday?

Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:58 am
by Beth Peters
tbaker2500 wrote:
Anywho, on to the question. In the drabble Navy Wife, I don't understand the very last line. Why did the Chaplain come to her door on Monday?
It's a cyclic story; could keep repeating forever almost from any day. Maybe there was a ghost writing her that didn't know it was dead, maybe he wasn't dead yet, it all depends on where you start.

Really good story, one of my favorites. Agree, outstandingly produced (computed voice scene was awesome). I've thought about the mind/body= you debate and this story puts it in a new light, I hope it sparks some conversation.

Posted: Thu Aug 06, 2009 7:52 pm
by Phenopath
tbaker2500 wrote:Hey! LajesticVantrashellofLob is using my namesake as an avatar!
Namesake? :-(

Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 3:09 am
by tbaker2500
Phenopath wrote:
tbaker2500 wrote:Hey! LajesticVantrashellofLob is using my namesake as an avatar!
Namesake? :-(
He's using a picture of the actor Tom Baker, who played possibly the most beloved of the Doctors in Dr. Who. My name also Tom Baker.

Posted: Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:00 pm
by Phenopath
tbaker2500 wrote:
Phenopath wrote:
tbaker2500 wrote:Hey! LajesticVantrashellofLob is using my namesake as an avatar!
Namesake? :-(
He's using a picture of the actor Tom Baker, who played possibly the most beloved of the Doctors in Dr. Who. My name also Tom Baker.
You've ruined my fantasy, let's go back to pretending that you are the big man.

Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 9:33 pm
by devora
Confession: I stepped out during part of the story b/c I felt nothing was happening. Meh. Wonderfully produced, tho.

Did I miss where the word 'husband' comes in? I listened to this whole thing as if it were two women. Wait, I didn't listen to this whole thing so what the hell am I talking about? For those who did, is it clear it's a male first person?

Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 9:45 pm
by tbaker2500
Yep, husband/wife combo. Jelly baby?

Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:56 am
by LajesticVantrashellofLob
Phenopath wrote: You've ruined my fantasy, let's go back to pretending that you are the big man.
Yes, let's. I'm going to forget that you ever said anything at all, TBaker2500. Instead I, like Phenopath, will continue to imagine/pretend/believe that the wonderful Tom Baker is an actual member of the drabblecast forums.
tbaker2500 wrote:Jelly baby?
:D :D :D

I feel like, instead of completelyderailing this thread, I should circle back to the episode somehow...

Right! I must admit that I too didn't understand Navy Wife at all either, but I was too excited by posthumanism to mention that. After reading the comments, though, it makes a lot more sense. Thanks.

Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:36 pm
by Phenopath
LajesticVantrashellofLob wrote:
Phenopath wrote: You've ruined my fantasy, let's go back to pretending that you are the big man.
Yes, let's. I'm going to forget that you ever said anything at all, TBaker2500. Instead I, like Phenopath, will continue to imagine/pretend/believe that the wonderful Tom Baker is an actual member of the drabblecast forums.
Which is not to say that Tom Baker (aka TBaker2500) is not as charming as Tom Baker (aka The Doctor), who also happens to be as mad as a box of frogs (Tom Baker that is).

Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:27 pm
by Phenopath
Oh! I just was doing a little Tom Baker (aka The Doctor not TBaker2500) research and wikipedia hints at the existence of an unbroadcast 1970s recording of Sredni Vashtar by Baker. Let it be so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Baker

Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:05 am
by tbaker2500
So what's up with there not being a 2009 Dr. Who series? Just a few specials. Grrr....

Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 1:06 pm
by strawman
Sorry, tbaker2500. You've been fireflied.

Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 8:25 pm
by ROU Killing Time
Phenopath wrote:
strawman wrote:
Phenopath wrote: For example, it is unknowable whether the simulations are actually conscious.
Not to be rude, but is it only simulations whose consciousness is unknowable? Or to rephrase, is there any proof of consciousness outside of self-consciousness?
Of course you are right. We assume that other human beings are conscious and have the same awareness of 'self' as ourselves. That working assumption makes life a little simpler and stops us behaving autistically.
I'd normally suggest googling "Solipsism" but there's no point, seeing as you are all figments of my imagination anyways.

Posted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:16 pm
by strawman
Good for your self esteem, aren't we?

Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:33 am
by AynSavoy
FINALLY caught up on Drabblecasts! (I've had a really crazy last two months at work.)

I really liked this one. I felt it was pretty certain that by the end the protagonist was leaning toward disagreeing with the practice. And I felt that the author did a good job of illustrating that whether or not the simulations were a good thing wasn't a black or white issue for the protagonist, since things like seldom are in real life.


Also, off-topic I'll join the voices sad about the lack of a full season of Doctor Who this coming year, but super-excited for the upcoming specials! (I got to see David Tenant in person at Comic Con!)

Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:19 am
by strawman
Thanks for bringing us back on topic, Ayn.
roboticintent wrote:Although the concept was freaky and I would not wish to have my ghost/spirit kept locked up once i'm gone.... free me.
This is, remember, a downloaded simulation. So it is like a hologram of a personality. Although it seems ghostlike, it is really no different from keeping a framed photograph on the mantle. I have heard of primitive cultures which regard photographs as "soul-capture".

Imagine if FBI aging software could be incorporated into the e-photo frames on the market today. You have a baby, and put his picture on your mantle, then watch as the picture computes and displays in real time what it projects him to look like as he learns to walk, grows up, goes off to college, gets married, etc. It would be a kind of 'simulcast'.
Actually, thank you roboticintent, for inspiring a really interesting concept. It would be expensive, but what a great gift idea! And only 4 months of shopping days 'til Christmas.

Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:38 am
by strawman
ROU,/Pheno/Laj might team up on a score or so of drabbles telling the episodic story of the growth of these simulations, and how they replace actual human beings, as in The Invasion of the Body Snatchers, because simulations, not needing food, clothing, medical care, drivers licenses and insurance, or college tuition are the ultimate fulfillment of evolutionary protocols.
(This would realize theologian/sci-fi-buff Teilhard de Chardin's prediction of transhumanism and the noosphere.)
see http://www.december.com/cmc/mag/1997/mar/cunning.html
Norm could produce the mp3, and we could upload them as audio for the simulation pictures. We're talking serious drabble merch tie-ins here, folks. Brought to you by Omega Productions, Inc.

Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:48 pm
by Mr. Tweedy
strawman wrote: This is, remember, a downloaded simulation. So it is like a hologram of a personality. Although it seems ghostlike, it is really no different from keeping a framed photograph on the mantle. I have heard of primitive cultures which regard photographs as "soul-capture".
That's really splitting hairs, don't you think? Can you draw a line between a human and something that thinks, acts, feels, reacts and is self-aware like a human being? There is a sort of parallel to "Little Brotherâ„¢": In that story the big brother was sure that he was "real" and the little brother was "fake", but really there were the same. By what logic could you say that a mind in the body is real "real" and a mind in the computer is "just a hologram"?

Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:24 pm
by strawman
I thought I expressed the logic, no?
It is even contained in the word 'simulation'. The program may be well enough executed to resemble a disembodied spirit, but I assume that the object of its creators was to simulate self-awareness rather than duplicate it, otherwise Ruthanna would have used the term 'duplication'.
'Simulation' is not about making something that feels, but about making something that others perceive as feeling. Bottom line is, it's a kind of deception for which there will always be a market.

But hey, this is the Drabblecast, where the willing suspension of disbelief is a holy obligation. Our logic should therefore be based on previous stories, such as Sing. Ruthanna does not describe the actual process of downloading. It might be that the act of recording her song froze her soul. Perhaps her DNA is petrified in amber. Not everything which is true is fact.

Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 3:42 pm
by Mr. Tweedy
Hmm...

But, then again, how would you differentiate between something that is self-aware and simulation of self-awareness? If it passes the Turing Test, on what basis would you judge that it is "only" a simulation? Simply on the basis that it is in a computer and you are in flesh? Rather chauvinistic, eh?

If we are simulating something like a hurricane, it's easy to say "this is real" and "this is a simulation," because a hurricane has objective, physical existence. Not so with a mind: A mind is inherently invisible. It cannot be directly observed and does not directly effect anything outside itself. We only ever see indirect clues that minds exist. We hear sounds, see movements, etc, and from these clues were infer that there is a mind which is their cause, but it is only an inference.

I think that, if you could create a "simulation" that acted like it was conscious, then there would be no basis for saying that it was not, in fact, conscious. How could you judge? Or, put another way, what criteria could you use to judge it unconscious that would not also apply your friends and neighbors?