1. Jasmine

2. Kerry

3. Jasmine

4. Kerry

5. Jasmine

6. Kerry

7. Rabbit Season

8. Duck Season

9. Rabb- err, Jasmine

>that part of your desire to "grow up" faster stems from being treated like

a

>child (of course); your objective isn't really to become Corinna Marks.

You

>already behave in an older fashion, so if you look less like a child,

people

>will probably treat you less like one. Thereby serving your purpose.

An extremely cogent point, Professor. Boy, I spend all this time

surrounded by teenagers, and sometimes even I forget that there's more to

life than the old boy-girl soap opera.

You're right. Looking older will help me be taken more seriously in many

situations. Not being immediately identifiable as a child prodigy in

college and beyond will no doubt be a blessing in and of itself.

>> Hmm, I wonder if the chemical response is what Archangel was talking

about

>> when she said "Some things are better experienced in the flesh." If so,

>> that could affect some extremely-long-term plans of mine.

>

>Hmm, I wouldn't know. You haven't told me about your extremely long-term

>plans. ^_^

I'm not sure I should. They're kind of . . . weird.

>[OOC: BTW, if I recall correctly, part of Ivan's deal was also that she

>couldn't directly or indirectly affect any of the members of HALF (without

>their conscious consent, I assume), so really, we could go anywhere and not

>be affected]

[OOC: I do believe you're right. Still, she *is* a demoness (or a

manifestation of Ivan's libido, which is hardly preferable). Given that

her whole portfolio is "repressed desire," who knows what she construes as

"consent"? I know *I'd* at least want to know in what places I needed to

be on my guard.]

>If it were, indeed, his "fault", I'd say that he is probably unaware of it.

>Or else he subconsciously is, and personifies it as a demon as a means of

>avoidance. Indeed, I find that the very use of the term "demon" tends to

>imply something psychological, though that may just be me.

Maybe. To me, "demon" implies "nasty thing with horns." But maybe I watch

too much TV.

>[OOC: Wheee, I always love the opportunity to show that anything can be

>twisted around if you look at it the right way ^_^ ]

[OOC: Hee. Yeah, I like your take.]

>[OOC: snicker. I don't recall what the gifts were offhand, but I haven't

>heard them mentioned for awhile, so I guess they were a bit of an

>anticlimax.]

[OOC: Jasmine was specifically referring to the spiritual strength that

Andrael bestowed upon the soul-sick Tyler. Since that was supposed to be

both Tyler's own gift and Jasmine's, you'd think it'd have been a bit more

effective than it ended up being. Yeah, I know, can't subvert free will,

and all that -- but Jasmine's hardly going to buy such a flimsy excuse from

those lazy good-for-nothings in Heaven. ;) ]

>Hmm. Interesting. Was Mr...err, Ivan present at the time?

Yes, he was. In fact, the theory that the entity was an angel was his,

first. Hmm, curiouser and curiouser.

>I'm so glad you agree on the latter statement. It doesn't get any better,

>except in that otherpeople around you have the same problem. It also helps

>somewhat to talk about it, even if you don't get any especially useful

>advice. Shared burdens and all that.

Guess so.

>And I'm afraid I have little advice to offer. In my ideal world, people

>wouldn't have any problem with what we are doing to further our educations.

>Most people are not biologists and do not understand that the sociological

>taboos we face have far more to do with the puritanism that was at the

>foundation of this country's history than any basis in reality. Those who

>are aware of our gifts, in particular, should be aware that we are far in

>advance of our peers in almost every respect short of physiological

>development (and in some cases, that too).

You'd think so, wouldn't you? And *some* of the Parental Types I know do

take that attitude. Tyler's mom in particular seemed to have no problem

using us as her info-gathering arm against the Nephandi cult. It was

*almost* as if we really were just another allied cabal.

My dad's different, though. Even with our deal, I wouldn't want to push

things too far.

Archangel had a theory that the Awakened children of mages actually have a

worse time of it than people who Awaken among mundanes, because hiding

their secrets and protecting the "less able" is practically second nature

to any experienced mage. Wonder if she's right?

>I imagine that if you used the "deal" with your father as a defense in ths

>situation, his (most coherent) response is likely to be that there "will be

>plenty of opportunity for such things later". The only advice I can offer

>there is to point out that we, in particular, are in far more dangerous

>situations than the norm. There may very well not BE a later.

Y'know, I'm not sure that's really the tack to take with an overprotective

father.

"Sure, dad, maybe I'm studying naked boys a little too soon, but hey, I

could wind up DEAD tomorrow!"

>Very well, I accept your promise. Although I can't for the life of me

think

>of anything that these studies might reveal that I wouldn't wish you to

see.

>[OOC: Yeah, right]

[OOC: So you think otherwise, then?]

>I disagree. Although your altruism was not sincere (cynics would say that

>it never is), the psychological harm that may have been done could very

well

>be subtle, yet pervading. You yourself are convinced that you deserved

>this. I find that disturbing.

Oh, c'mon, Kerry. I'm not that fragile. You're getting as bad as the

Elliots' housekeeper, who has that strange belief in radioactive puberty.

I've always gone to school with Tyler, which means I've been going to

school with kids four years older than me for as long as I've been going to

school at all. You don't think I've been called worse, by people with a

lot less underlying affection for me than Tyler has?

I've been hurt by name-calling, yeah. And probably it did add extra oomph

to my wanting to look and act older. But that wasn't one of those times,

believe me.

>Rethink it. Don't you think that the "sting" you mention was an effective

>behavioral modifier, even WITHOUT Tyler's damage to your self-image?

Well, I *did* go ahead and do it, though I confessed to him shortly

afterward.

>Jasmine, I'm not setting you apart for unusual niceness [OOC: he's probably

>wrong], but like it or not, you ARE in a larval stage. We intend to speed

>the process of getting you OUT of it, but for the time being you are

>particularly sensitive to subtle harms that people may inflict. They may

>not even realize they are inflicting such upon you, probably because they

>are too careless to think it through. I cannot abide that behavior,

>especially to a friend.

Professor, you're too sweet for your own good.

But then, I believe in defending my friends too. Just as long as it's a

two-way street.

>Hmm. Well, she has not seen fit to inform me of her reaction, so I

wouldn't

>know.

Um, well, she and Tyler had sex. Implying that, once she got that initial

push past her own inhibitions, she was quite willing to do the deed. And

thus supporting your hypothesis.

>> >Actually ... I may be overstepping the bounds here, but I'm surprised

you

>> >aren't affected more deeply by his pursuit of others.

>>

>> Oh, I'm affected, all right.

>

>Forgive me. I didn't mean to imply that you didn't care at all, but still

>... you seem to rely on the fact that he will eventually come back to you.

>In spite of the fact that you are attempting to change the future (and are

>likely have succeeded). I'd hate to see you spend half your life chasing

>him (once you decide to start being active in your pursuits) only to

>discover that nothing is ever going to come of it, or to discover that

>something does come of it ... and it isn't everything you'd hoped.

Don't think I don't worry about these things . . . especially after that

future trip.

But again, I can't really do anything to guarantee any particular outcome,

except live my life and hope for the best.

>C, in particular, would seem to indicate that it might not be everything

>you'd hope for. Even if his policy has changed, whatever policy he has

>replaced it with does not appear to be helping prevent that occurrence ...

>else it would not have been an issue recently.

Well, by the time he switched from Caitlin to Mel, he'd already been

dragged into the cult, and was being made to forget the full extent of his

own actions.

If he'd just gone with Mel when he first fell for her, Mala and Co.

wouldn't have been able to get their Caitlin-shaped hooks into him.

(Of course, if he'd eschewed the "date girls I don't like" policy and

actually stayed *completely* faithful to his presumed future marriage with

me, the same would be true. But maybe that's asking too much of the

adolescent male libido.)

>> At least Mel is unlikely to be a corrupting influence, and apparently

>> refuses to actually have sex with him (well, again). Since, according to

>> him, teenage boys feel the way I felt on the Night of Raging Lust *all

the

>> time*

>

>Well, I have no idea how you felt. If you could provide me with that data

>in a manner similar to your "prepackaged zip" of things about Tyler, I

could

>possibly compare them to my own experience.

Actually, that's *part* of the "ZIP file." You can have that whenever

you'd like, by the way. It might be best to do the transfer during our

next private session at the Halfway House, just in case you need a little

time to adjust to having my memories in your head.

>

>>, then by the time I'm ready to mount a direct challenge (which won't

>> be quite as many years as previously expected, thanks to you), he should

>> be quite willing to consider alternatives.

>

>Keep in mind that Tyler will still be gaining chronological age at the same

>rate you are. If, as you said, people normally take that into

consideration

>(even though they shouldn't), then he may not be any more willing to

>consider you a valid choice than he has up until now.

Hrmm. Always have to throw a wrench into the works, don't you, Kerry? ;)

Well, let's do the math. We know that at this point, a fellow 13-year-old

is definitely old enough to have moved from the "disgusting" stage to the

"valid choice" stage. Of course, by the time I'm 13, he'll be 17. But, if

your efforts can give me roughly Corinna's rate of development, I'll *look*

around 17. That might just be enough. It's still a little more than three

years off, at any rate, but I think that's the best I'm going to do, period.

>Keep in mind that you

>have already both been in adult bodies together ... and nothing happened.

Well, not quite nothing. Re-read your interview notes, Professor.

Specifically, the "have you ever kissed a boy" question. Of course, that

*was* pretty much entirely my doing.

>I'm not sure how accurate this outcome is, but I don't want you to get your

>hopes up too high.

I know, and thanks for the whack with the Reality Stick. Still, I think

you may be a little too pessimistic. I'm still his best friend, after all,

and whatever I lack in sex appeal *will* be made up eventually.

>

>> Well [OOC: she said defensively], it wasn't JUST the visit to the future.

>> Back when he was my age, Tyler died and came back, and while he was dead

>he

>> saw flashes of the life he *should* have had, including being married to

>> me. And we weren't even really friends at the time, so it wasn't just

>> wishful thinking or even a "most probable outcome at this point" kind of

>> thing.

>

>I assume you knew one another at the time?

Well, yes.

>Being together, or even marriage, do not at all imply a positive outcome,

as

>I'm certain that you are all too aware.

Well, no. But it does mean we have a job to do, and we can't afford to be

as self-centered and generally unpleasant as our older selves were in that

future.

Actually, for what it's worth, my older self would agree with you,

apparently. She left a message on my computer before we were all switched

back to our proper times, and she picked as a .sig quote this entry from

the Devil's Dictionary:

"LOVE: A condition of temporary insanity, curable by marriage."

Go figure.

>> As for that future we visited, it was actually sort of a worst-case

>> scenario.

>

>This would hardly be my definition of a worst-case scenario.

Oh, there was more. Because our future selves were such terrible people,

the whole prophecy business didn't get taken care of, and most of our

parents' cabal wound up dead trying to correct the mistake.

Still, I'm sure it could be even worse. Did you have a particular scenario

in mind?

>Incidentally, it occurs to me that you mentioned your daughter as

>"hypothetical". Certainly, the fact that you are trying to change the

>future implies that her future existence could be called into question. So

>I have yet another question for you: do you WANT that hypothetical daughter

>in the future? Because we could look into ways of increasing or decreasing

>the odds of at least her physical appearance remaining the same.

>

>And, by the way, I don't know if you know, but the odds against that

>occurring naturally are pretty high. Consider the quantity of fertilizing

>cells released by the male in even a single coupling. Now consider that

the

>timing of that incident obviously determines whether that that one

>particular unique cell is even present or not, and you begin to see the

>difficulties involved.

Yipe. And the timing is exactly what *will* change, if we have anything to

say about it. My older self in that future was a wife and mother at 16,

neither entirely by choice. I'll bet that having things happen that way

was part of what made her and her husband turn out the way they did.

As for whether I'd like to have the same daughter again, I don't know.

Even if we were to set up a physical similarity, I can only hope that *my*

daughter will grow up with more active and loving parents than the version

I met.

>I see that you are aware of my line of thinking. If you want my advice,

I'd

>say pursue your own life. Don't worry about any future guarantee; either

it

>will happen or it will not. You should be friends with Tyler, and help him

>not fall into corruption, but if you take this prophecy too seriously, I

>fear that you will either waste many chances at your own happiness, or else

>drive yourself mad.

Well, I don't like the advice, but I don't see that I really have much

choice but to take it. If I picked up one thing from that future, it was

that if I actually have to choose between being Tyler's best friend and

being his wife, I'll pick the first one.

>And by the way, though I hesitate to suggest it, have you considered the

>fact that marriage is hardly permanent in today's society? You implied it

>with your comment of "sniping". ot only are you not guaranteed happiness

>with Tyler, but even if you briefly find it, you are not guaranteed that it

>will last.

That's true too, I suppose. He is going to be some kind of celebrity rich

guy, like the ones you see in magazines announcing Marriage #4. Even if

our wedding itself is as written into the fabric of spacetime as Katy said,

that doesn't mean I won't be one of a series.

Jeez, Kerry. You really know how to pile on the bad news. I think this

time you owe me the ice cream personally.

>Frankly, I find the entire concept highly disturbing. Romance should occur

>free of such concerns. Just you knowing about the prophecy may have doomed

>you to an unhappy version of it.

That'll be a particularly large tub of ice cream, I think.

>> If Tyler does marry

>> me, will it be because he wants to (and would've wanted to anyway), or

>> will it be because he thinks he "has" to and has been ignoring other

>options?

>

>The latter seems rather more likely to me.

Hey now. What happened to "his loss"? Is there some reason why he

couldn't just want to marry me? No, no, you're way too polite to have

actually meant it that way. But what did you mean?

>Even if you work out your equations, how can you be certain that they are

>unbiased? We etherites believe that the experimenter determines the

>outcome, to a rather large degree. Your equations may work perfectly well

>when it comes to anyone but Tyler ... and then help you no more than

knowing

>the prophecy or the future does.

Does this never end? Do you have a *happy* thought in your brain, Kerry?

>[OOC: Sexist in which respect? Obviously, in that it discusses one

gender's

>perception of another, it is by definition sexist. But aside from that?

>(I'm not denying it, I just suspect that I'm not following it completely.)

]

[OOC: Perhaps I was reading the passage with too much Victorian Etherite

Pomposity, but I took the "us/them" distinction as an example of the

occasionally decried but still common assumption in scientific studies that

males are the normal baseline humans, and females a mysterious deviation

therefrom. Hence Science helping (or failing to help) "us" understand

"them." You may not have meant it that way, of course.]

>[OOC: Heh. Well, actually, I was thinking more along the lines of knowing

>when to turn it on or off (magick is an act of will, after all). But your

>problem fits too. It also raises questions of Jasmine doing too many

things

>at once. If she's doing an effect over in the girl's dorm, while Tyler is

>out boinking a cultist and she wants him to "be a man" so to speak, then

>suddenly Jasmine is doing two distinct effects simultaneously. Which is

>supposedly impossible by the rules, unless they are done as a conjunctional

>effect.

[OOC: The idea is that the effect was created in its entirety when the

watch was made, and given a total duration of 12 hours. The only odd part

is the ability of the wearer to turn the duration countdown on and off over

an apparently indefinite period of time. That may just be too much of an

oddity, however.]

>Here's a question: Did Jasmine put in the images of Tyler's and her own

>older selves? She wouldn't know what Kerry would look like as an adult,

>though I suppose she could make something up or extrapolate.]

[OOC: Right, she'd be working from less data in Kerry's case. But the

intended usage in his case requires more that he look like *an* adult than

that he look specifically like his own future self. So a bit more leeway

is probably acceptable.]

> situations. Not being immediately identifiable as a child prodigy in

> college and beyond will no doubt be a blessing in and of itself.

No doubt.

> I'm not sure I should. They're kind of . . . weird.

Weird is my middle name. OK, actually, it isn't. But you know what I mean.

Honestly, Jasmine, have you forgotten who you are speaking to? ^_^

> [OOC: I do believe you're right. Still, she *is* a demoness (or a

> manifestation of Ivan's libido, which is hardly preferable). Given that

> her whole portfolio is "repressed desire," who knows what she construes as

> "consent"? I know *I'd* at least want to know in what places I needed to

> be on my guard.]

[ooc: true]

> [OOC: Jasmine was specifically referring to the spiritual strength that

> Andrael bestowed upon the soul-sick Tyler. Since that was supposed to be

> both Tyler's own gift and Jasmine's, you'd think it'd have been a bit more

> effective than it ended up being. Yeah, I know, can't subvert free will,

> and all that -- but Jasmine's hardly going to buy such a flimsy excuse

from

> those lazy good-for-nothings in Heaven. ;) ]

[ooc: heh]

> >Hmm. Interesting. Was Mr...err, Ivan present at the time?

>

> Yes, he was. In fact, the theory that the entity was an angel was his,

> first. Hmm, curiouser and curiouser.

Indeed. One could probably make quite the study of our Mr. Neville. But my

interests presently lie elsewhere. Perhaps I will note it for later

investigation.

> >I'm so glad you agree on the latter statement. It doesn't get any

better,

> >except in that other people around you have the same problem. It also

helps

> >somewhat to talk about it, even if you don't get any especially useful

> >advice. Shared burdens and all that.

>

> Guess so.

So...err. Just so you know, I like to think of myself as a good listener,

when I'm not caught up in a project. It seems to run in my family.

> My dad's different, though. Even with our deal, I wouldn't want to push

> things too far.

Hmm.

> Archangel had a theory that the Awakened children of mages actually have a

> worse time of it than people who Awaken among mundanes, because hiding

> their secrets and protecting the "less able" is practically second nature

> to any experienced mage. Wonder if she's right?

I have no idea. I'm not sure it can be proven either way. It probably

matters more on circumstance than category.

> Y'know, I'm not sure that's really the tack to take with an overprotective

> father.

I wouldn't know, not being a father, nor possessing an overprotective one.

> "Sure, dad, maybe I'm studying naked boys a little too soon, but hey, I

> could wind up DEAD tomorrow!"

'Too soon' is a concept subject to some debate, as young children frequently

investigate one another as a matter of course. It is natural curiosity and

I frankly feel that it is wrong to shun it. I imagine that bottling up that

curiosity is partially responsible for causing some children to lose

interest in learning, and for others to fall into rampant dangerous

promiscuity.

Basically, parents restrain their children from their instinctive

investigations ... which means that the curiosity is usually either stamped

out, or repressed until puberty hits. At which point said children

inevitably lose any semblence of self-control. The problem seems to get

worse with every generation

But your point is taken.

> >Very well, I accept your promise. Although I can't for the life of me

think

> >of anything that these studies might reveal that I wouldn't wish you to

see.

> >[OOC: Yeah, right]

>

> [OOC: So you think otherwise, then?]

[OOC: Maaaaaayyyybe... ]

> Oh, c'mon, Kerry. I'm not that fragile. You're getting as bad as the

> Elliots' housekeeper, who has that strange belief in radioactive puberty.

Ah, well, that's different. People have some strange taboos and notions

about their physiologies.

> I've always gone to school with Tyler, which means I've been going to

> school with kids four years older than me for as long as I've been going

to

> school at all. You don't think I've been called worse, by people with a

> lot less underlying affection for me than Tyler has?

I wouldn't know. The last four years of my education have consisted mainly

of private tutors arranged for by my grandfather, with only the occasional

class in school. Before that, I attended public school, but I do not recall

a lot of profanity and things of that nature in third grade.

> I've been hurt by name-calling, yeah. And probably it did add extra oomph

> to my wanting to look and act older. But that wasn't one of those times,

> believe me.

I suppose I must take your word for it. But do bear in mind that I am

overly fond of formality and politeness ... I would react more strongly to

what others consider a casual bit of profanity than perhaps they intended.

Just a measure of how carelessly people treat one another, really.

> >Jasmine, I'm not setting you apart for unusual niceness [OOC: he's

probably

> >wrong], but like it or not, you ARE in a larval stage. We intend to

speed

> >the process of getting you OUT of it, but for the time being you are

> >particularly sensitive to subtle harms that people may inflict. They may

> >not even realize they are inflicting such upon you, probably because they

> >are too careless to think it through. I cannot abide that behavior,

> >especially to a friend.

>

> Professor, you're too sweet for your own good.

Hmm. Perhaps, perhaps not. Sometimes I wonder.

> But then, I believe in defending my friends too. Just as long as it's a

> two-way street.

I see.

> >Hmm. Well, she has not seen fit to inform me of her reaction, so I

wouldn't

> >know.

>

> Um, well, she and Tyler had sex. Implying that, once she got that initial

> push past her own inhibitions, she was quite willing to do the deed. And

> thus supporting your hypothesis.

My hypothesis is undoubtedly pleased to hear that. ^_^

> But again, I can't really do anything to guarantee any particular outcome,

> except live my life and hope for the best.

Exactly the point I was trying to get across.

> (Of course, if he'd eschewed the "date girls I don't like" policy and

> actually stayed *completely* faithful to his presumed future marriage with

> me, the same would be true. But maybe that's asking too much of the

> adolescent male libido.)

That would depend partially on how much stock he put in such things as this

prophecy.

> Actually, that's *part* of the "ZIP file." You can have that whenever

> you'd like, by the way. It might be best to do the transfer during our

> next private session at the Halfway House, just in case you need a little

> time to adjust to having my memories in your head.

Sounds good to me.

> Hrmm. Always have to throw a wrench into the works, don't you, Kerry? ;)

Apologies. I didn't mean to.

> >Keep in mind that you

> >have already both been in adult bodies together ... and nothing happened.

>

> Well, not quite nothing. Re-read your interview notes, Professor.

> Specifically, the "have you ever kissed a boy" question. Of course, that

> *was* pretty much entirely my doing.

Hmm, yes. Not exactly what I meant, though.

> >I'm not sure how accurate this outcome is, but I don't want you to get

your

> >hopes up too high.

>

> I know, and thanks for the whack with the Reality Stick. Still, I think

> you may be a little too pessimistic. I'm still his best friend, after

all,

> and whatever I lack in sex appeal *will* be made up eventually.

As you and I both said before ... life is complicated. The things that seem

simple in theory can be excruciatingly difficult in practice.

> >I assume you knew one another at the time?

>

> Well, yes.

I ask because it would give more credence to this prophecy business if he

didn't actually know you then.

> Actually, for what it's worth, my older self would agree with you,

> apparently. She left a message on my computer before we were all switched

> back to our proper times, and she picked as a .sig quote this entry from

> the Devil's Dictionary:

>

> "LOVE: A condition of temporary insanity, curable by marriage."

> Go figure.

Actually, I would disagree with your older self on that. My point was,

though they do NOT imply a positive outcome, they SHOULD.

> Oh, there was more. Because our future selves were such terrible people,

> the whole prophecy business didn't get taken care of, and most of our

> parents' cabal wound up dead trying to correct the mistake.

>

> Still, I'm sure it could be even worse. Did you have a particular

scenario

> in mind?

You and Tyler get married. At some point, before or during the marriage,

Tyler manages to be swayed over to the forces of corruption. Sure, he's

under scrutiny now ... but is he going to be for the rest of his life?

Tyler uses the marriage, your relationship, your emotions -- all of it -- as

a means of corrupting you. Furthermore, the people that are supposed to be

"saving the world", are possibly likewise corrupted, being under your care

and direction.

There have been many warnings regarding the Nephandi printed in the pages of

Paradigma over the last century. These stuck out in my mind; as I said, I

cannot abide betrayal. In many ways, they are almost exactly like a literal

corruption ... a plague, if you will.

> As for whether I'd like to have the same daughter again, I don't know.

> Even if we were to set up a physical similarity, I can only hope that *my*

> daughter will grow up with more active and loving parents than the version

> I met.

Well, it's an option to think about, at any rate. Personally, having met a

loved one in the future, I would likely make every attempt to ensure their

existence in the future. Otherwise it would seem to me a bit too much like

not caring for them at all. Possibly like murder. Not having been in that

situation, I can't say which for sure.

> Well, I don't like the advice, but I don't see that I really have much

> choice but to take it. If I picked up one thing from that future, it was

> that if I actually have to choose between being Tyler's best friend and

> being his wife, I'll pick the first one.

I am glad. In my opinion, the latter concept should never be without the

former concept, in the first place. If you find yourself thinking it likely

that it may be a one-or-the-other situation, then something is probably

wrong.

> That's true too, I suppose. He is going to be some kind of celebrity rich

> guy, like the ones you see in magazines announcing Marriage #4. Even if

> our wedding itself is as written into the fabric of spacetime as Katy

said,

> that doesn't mean I won't be one of a series.

> Jeez, Kerry. You really know how to pile on the bad news. I think this

> time you owe me the ice cream personally.

Hmm. You may be right. Oddly, I hadn't considered myself pessimistic

before. It's not a natural attitude for members of my tradition. On the

other hand, if your marriage to tyler turns out to be less than you'd hoped

for AND one of a series ... well, I don't want to say that's a positive

thing, but a certainly less negative one than if you were stuck with him.

Very well, I shall -- at your convenience -- provide you with Ice Cream of a

flavor and at a place of your choosing. If it involves going to town,

perhaps we can do some other fun activity while we are there. You may also

wish to make use of the occasion to test my skirt-attention-pheremone cycle.

[OOC. Translation: "Jasmine, will you go out with me? Yes/No/Maybe"

^_^ ]

Perhaps before or after our next session? That is likely to be after my

study of Miss Marks, and if that is as trying as I suspect it will be, I may

partake of some of this "universal medicine" myself.

> >Frankly, I find the entire concept highly disturbing. Romance should

occur

> >free of such concerns. Just you knowing about the prophecy may have

doomed

> >you to an unhappy version of it.

>

> That'll be a particularly large tub of ice cream, I think.

Err, on the other hand, perhaps knowing about the prophecy may enable you to

avoid the worst of it.

Seriously, I find myself torn on the issue: Ignorance is a vice.

Especially for people like us, and those around us.

Bu by the same token, taking too much stock in predestination can destroy

you. It certainly is not conducive to romance ... or at least not

spontanaeity. As you have seen.

> >> If Tyler does marry

> >> me, will it be because he wants to (and would've wanted to anyway), or

> >> will it be because he thinks he "has" to and has been ignoring other

> >options?

> >

> >The latter seems rather more likely to me.

>

> Hey now. What happened to "his loss"? Is there some reason why he

> couldn't just want to marry me? No, no, you're way too polite to have

> actually meant it that way. But what did you mean?

I did not mean to imply that he could not want to marry you, as in there is

something wrong with you. Certainly not that. Sigh. Now I suppose there

will be an ice cream making machine in my near future.

No, all that I meant was a continuation of my prior thought. Romance should

be free of such concerns ... and if he buys into the prophecy thing too

much, then he won't be ABLE to see you for you -- and thus wouldn't have the

chance to develop a romance.

He would eventually only be able to see you as "the girl I have to marry no

matter what I want", or alternately, "the girl that I am guaranteed to

marry, no matter how poorly I treat her, or how much I botch up my life".

Neither of these attitudes can lead to a healthy relationship or fulfill the

US Government's Recommended Dinner Angstrom. This is exactly why I propose

pursuing your life as if you had no such guarantee.

If you want him to marry you for you, have him prove that. Don't just

accept the marriage as a given. He should demonstrate that he wants it to

occur. He should fight to make it occur, by doing the right things. If he

doesn't -- if he continues to carry on with other girls in spite of you, and

get tempted by the dark side, etc. -- then you'd know that he is not

marrying you for the right reasons.

[OOC: And our next guest is Dr. Kerry Gilman, Love Therapist. You should

see the image that i have of Kerry writing that. Pounding his fist on the

desk, making sweeping gestures with his off hand as if he were giving a pep

speech, pointing at the air dramatically, etc. ]

> >Even if you work out your equations, how can you be certain that they are

> >unbiased? We etherites believe that the experimenter determines the

> >outcome, to a rather large degree. Your equations may work perfectly

well

> >when it comes to anyone but Tyler ... and then help you no more than

knowing

> >the prophecy or the future does.

>

> Does this never end? Do you have a *happy* thought in your brain, Kerry?

Yes. Most of them are either several years out of date, or centered around

the joy of my work. Mind you, I hadn't consciously realised that until just

now.

> [OOC: Perhaps I was reading the passage with too much Victorian Etherite

> Pomposity, but I took the "us/them" distinction as an example of the

> occasionally decried but still common assumption in scientific studies

that

> males are the normal baseline humans, and females a mysterious deviation

> therefrom. Hence Science helping (or failing to help) "us" understand

> "them." You may not have meant it that way, of course.]

[OOC: Ah. No, I didn't mean it that way (though it may be a subconscious

habit Kerry picked up from Paradigma). He was just saying us, as in males.

He does consider females a mysterious deviation from what he understands --

himself -- otherwise he wouldn't be attempting to study them. Basically,

he's just looking across the "gender gap" at the unexplored country and

recognizing it as such. ]

> [OOC: Right, she'd be working from less data in Kerry's case. But the

> intended usage in his case requires more that he look like *an* adult than

> that he look specifically like his own future self. So a bit more leeway

> is probably acceptable.]

[ooc: yup]

K.

mean.

>Honestly, Jasmine, have you forgotten who you are speaking to? ^_^

Sorry, Professor. Didn't mean to suggest you were too "normal" or

something.

It's just that this particular weird is weird in a way that would be likely

to push the conservative buttons in someone like Vincent . . . and the

"protective" buttons in someone like Tyler, my dad, or you. So I've been

keeping it to myself.

But this is all wishful thinking right now, anyway, and even if I did

implement it, it wouldn't happen for decades (or possibly even centuries).

And you just might be able to help out, especially with your ideas about

organic computers. So why not? Just remember, if you start to find this

creepy or dangerous rather than merely scientifically intriguing . . . just

go listen to that music of yours or something until you can appreciate it

properly.

You remember I told you I get antsy when there's knowledge to be had, and I

don't have it? Well, I don't just mean that for little things, like your

lab notes or Tyler's mating habits. I want to know *everything*, Kerry, or

at least everything that's knowable. How many stars are in the sky? What

happened before the dawn of time? How many externalized manifestations of

Ivan's libido can dance on the head of a pin?

Now obviously, my current hardware is not suited for such investigations.

So I intend to upgrade. Cyborging is a bit too Technocratic, and besides,

I don't know anyone in that field. Now that I've met you, if the

organic-computing thing takes off, I might start with something in the

biotech line. You've already pointed out that my brain can match the speed

advantages of most computers, and I assume you'll want to study that for

use in your brain-computers. It should be no problem, then, to re-apply

any later improvements to speed, memory, processor capacity, or whatever to

the original *human* brain, specifically mine.

Ultimately, though, I've got to go further than that. I know from

Correspondence training that space is just a perceptual convention -- a

graphical interface between us and the universe. I assume time is the same

way. Right now, I can push the limits of the interface with my gear, but

the ultimate problem is the body itself. On the great computer of reality,

I may be using a keyboard where most people are stuck with just a mouse,

but what I'm looking for is the equivalent of a direct neural hookup. No

peripherals and no interface getting in the way. Just my mind, and the

Code. The purity of raw intellect. That's the immortality I want, more

than an unaging body or an upload into some constructed reality.

Heh. I think that may be the first time I've actually put it into words,

even to myself. For as long as I can remember, it's just been there in my

head, getting stronger every time I ran into another question I couldn't

answer. Maybe it's because of where I was born. I don't actually even

know if the place had a name, but it wasn't on Earth. If this spacetime is

the universe's graphical interface, that was the command line. Those math

tricks I can do? There, they were as natural and necessary as breathing.

Before I even really knew I *had* a physical body, my mind was already

making itself at home in *that* place -- and I think it's always missed it.

Your discussion of chemical vs. intellectual emotion has reminded me that

some of the body's contributions may not be entirely expendable. If I ever

get to the point of actually working on this plan, I may have to figure out

a way around that. Then again, maybe I've just gotten used to the

aesthetics of this particular "peripheral," and things like the rush of

adrenaline are really as unimportant to the REAL experience of existing as,

say, the traditional arrangement of the keyboard is to computing.

>Well, it's an option to think about, at any rate. Personally, having met a

>loved one in the future, I would likely make every attempt to ensure their

>existence in the future. Otherwise it would seem to me a bit too much like

>not caring for them at all. Possibly like murder. Not having been in that

>situation, I can't say which for sure.

Oh, I agree. Now that I've met her, weird circumstances or not, Lise is

just as real as anyone else I know, and the idea of doing something to

*prevent* her existence gives me a really creepy feeling. But even if we

did arrange for her to be genetically the same child, there'd still be the

same problem as with your Caitlin replacement: there's no way she'll

actually have the same experiences in life as the Lise I met. I certainly

hope she'll be born later, and that I'll be a better mother than that other

Jasmine. And you've just been pushing the idea that maybe my marrying

Tyler isn't such a hot thing to look forward to. But if Lise is going to

be the same kid, she's got to be his -- which means either I have yet

another reason to be "stuck" with Tyler or else there will be yet another

major change in her upbringing, namely unmarried parents. Heck, even as

little as I saw of the kid, there are several things I'd like to teach *my*

daughter differently. If she doesn't even act the same, is she the same

child? With all those changes, assuring identical "hardware" seems only

slightly more important than giving her the same name as far as having any

real effect.

> something.

I was kidding.

> It's just that this particular weird is weird in a way that would be

likely

> to push the conservative buttons in someone like Vincent . . . and the

> "protective" buttons in someone like Tyler, my dad, or you. So I've been

> keeping it to myself.

Understandable. There are many things that I have not told people ... even

things that I have not told you.

> But this is all wishful thinking right now, anyway, and even if I did

> implement it, it wouldn't happen for decades (or possibly even centuries).

> And you just might be able to help out, especially with your ideas about

> organic computers. So why not? Just remember, if you start to find this

> creepy or dangerous rather than merely scientifically intriguing . . .

just

> go listen to that music of yours or something until you can appreciate it

> properly.

I find it Scientifically Intruiging. I also find it dangerous, creepy, and

very likely to be futile. However, I will not stop you if that is truly

your desire. I will merely explain my point of view (below).

> You remember I told you I get antsy when there's knowledge to be had, and

I

> don't have it? Well, I don't just mean that for little things, like your

> lab notes or Tyler's mating habits. I want to know *everything*, Kerry,

or

> at least everything that's knowable. How many stars are in the sky? What

> happened before the dawn of time? How many externalized manifestations of

> Ivan's libido can dance on the head of a pin?

Your project may not be possible for a number of reasons.

The first problem I see is that you are pursuing data, not information. So

you know how many angels can dance on a pin. What does that do for you?

Does anybody, including you, really CARE how many? At the end of a day,

it's just a number.

To me, research and investigation is an ends unto itself. It doesn't really

matter WHAT I research -- as long as the subject matter is something that I

care about, then I am happy. Nor, at the end of the day, do the particular

numbers mean anything more than what I want them to mean. What's important

is that I had fun finding out.

A second problem is that you may very well find what you seek ... you know

everything that's knowable. And what then? If there are a finite amount of

things that are knowable, what do you do for an encore? Just roll over and

die? Wipe out the entire universe on a whim, or with a thought that you

immediately regret? Perhaps knowing how to obliterate the universe is

knowable ... but the knowledge of its re-creation is not. Consider that

infinite knowledge does not imply infinite wisdom ... nor infinite

competence.

A third problem is that you may not find what you seek, yet pursue it

obsessively regardless. If there are an infinite number of things that are

knowable then your goal would be unattainable. Worse yet, remember what I

said before about the researcher influencing the results? Not only may

your goal may be unattainable ... it may actually be completely meaningless.

I am not attempting to disparage your pursuit of knowledge, just as I

believe that you did not mean to belittle the importance of my "lab notes".

Indeed, the scale of your curiosity is rather heartening ... not to mention

shocking, attractive, frightening, and several other adjectives both

positive and negative. However, I would hate to see it develop into develop

into full-blown obsession. So, yes, it has triggered my protective instinct

... but perhaps not in the manner you imagined.

> Now obviously, my current hardware is not suited for such investigations.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. If you look at the physical form of our bodies, and

especially if you buy into the technocratic paradigm a bit too much, then

you might imagine limits that do not exist. Life, I believe, is fundamental

to the universe. You have Matter, which is substance. You have Energy,

which is impetus. And you have Life, which typifies everything else ...

Perception, Emotion, Creativity, Imagination ... and most importantly for

your quest, Adaptation.

It may well be that your "hardware" would adapt *itself* to fulfill your

needs. If only you took an active role in understanding it enough to cause

that.

> You've already pointed out that my brain can match the speed

> advantages of most computers, and I assume you'll want to study that for

> use in your brain-computers. It should be no problem, then, to re-apply

> any later improvements to speed, memory, processor capacity, or whatever

to

> the original *human* brain, specifically mine.

I see no problem with this. As long as you do not *downgrade* the more

important features in the process: Humanity, Emotion, Imagination, etc. It

would be like you upgrading your PC in these areas ... and removing its

ability to perform binary arithmetic (the nearest equivalent). Sure, it's

faster, has more memory, etc ... but that stuff is useless if it doesn't do

what it should be doing.

> Ultimately, though, I've got to go further than that. I know from

> Correspondence training that space is just a perceptual convention -- a

> graphical interface between us and the universe. I assume time is the

same

> way. Right now, I can push the limits of the interface with my gear, but

> the ultimate problem is the body itself.

The leap that you make here is interesting. Space and Time may very well be

conventions between us and the universe (not that I'd know) ... but to apply

the same concept to your body, when even Time is merely an assumption on

your part, is amusing at best, and dangerous at worst.

Besides, how do you know that the ultimate problem is the body? Have you

pursued investigations into biological limits that I am not aware of? I had

understood that you had some form of mental block or simple lack of interest

in learning to actively use the principles of biology (incidentally, do try

to keep in mind that learning *everything* should rightly include all of

that biological stuff that you don't seem to care much for).

> On the great computer of reality,

> I may be using a keyboard where most people are stuck with just a mouse,

> but what I'm looking for is the equivalent of a direct neural hookup. No

> peripherals and no interface getting in the way. Just my mind, and the

> Code. The purity of raw intellect. That's the immortality I want, more

> than an unaging body or an upload into some constructed reality.

You seem to miss one possibility that leaps to my mind almost instantly.

How do you know that the "great computer of reality" is *not* the body?

Perhaps *we* are the computer. As I said, in my view there is form and

impetus ... and everything else arises from living beings. To my mind,

mind, body (or rather, Protoculture ... the essence of life itself), and

spirit should not be separated. They may, in fact, be inseperable. Or even

the same thing.

> Heh. I think that may be the first time I've actually put it into words,

> even to myself. For as long as I can remember, it's just been there in my

> head, getting stronger every time I ran into another question I couldn't

> answer.

Being your first time putting it into words, I can see why you did not

pursue some aspects as much as you might have otherwise. As for ths feeling

getting stronger, perhaps you have grown to like the pursuit ... and

mistakenly decided that you desire the goal. It is a common mistake in

life, I gather. As they say, getting there is half the fun. In the long

term, it may well be ALL of the fun.

> Maybe it's because of where I was born. I don't actually even

> know if the place had a name, but it wasn't on Earth. If this spacetime

is

> the universe's graphical interface, that was the command line. Those math

> tricks I can do? There, they were as natural and necessary as breathing.

> Before I even really knew I *had* a physical body, my mind was already

> making itself at home in *that* place -- and I think it's always missed

it.

I see. Of course, the alternative way to view this is that you were in a

place where math was fundamental and as natural as breathing ... but it was

actually rather independent of this spacetime. A different universe

entirely, so to speak. Or one of those constructed realities that you

mentioned before, made to seem as though it operated on a more fundamental

level, but still running "above".

> Your discussion of chemical vs. intellectual emotion has reminded me that

> some of the body's contributions may not be entirely expendable. If I

ever

> get to the point of actually working on this plan, I may have to figure

out

> a way around that. Then again, maybe I've just gotten used to the

> aesthetics of this particular "peripheral," and things like the rush of

> adrenaline are really as unimportant to the REAL experience of existing

as,

> say, the traditional arrangement of the keyboard is to computing.

It's entirely possible to simply exist now. Why do you think that being at

a more basic level would make it more interesting? Don't you think it might

instead get infinitely more tedious and mind-numbing? Sort of the

equivalent of knowing the daily routine of everybody on the planet, all of

the time...only moreso.

> Oh, I agree. Now that I've met her, weird circumstances or not, Lise is

> just as real as anyone else I know, and the idea of doing something to

> *prevent* her existence gives me a really creepy feeling. But even if we

> did arrange for her to be genetically the same child, there'd still be the

> same problem as with your Caitlin replacement: there's no way she'll

> actually have the same experiences in life as the Lise I met.

Actually, that's not quite so certain.

> I certainly

> hope she'll be born later, and that I'll be a better mother than that

other

> Jasmine. And you've just been pushing the idea that maybe my marrying

> Tyler isn't such a hot thing to look forward to. But if Lise is going to

> be the same kid, she's got to be his -- which means either I have yet

> another reason to be "stuck" with Tyler or else there will be yet another

> major change in her upbringing, namely unmarried parents.

Assuming that you are certain of her parentage. Not that I'm implying

anything by that. I simply don't know how much information you have on the

subject, and I was not with you to gain my own.

> Heck, even as

> little as I saw of the kid, there are several things I'd like to teach

*my*

> daughter differently. If she doesn't even act the same, is she the same

> child? With all those changes, assuring identical "hardware" seems only

> slightly more important than giving her the same name as far as having any

> real effect.

Perhaps. Perhaps it is very important. I would need to perform research in

that area before deciding.

K.

(OOC: Argh, I want to finish up the Corinna thing.)

>things that I have not told you.

Kerry, Kerry, Kerry. . . .

I thought that, being a Scientist and all, you'd easily be able to derive

Jasmine Rule #1 from the information you have so far.

Here, let me lay it out for you:

What you know so far: If I know *about* something I don't know, then I am

filled with a burning desire to know it.

The rule easily derived therefrom: Don't tell me about something you

*haven't* told me, unless you want me to bug you to death for the rest of

your life trying to find out what it is.

See, now you've gone and done it. . . .

>The first problem I see is that you are pursuing data, not information. So

>you know how many angels can dance on a pin. What does that do for you?

>Does anybody, including you, really CARE how many? At the end of a day,

>it's just a number.

Well, give me *some* credit. I don't mean to be just a data-gathering

machine. (I can *build* those.) Of course I'll be analyzing and

interpreting the raw data I gather, and perhaps even applying it in some

useful way. Even a seemingly useless bit of knowledge such as the old

angels/pins ratio presumably tells us something about angels, pins, or both

that could lead to other questions.

>To me, research and investigation is an ends unto itself. It doesn't

really

>matter WHAT I research -- as long as the subject matter is something that I

>care about, then I am happy. Nor, at the end of the day, do the particular

>numbers mean anything more than what I want them to mean. What's important

>is that I had fun finding out.

Well, if the numbers *really* don't mean anything, than you didn't really

"find out" anything, did you? You could have just written down whatever

you wanted.

True, there's pleasure just in finding out, and that's mainly what I'm

after. But at least some of that pleasure comes from setting a goal and

striving to reach it. If the goal is meaningless, what's the point?

>A second problem is that you may very well find what you seek ... you know

>everything that's knowable. And what then? If there are a finite amount

of

>things that are knowable, what do you do for an encore? Just roll over and

>die?

Share the knowledge. Or use it, to do things. Possibly even use it to

make brand-new things, previously unknown, that only I know enough to make.

Sheesh, Kerry. How am I supposed to know what to do with omniscience when

I don't have it yet?

Wipe out the entire universe on a whim, or with a thought that you

>immediately regret? Perhaps knowing how to obliterate the universe is

>knowable ... but the knowledge of its re-creation is not. Consider that

>infinite knowledge does not imply infinite wisdom ... nor infinite

>competence.

All right, that's troubling. But still highly speculative.

And you're reducing knowledge to "data" again. If I've really plumbed the

depths of every use and interrelation of *everything*, I'd probably be

fairly competent as well as knowledgeable. And if I've studied every

decision ever made by a sapient mind, and its consequences (possibly along

multiple parallel timestreams), then I ought to be doing pretty well in the

wisdom department, too.

>A third problem is that you may not find what you seek, yet pursue it

>obsessively regardless. If there are an infinite number of things that are

>knowable then your goal would be unattainable.

But fun. Thought you said that was important.

And that would counter the previous problem. There would always be new

things to learn.

'Course, I would always be frustrated at not knowing *everything*. But

that's true already.

Worse yet, remember what I

>said before about the researcher influencing the results? Not only may

>your goal may be unattainable ... it may actually be completely

meaningless.

I can't believe that, Kerry. There has to be something *there*, or what's

the point? If it's just me and the stuff I make up, there's no wondering

or investigating or finding out at all -- there's just making more stuff up

as I think about it. How can *you* stand to think about a world like that?

>I am not attempting to disparage your pursuit of knowledge, just as I

>believe that you did not mean to belittle the importance of my "lab notes".

Huh? Oh, no. I was just saying that I could easily find out what's in

your lab notes, as compared to something like "What it's like to be an

electron."

>Indeed, the scale of your curiosity is rather heartening ... not to mention

>shocking, attractive, frightening, and several other adjectives both

>positive and negative.

Heh. I suppose that's fair.

> However, I would hate to see it develop into full-

>blown obsession. So, yes, it has triggered my protective instinct ... but

>perhaps not in the manner you imagined.

Well, I won't even seriously be thinking about it until I get all those

other worries -- puberty, dating, marriage, kids, career, changing the

world -- out of the way. Like I said, could be decades or even centuries.

Hardly qualifies as an obsession, I'd think. At least, not now.

>> Now obviously, my current hardware is not suited for such investigations.

>

>Perhaps. Perhaps not. If you look at the physical form of our bodies, and

>especially if you buy into the technocratic paradigm a bit too much, then

>you might imagine limits that do not exist. Life, I believe, is

fundamental

>to the universe. You have Matter, which is substance. You have Energy,

>which is impetus. And you have Life, which typifies everything else ...

>Perception, Emotion, Creativity, Imagination ... and most importantly for

>your quest, Adaptation.

Well, yes, if you expand "the body" to include all those things, than

certainly I'll still need it. I was talking about the thing that seems to

be hardwired to interact with the conventions of space and time.

I suppose, if space is an illusion, the limits of the body must be one,

too. It may be that "I" am already bigger than I imagine, if I could just

get past the limitations of the interface. That'd be fine by me, too.

>It may well be that your "hardware" would adapt *itself* to fulfill your

>needs. If only you took an active role in understanding it enough to cause

>that.

Hmm. How so?

>I see no problem with this. As long as you do not *downgrade* the more

>important features in the process: Humanity, Emotion, Imagination, etc. It

>would be like you upgrading your PC in these areas ... and removing its

>ability to perform binary arithmetic (the nearest equivalent). Sure, it's

>faster, has more memory, etc ... but that stuff is useless if it doesn't do

>what it should be doing.

Duhhh. I do want to get *better*, you know. That means gaining features

without losing any that were there before.

>The leap that you make here is interesting. Space and Time may very well

be

>conventions between us and the universe (not that I'd know) ... but to

apply

>the same concept to your body, when even Time is merely an assumption on

>your part, is amusing at best, and dangerous at worst.

I don't see the problem. My body isn't *me*, after all. It's hardware.

It's a suit of clothes.

[OOC: And here we reach the heart of the problem. . . .]

Bodies are a phenomenon of space. They distinguish, spatially, between you

and me. They also house the senses that provide us with the space/time

interface. Hence, they are part of the problem.

My mind -- the *real* me -- is obviously not as limited as my body. I've

shared thoughts across considerable distances. If I could eliminate the

body as a factor -- either by getting rid of it altogether or just by

breaking completely free of its perceptual limitations -- there's no

telling how far my thoughts and perceptions might be able to roam, or what

they might be able to encompass.

>Besides, how do you know that the ultimate problem is the body? Have you

>pursued investigations into biological limits that I am not aware of? I

had

>understood that you had some form of mental block or simple lack of

interest

>in learning to actively use the principles of biology (incidentally, do try

>to keep in mind that learning *everything* should rightly include all of

>that biological stuff that you don't seem to care much for).

I know. Why do you think I keep YOU around, Professor?

>You seem to miss one possibility that leaps to my mind almost instantly.

>How do you know that the "great computer of reality" is *not* the body?

Because the body is a phenomenon of space, and therefore less than entirely

real. It may be the currently favored peripheral for interacting with the

GCoR, but it's not essential.

>Perhaps *we* are the computer. As I said, in my view there is form and

>impetus ... and everything else arises from living beings.

It would still be good for someone to be able to peek behind the curtain

and see this, for sure.

> To my mind,

>mind, body (or rather, Protoculture ... the essence of life itself), and

>spirit should not be separated. They may, in fact, be inseperable. Or

even

>the same thing.

I'm with you on mind, spirit, and maybe even "protoculture" (whatever that

is). But the actual body? No. I don't mean to belittle your work, Kerry,

but this fleshy contraption, while clever, is NOT me.

>Being your first time putting it into words, I can see why you did not

>pursue some aspects as much as you might have otherwise. As for ths

feeling

>getting stronger, perhaps you have grown to like the pursuit ... and

>mistakenly decided that you desire the goal. It is a common mistake in

>life, I gather. As they say, getting there is half the fun. In the long

>term, it may well be ALL of the fun.

Maybe. Maybe not. Still only one way to find out, either way.

(I seem to recall a story in which a number of scientists or sorcerers, I

don't remember which, made a bet about something and wound up having to do

all sorts of things -- figure out how to make themselves immortal, delay

the heat-death of the universe, and so forth -- just to settle the issue

one way or the other.)

>I see. Of course, the alternative way to view this is that you were in a

>place where math was fundamental and as natural as breathing ... but it was

>actually rather independent of this spacetime. A different universe

>entirely, so to speak. Or one of those constructed realities that you

>mentioned before, made to seem as though it operated on a more fundamental

>level, but still running "above".

True. It's been suggested that I was born in some suburb of the Digital

Web, for example.

Still, I was born Awake. Awakening is supposed to be the first step toward

enlightenment, right? And you don't get enlightened from a fake, do you?

>It's entirely possible to simply exist now. Why do you think that being at

>a more basic level would make it more interesting? Don't you think it

might

>instead get infinitely more tedious and mind-numbing? Sort of the

>equivalent of knowing the daily routine of everybody on the planet, all of

>the time...only moreso.

Now, now. Why do you assume that knowing that would necessarily be

tedious, if you actually had a mind capable of such a thing?

>> Oh, I agree. Now that I've met her, weird circumstances or not, Lise is

>> just as real as anyone else I know, and the idea of doing something to

>> *prevent* her existence gives me a really creepy feeling. But even if we

>> did arrange for her to be genetically the same child, there'd still be

the

>> same problem as with your Caitlin replacement: there's no way she'll

>> actually have the same experiences in life as the Lise I met.

>

>Actually, that's not quite so certain.

I don't follow. Even if I *wanted* to give my kid the same experiences, I

don't even know enough about the life of the Lise I met to arrange it. And

as I said, there are some things I *want* to change that will affect any

child I might have.

>> I certainly

>> hope she'll be born later, and that I'll be a better mother than that

>other

>> Jasmine. And you've just been pushing the idea that maybe my marrying

>> Tyler isn't such a hot thing to look forward to. But if Lise is going to

>> be the same kid, she's got to be his -- which means either I have yet

>> another reason to be "stuck" with Tyler or else there will be yet another

>> major change in her upbringing, namely unmarried parents.

>

>Assuming that you are certain of her parentage. Not that I'm implying

>anything by that. I simply don't know how much information you have on the

>subject, and I was not with you to gain my own.

Well, obviously she . . . err, no, I guess that's NOT obvious, is it?

You just have to complicate everything, don't you?

>> Heck, even as

>> little as I saw of the kid, there are several things I'd like to teach

>*my*

>> daughter differently. If she doesn't even act the same, is she the same

>> child? With all those changes, assuring identical "hardware" seems only

>> slightly more important than giving her the same name as far as having

any

>> real effect.

>

>Perhaps. Perhaps it is very important. I would need to perform research

in

>that area before deciding.

Well, let me know what you find out.

>K.

>

>(OOC: Argh, I want to finish up the Corinna thing.)

[OOC: And I want to read about it.]

> *haven't* told me, unless you want me to bug you to death for the rest of

> your life trying to find out what it is.

>

> See, now you've gone and done it. . . .

Of course, you are assuming that I don't want you to try and find out.

[OOC: ...he says, fully intending to not tell her about whatever he's

talking about].

> Well, give me *some* credit. I don't mean to be just a data-gathering

> machine. (I can *build* those.) Of course I'll be analyzing and

> interpreting the raw data I gather, and perhaps even applying it in some

> useful way. Even a seemingly useless bit of knowledge such as the old

> angels/pins ratio presumably tells us something about angels, pins, or

both

> that could lead to other questions.

You raise a valid point. However, I don't see that either possibility is

especially likely (that it does in fact tell us something useful, and that

it would generate further questions -- aside from "why did I want to know

this", of course. ^_^ )

> Well, if the numbers *really* don't mean anything, than you didn't really

> "find out" anything, did you? You could have just written down whatever

> you wanted.

I could have .. but that's no fun. Like I said, it's the process that I

derive the pleasure from.

> True, there's pleasure just in finding out, and that's mainly what I'm

> after. But at least some of that pleasure comes from setting a goal and

> striving to reach it. If the goal is meaningless, what's the point?

Because without a goal, even if it's just a meaningless goal, there can be

no striving. You need something to work toward in order to work toward

something. That doesn't mean that the goal of your work (the data) has to

be the same as the goal of your life (which, if you get down to it, should

really be to have fun striving).

> Sheesh, Kerry. How am I supposed to know what to do with omniscience when

> I don't have it yet?

I don't know. ^_^

> Wipe out the entire universe on a whim, or with a thought that you

> >immediately regret? Perhaps knowing how to obliterate the universe is

> >knowable ... but the knowledge of its re-creation is not. Consider that

> >infinite knowledge does not imply infinite wisdom ... nor infinite

> >competence.

>

> All right, that's troubling. But still highly speculative.

All of this is highly speculative.

> And you're reducing knowledge to "data" again. If I've really plumbed the

> depths of every use and interrelation of *everything*, I'd probably be

> fairly competent as well as knowledgeable. And if I've studied every

> decision ever made by a sapient mind, and its consequences (possibly along

> multiple parallel timestreams), then I ought to be doing pretty well in

the

> wisdom department, too.

Everything knowlable. Actually, the more likely phrase should be

"everything learnable". It's not at all certain

whether wisdom and competence are learned things ... or something that you

are born with. Like many things, the answer is probably somewhere in

between the two extremes, but that implies that there is always going to be

a limit to your competence and/or wisdom.

> >A third problem is that you may not find what you seek, yet pursue it

> >obsessively regardless. If there are an infinite number of things that

are

> >knowable then your goal would be unattainable.

>

> But fun. Thought you said that was important.

It is. To me. But if you start to focus on the end goal that is forever

just out of reach, while forgetting that the fun part is trying to get

there, then where are you? Not having any fun, I'm pretty sure.

> And that would counter the previous problem. There would always be new

> things to learn.

That's because the two problems were alternatives.

> Worse yet, remember what I

> >said before about the researcher influencing the results? Not only may

> >your goal may be unattainable ... it may actually be completely

meaningless.

>

> I can't believe that, Kerry. There has to be something *there*, or what's

> the point? If it's just me and the stuff I make up, there's no wondering

> or investigating or finding out at all -- there's just making more stuff

up

> as I think about it. How can *you* stand to think about a world like

that?

I can stand it for several reasons:

1. I'm not the only one making up stuff. (I think.) So there is probably

stuff for you to discover ... but it is exactly as "meaningless" as the

things that you yourself generate, in spite of its novelty,

unpredictablility, and other charms. Call this one the Joy of Interaction.

2. In spite of your focus, Jasmine, the Joy of Creation can be just as

interesting and fulfilling as the Joy of Discovery, if not moreso.

Personally, I like a balance between them.

3. I'm not consciously aware of the process of making it up, most of the

time. So it makes a pretty good substitute for Discovery in any event.

However, I believe that as you approach omniscience on the graph, the amount

to which you are forced to be aware of making up the results would increase

exponentially (by the very nature of omniscience). To me, that wouldn't be

a big problem. To you, it might.

4. It's not only about making stuff .. there is a certain aesthetic value

that determines what we should make up. The Nephandi are an example by

negation -- what we should NOT make up. Call this the Joy of making the

Right Thing.

5. I love the fun of research, but it isn't the sum total of the things that

I love. It is my life's work, mind you, but there are other interesting

things in the world. This would be the Joy of Doing Other Stuff. In

particular, I try not to research EVERYTHING, since by definition, that

includes learning things that I'd rather not know (and in particular, things

that will ruin the interest I have in stuff now).

6. We take meaning where we find it. You evidently think it is meaningless

to pursue knowledge that you yourself generate or influence -- which is

exactly why I worry over you being too quick to walk this path, and why I

phrased it in that manner -- but as I have been attempting to demonstrate, I

don't agree. I find my meaning in the search, not the destination. Call

this the Joy of Looking for Stuff.

> >I am not attempting to disparage your pursuit of knowledge, just as I

> >believe that you did not mean to belittle the importance of my "lab

notes".

>

> Huh? Oh, no. I was just saying that I could easily find out what's in

> your lab notes, as compared to something like "What it's like to be an

> electron."

Well, naturally you could easily find that former bit out, being female.

It's somewhat less easy for us males.

So far, Jasmine, you appear to be a fluke. Based on your own statements,

the apparent odds of getting anyone besides you and Corinna to participate

in my study is rapidly approaching the odds of finding out what it is like

to be an electron (I suspect that electrons get pretty dizzy from all of

that orbiting, and feel like they have a caffeine rush all the time, but

otherwise have an excessively tedious existence).

> Well, I won't even seriously be thinking about it until I get all those

> other worries -- puberty, dating, marriage, kids, career, changing the

> world -- out of the way. Like I said, could be decades or even centuries.

> Hardly qualifies as an obsession, I'd think. At least, not now.

Then you will hear no complaints from me.

> Well, yes, if you expand "the body" to include all those things, than

> certainly I'll still need it. I was talking about the thing that seems to

> be hardwired to interact with the conventions of space and time.

Ah. Possibly they are hardwired. Possibly this is merely another artifact

of our perceptions. Birth and Death may not be the start and end of Life at

all. Obviously Simon's abilities would tend to support this theory.

> >It may well be that your "hardware" would adapt *itself* to fulfill your

> >needs. If only you took an active role in understanding it enough to

cause

> >that.

>

> Hmm. How so?

We have already begun the process of causing your body to adapt to your

desire of faster maturation. If you understood these principles, then you

could utilize them to serve your needs actively. Rather than getting me to

do it for you. Since I am an outside observer, it is a level of abstraction

removed from your own connection to your body.

In other words, I'm not living in your body, so I can't do as good a job as

you could do yourself if you used the Science that I am using.

> Duhhh. I do want to get *better*, you know. That means gaining features

> without losing any that were there before.

Yes, but not only do you need to keep the features you have ... you also

need to increase them proportionally. Otherwise, you have effectively

downgraded them by default ... they are left in the dust.

Trust me. I have read many accounts in the pages of Paradigma of Scientists

who have boosted their intellect enormously, only to fall prey to

megalomania or other such disorders. Their intellect outstrips their

humanity, and they become the most arrogant of villains. I have no desire

to see it happen to you.

> >The leap that you make here is interesting. Space and Time may very well

be

> >conventions between us and the universe (not that I'd know) ... but to

apply

> >the same concept to your body, when even Time is merely an assumption on

> >your part, is amusing at best, and dangerous at worst.

>

> I don't see the problem.

The problem is that you were trained in one, assume a second, and from that

untested assumption, extend the same principle to the third without any

apparent basis for doing so.

If you want to do that, it's your business, but you should do it consciously

if so. I wouldn't want you divorcing your wonderful mind from your

wonderful body, only to discover that its unworkable.

> My body isn't *me*, after all. It's hardware.

> It's a suit of clothes.

Are you certain of that? Aside from the time you spent in the other

universe, which may or may not bear any relationship to this one, during

which you may or may not have had a physical body, have you any experience

with separating the two entirely?

I don't mean to question your qualifications for saying this, but ... well

... I must question your qualifications for saying this (please don't take

that the wrong way, but I *am* a biologist.)

> [OOC: And here we reach the heart of the problem. . . .]

>

> Bodies are a phenomenon of space. They distinguish, spatially, between

you

> and me. They also house the senses that provide us with the space/time

> interface. Hence, they are part of the problem.

>

> My mind -- the *real* me -- is obviously not as limited as my body. I've

> shared thoughts across considerable distances. If I could eliminate the

> body as a factor -- either by getting rid of it altogether or just by

> breaking completely free of its perceptual limitations -- there's no

> telling how far my thoughts and perceptions might be able to roam, or what

> they might be able to encompass.

I have a proposal for you. Luckily I was already thinking in this

direction. It won't take much time to set up, and we can do it during your

next session. We can even kill two birds with one stone.

I will make you as close to pure intellect as it is possible for me to do

right now. Then you tell me how it was.

>You seem to miss one possibility that leaps to my mind almost instantly.

> >How do you know that the "great computer of reality" is *not* the body?

>

> Because the body is a phenomenon of space, and therefore less than

entirely

> real. It may be the currently favored peripheral for interacting with the

> GCoR, but it's not essential.

Again, how do you know that? It may be a phenomenon of space ... but then

again, the fact that it looks like a phenomenon of space may just be a

phenomenon of space ... or something else.

> > To my mind,

> >mind, body (or rather, Protoculture ... the essence of life itself), and

> >spirit should not be separated. They may, in fact, be inseperable. Or

even

> >the same thing.

>

> I'm with you on mind, spirit, and maybe even "protoculture" (whatever that

> is).

The concept goes by many names, and they all have different connotations.

For example, if I said Ether, you might think of the substance that

permeates space. Some call it the Quintessential force. The closest term I

can think of to what I mean is Orgone, which is sort of a sexual energy.

Indeed, I believe that tantric practitioners have a concept of Ether that is

remarkably similar to Orgone.

Words fail me in explaining this concept. If I say Protoculture is "Life

Force", then the term Force becomes confused with Energy. Perhaps "Life

Essence" is best. Matter provides the shape. Energy provides the ... well,

the energy. But Life ... all else arises from Life. Protoculture is that

which instills Adaptivity, Creativity, Intelligence, Imagination, etc. into

Matter, thereby enabling it to Choose to use Energy .. or not. Obviously it

doesn't instill it to all matter equally. Variety is the spice of life ...

not quite literal, but close enough.

The Mind is you? It wouldn't be if we took away your Life. In that sense,

Life is more fundamentally you than your mind. Indeed, your mind had to

originate somewhere ... why not from the protoculture in your body? Life

can definitely exist without a Mind -- just look at Kelli -- but I have

serious doubts whether the reverse is true.

[OOC: Protoculture is Kerry's concept of Prime, but it also wraps in some

aspects of animistic spiritualism, no small degree of Mind, and almost the

entire sphere of Life (although he doesn't use it as a focus for Life).

Basically, it's fast on its way to becoming his tenth sphere concept.

The term comes from Robotech, if you didn't catch it. Protoculture is the

result of the using the Invid Flower of Life as an energy source.

Preventing the seeds from germinating produced this "bio-energy", which

basically had the effect of granting the pilots the ability to interface

with their machines as an extension of their own bodies ... and also

instilled the quality of adaptability, thereby rendering the machines

capable of restructuring and transforming into other modes. Wires would

reconnect and components would rearrange themselves ... almost as if they

were alive. Protoculture was also the ultimate power source in the

universe. Self-replenishing. Clean. Long-lasting (some mecha ran for up

to 12 years on a handful of seeds).

Basically, I had to make at least one nod to anime. ;-) ]

> But the actual body? No. I don't mean to belittle your work, Kerry,

> but this fleshy contraption, while clever, is NOT me.

Hmm. Have you considered the possibility that the body is merely the

outward form of the mind? That the idea of separating one from the other

would be similar to trying to separate my physical desk from its "deskness",

and still keep either intact?

> True. It's been suggested that I was born in some suburb of the Digital

> Web, for example.

>

> Still, I was born Awake. Awakening is supposed to be the first step

toward

> enlightenment, right? And you don't get enlightened from a fake, do you?

A fake what? People have been awakened by any number of things, some of

which might be considered real by one person and fake by the next.

I understand that any number of people have pursued enlightenment from what

I would consider "fakes". While I'm sure the majority do not find it, the

same could be said for people who pursue enlightenment, period.

I didn't mean to imply that the place was meant to fool you that it was more

fundamental than it was ... just that the place may have seemed that way --

naturally, as you were raised there and had no basis for comparison -- and

when you came HERE it seemed even moreso because this seems to be an

abstraction.

> >Sort of the

> >equivalent of knowing the daily routine of everybody on the planet, all

of

> >the time...only moreso.

>

> Now, now. Why do you assume that knowing that would necessarily be

> tedious, if you actually had a mind capable of such a thing?

Because I already have a mind capable of knowing the daily routine of at

least one person -- myself -- and it is pretty largely tedious. Especially

the parts that occur in class.

Does the fact that you are a mathematical and computer prodigy make seventh

grade math/computer classes any more bearable? Does the fact that you can

count make the idea of counting every blade of grass on the lawn any less

completely boring? These things might fascinate a lesser mind, but not you,

I think. If you increase your capacity to omniscient levels, you probably

magnify the number of things that are completely boring.

[OOC: Man, Kerry *is* a pessimist. I hadn't noticed. I wonder were it is

coming from... ]

> >Actually, that's not quite so certain.

>

> I don't follow. Even if I *wanted* to give my kid the same experiences, I

> don't even know enough about the life of the Lise I met to arrange it.

And

> as I said, there are some things I *want* to change that will affect any

> child I might have.

My point is that there are a number of theories that imply that Caitlin (or,

under the right consciously chosen circumstances, Lise) will indeed turn out

to possess the same essence as her former self. After all, her mind

originated with her body in the first place ... naturally, that doesn't

necessarily mean that she'll have any memories of her old life, but memories

do not a person make. Nor do I think she will join up with the cult again.

As with Mr. E, we must give her a chance to turn out for the better, even if

we don't expect it.

But, more relevantly, this is the closest thing to a meaningful answer to

the question of whether the chosen-Lise will be the same "person" as the

accidental-Lise.

> >Assuming that you are certain of her parentage. Not that I'm implying

> >anything by that. I simply don't know how much information you have on

the

> >subject, and I was not with you to gain my own.

>

> Well, obviously she . . . err, no, I guess that's NOT obvious, is it?

Not at all, unless you know a lot more than you've mentioned.

> You just have to complicate everything, don't you?

Sorry.

I'll try a different direction:

Everything will be wonderful Jasmine. It'll all work out, just you wait and

see. You'll have a beautiful and sweet daughter named Lise and she'll be

omniscient just like her mom, and you'll live happily ever after in a little

cottage next to 43,076,213 blades of grass. Whoops, 43,075,782; Tyler just

started the lawn mower. And he's wearing his T-Shirt celebrating 15 years

being Nephandi-free.

[OOC: Oops. I keep trying to write the kid's name as "Lice" ]

K.

PS: That was humor, not sarcasm.

>

*Grin*

Foolish, foolish boy.

But, if you *want* to encourage my tendencies toward espionage, why should

I complain?

>You raise a valid point. However, I don't see that either possibility is

>especially likely (that it does in fact tell us something useful, and that

>it would generate further questions -- aside from "why did I want to know

>this", of course. ^_^ )

Actually, it could bear on this very discussion. The original answer was

that an infinite number of angels can dance on a pin, because angels are

bodiless points of intellect.

>Because without a goal, even if it's just a meaningless goal, there can be

>no striving. You need something to work toward in order to work toward

>something. That doesn't mean that the goal of your work (the data) has to

>be the same as the goal of your life (which, if you get down to it, should

>really be to have fun striving).

Hmm, now THAT's a good point.

>

>> Sheesh, Kerry. How am I supposed to know what to do with omniscience

when

>> I don't have it yet?

>

>I don't know. ^_^

>

I would smack you for that, if I hadn't set myself up for it so perfectly.

:-S

>It's not at all certain

>whether wisdom and competence are learned things ... or something that you

>are born with. Like many things, the answer is probably somewhere in

>between the two extremes, but that implies that there is always going to be

>a limit to your competence and/or wisdom.

Perhaps, but in relatively short order my 'limited' wisdom and competence

should be completely beyond human comprehension.

[OOC: I'll let Kerry add "Or human judgment?" and the corollaries if he so

chooses. :) ]

>I can stand it for several reasons:

>

>1. I'm not the only one making up stuff. (I think.) So there is probably

>stuff for you to discover ... but it is exactly as "meaningless" as the

>things that you yourself generate, in spite of its novelty,

>unpredictablility, and other charms. Call this one the Joy of Interaction.

And *there's* a good reason to do it anyway. Hey, if I manage to escape

the limitations of the "interface" and find nothing but other Minds

thinking away to make the universe, I'm pretty sure we'll be able to find

something to occupy ourselves with for an eternity or two.

("Oh, so YOU came up with the Ice Cream Headache. C'mere, you. . . .")

>2. In spite of your focus, Jasmine, the Joy of Creation can be just as

>interesting and fulfilling as the Joy of Discovery, if not moreso.

>Personally, I like a balance between them.

Oh, me too. That's Step Two. The more you understand about the Machine

you're working with, the more elegantly and effectively you can program it

to do what you want. I would tend to assume that you've found the same to

be true of living "machines."

>3. I'm not consciously aware of the process of making it up, most of the

>time. So it makes a pretty good substitute for Discovery in any event.

>However, I believe that as you approach omniscience on the graph, the

amount

>to which you are forced to be aware of making up the results would increase

>exponentially (by the very nature of omniscience). To me, that wouldn't be

>a big problem. To you, it might.

Hmm. Good point. But still, as long as I'm not the only Mind. . . .

>4. It's not only about making stuff .. there is a certain aesthetic value

>that determines what we should make up. The Nephandi are an example by

>negation -- what we should NOT make up. Call this the Joy of making the

>Right Thing.

Which implies rules and standards that MAY just be discoverable. Physical

beauty is based on certain mathematical proportions, you know. What if the

same is true of Good and Evil, and that could be discovered, or at least

estimated by induction from a sufficient pool of examples? No more muddy

ethical waters.

Wow, Professor, I think you may just have inspired me to reach *further*

than I'd intended. Poor you. ;)

>5. I love the fun of research, but it isn't the sum total of the things

that

>I love. It is my life's work, mind you, but there are other interesting

>things in the world. This would be the Joy of Doing Other Stuff. In

>particular, I try not to research EVERYTHING, since by definition, that

>includes learning things that I'd rather not know (and in particular,

things

>that will ruin the interest I have in stuff now).

See, I don't understand people who say that knowing more about something

will ruin it.

>6. We take meaning where we find it. You evidently think it is meaningless

>to pursue knowledge that you yourself generate or influence -- which is

>exactly why I worry over you being too quick to walk this path, and why I

>phrased it in that manner -- but as I have been attempting to demonstrate,

I

>don't agree. I find my meaning in the search, not the destination. Call

>this the Joy of Looking for Stuff.

Y'know, if you're not careful, you just might get invited along on this

trip. I'm sure we could continue this debate for a couple of millennia.

>> Huh? Oh, no. I was just saying that I could easily find out what's in

>> your lab notes, as compared to something like "What it's like to be an

>> electron."

>

>Well, naturally you could easily find that former bit out, being female.

>It's somewhat less easy for us males.

Huh? What does being male or female have to do with what's on your notepad?

Oh -- you mean those *specific* lab notes.

Well, actually, I was kind of hoping to find out things -- even about

myself -- that I didn't already know, thanks to your study. So I kind of

hope you're wrong here.

>So far, Jasmine, you appear to be a fluke. Based on your own statements,

>the apparent odds of getting anyone besides you and Corinna to participate

>in my study is rapidly approaching the odds of finding out what it is like

>to be an electron (I suspect that electrons get pretty dizzy from all of

>that orbiting, and feel like they have a caffeine rush all the time, but

>otherwise have an excessively tedious existence).

Hee.

>Yes, but not only do you need to keep the features you have ... you also

>need to increase them proportionally. Otherwise, you have effectively

>downgraded them by default ... they are left in the dust.

A key point. I will make a note of it.

>If you want to do that, it's your business, but you should do it

consciously

>if so. I wouldn't want you divorcing your wonderful mind from your

>wonderful body, only to discover that its unworkable.

I'm afraid the body *isn't* terribly wonderful for my purposes, either

short-term or long-term. You seem eager to help with the former, but

thoroughly pessimistic about the latter.

>

>> My body isn't *me*, after all. It's hardware.

>> It's a suit of clothes.

>

>Are you certain of that? Aside from the time you spent in the other

>universe, which may or may not bear any relationship to this one, during

>which you may or may not have had a physical body, have you any experience

>with separating the two entirely?

>

>I don't mean to question your qualifications for saying this, but ... well

>... I must question your qualifications for saying this (please don't take

>that the wrong way, but I *am* a biologist.)

No, I don't have personal experience of this . . . yet. But I've heard of

people who've transferred their minds, either into other organic bodies or

even to a silicon substrate.

You've gotta understand, half the goal of my entire Tradition is to upload

everyone to a brand-new world with no real connection to our current

physical bodies, where we can look like whatever we want, and even change

it from day to day. Obviously, that depends on the disembodied minds still

being "us." I just want to take that a step further.

This is the first time I've really talked to somebody who thought

differently.

>I will make you as close to pure intellect as it is possible for me to do

>right now. Then you tell me how it was.

*blink*

All right. You've hooked my curiosity, as I'm sure you knew you would.

Let's do it.

[OOC: Sensory deprivation? Or something else?]

>The Mind is you? It wouldn't be if we took away your Life. In that sense,

>Life is more fundamentally you than your mind. Indeed, your mind had to

>originate somewhere ... why not from the protoculture in your body? Life

>can definitely exist without a Mind -- just look at Kelli -- but I have

>serious doubts whether the reverse is true.

Hmm. But, IF it is possible to separate the two, my living body without my

mind is not ME (however much you protest and sputter about the Caitlin

business, Professor). My mind without my body would still be me. Or at

least, more me than the alternative. There would be differences -- but

there were rather notable differences between my adult body and my current

one, and I don't see anyone arguing that that wasn't still me.

I mean, what if I'd had a more extreme mind-switching experience? What if

you and I, one day, decided to switch consciousnesses for a day, perhaps to

really figure out this whole male/female thing? Would you not still be

you, even when wearing my body? Obviously, the body would have some effect

on the experience -- or else the experiment wouldn't be worth much -- but

the Kerry-ness of Kerry goes with Kerry's mind, not his body.

>Hmm. Have you considered the possibility that the body is merely the

>outward form of the mind? That the idea of separating one from the other

>would be similar to trying to separate my physical desk from its

"deskness",

>and still keep either intact?

As I said before, that is one possible consequence of the idea that space

and all its phenomena are merely perceptual conventions. I did say that

our bodies distinguish between us spatially. Perhaps, on some level, we

are just points of intellect, but in the sensory "interface" we project

ourselves as these things. In that case, some of the meditational

exercises I've been working on recently might actually be fruitful. It

will be interesting to see how those combine with your "pure intellect"

experience.

>I didn't mean to imply that the place was meant to fool you that it was

more

>fundamental than it was ... just that the place may have seemed that way --

>naturally, as you were raised there and had no basis for comparison -- and

>when you came HERE it seemed even moreso because this seems to be an

>abstraction.

Hmm, maybe. I still can't shake the feeling that it at least points to

something that *is* more fundamental. But then I've read that some people

consider the old "tunnel of light" near-death experience to be a flashback

to birth. Maybe this is my equivalent.

>Because I already have a mind capable of knowing the daily routine of at

>least one person -- myself -- and it is pretty largely tedious. Especially

>the parts that occur in class.

>

>Does the fact that you are a mathematical and computer prodigy make seventh

>grade math/computer classes any more bearable?

Ooh. Score one for the Professor.

Does the fact that you can

>count make the idea of counting every blade of grass on the lawn any less

>completely boring?

Well . . . no.

> These things might fascinate a lesser mind, but not you,

>I think. If you increase your capacity to omniscient levels, you probably

>magnify the number of things that are completely boring.

Boy, you just tear holes in everything, don't you?

Not that I'm complaining. This is how both hypotheses and plans are

properly tested.

>[OOC: Man, Kerry *is* a pessimist. I hadn't noticed. I wonder were it is

>coming from... ]

[OOC: Dunno. Should be interesting to explore. . . .]

>My point is that there are a number of theories that imply that Caitlin

(or,

>under the right consciously chosen circumstances, Lise) will indeed turn

out

>to possess the same essence as her former self. After all, her mind

>originated with her body in the first place ... naturally, that doesn't

>necessarily mean that she'll have any memories of her old life, but

memories

>do not a person make.

I'd have to say they help. All right, yes, the mind initially develops in

an organic physical substrate, so physical characteristics might well shape

the basic personality package. But you can't deny that experiences (which

become memories) change a person. I give you our Mr. E, whom you mention

below.

> Nor do I think she will join up with the cult again.

>As with Mr. E, we must give her a chance to turn out for the better, even

if

>we don't expect it.

Who's this "we"? I don't think I'm a member.

Do you really mean that, Kerry?

>But, more relevantly, this is the closest thing to a meaningful answer to

>the question of whether the chosen-Lise will be the same "person" as the

>accidental-Lise.

I suppose. At any rate, she and Caitlin II will both be test cases for our

debate here, I guess.

>Not at all, unless you know a lot more than you've mentioned.

Well, obviously the future Tyler thought . . . which means we were . . .

and he said we'd been dating for a couple years at that point . . . so if

he wasn't . . . the future me would've had to . . . nope, I don't buy it.

>

>> You just have to complicate everything, don't you?

>

>Sorry.

>

>I'll try a different direction:

>

>Everything will be wonderful Jasmine.

[Etc.]

Gaah. I think I liked "Mr. Negative" Kerry better than "Happiness Is

Mandatory" Kerry. You have my official permission to change back now.

J.

>should be completely beyond human comprehension.

I doubt it. Especially not if you go around saying things like that. You

may well be limited to 2 * JasmineNormal or something on that scale ...

which may be within human range.

Jasmine, the problem with trancending humanity is that this inevitably means

becoming something not human, while all along trying to convince yourself

that it is better than human. "Better" is a matter of opinion.

> >5. I love the fun of research, but it isn't the sum total of the things

that

> >I love. It is my life's work, mind you, but there are other interesting

> >things in the world. This would be the Joy of Doing Other Stuff. In

> >particular, I try not to research EVERYTHING, since by definition, that

> >includes learning things that I'd rather not know (and in particular,

things

> >that will ruin the interest I have in stuff now).

>

> See, I don't understand people who say that knowing more about something

> will ruin it.

c.f., Santa Claus "nope, disproved him on my first try".

I'm guessing that you missed out on a few years of wonder because of that

Jasmine. So he's maybe not real in an objective sense (if the concept makes

sense). But when a child gets something from Santa, Santa is real for that

child, and the objective truth can frankly go stuff itself.

Hypothetical question: You and Tyler are on your first real date. It's a

beautiful night. It's romantic. Then you get curious about what he's

really thinking. Ignoring questions of privacy for the moment, do you

listen in? Do you REALLY want to know what is running through his mind at

any particular moment? More relevant to your statement, do you really think

the mood will survive it?

[OOC: And now he's becoming a cynic, too. I think this conversation is

sucking the life out of my character ;-)

Which is not to say that it is uninteresting, mind you.]

> Y'know, if you're not careful, you just might get invited along on this

> trip. I'm sure we could continue this debate for a couple of millennia.

Hmm, indeed.

> >Well, naturally you could easily find that former bit out, being female.

> >It's somewhat less easy for us males.

>

> Huh? What does being male or female have to do with what's on your

notepad?

> Oh -- you mean those *specific* lab notes.

Exactly.

> Well, actually, I was kind of hoping to find out things -- even about

> myself -- that I didn't already know, thanks to your study. So I kind of

> hope you're wrong here.

Surely. But as those notes are about you, you could probably find the

results as easily as I can. Possibly easier. You just have to know how to

look.

> >If you want to do that, it's your business, but you should do it

consciously

> >if so. I wouldn't want you divorcing your wonderful mind from your

> >wonderful body, only to discover that its unworkable.

>

> I'm afraid the body *isn't* terribly wonderful for my purposes, either

> short-term or long-term. You seem eager to help with the former, but

> thoroughly pessimistic about the latter.

If I am, it is only because of the contrast of seeing you as Jasmine, nine

year old girl, and Jasmine ... aspiring deity.

You desiring to fit in with the older kids around you and possibly play

along makes sense to me. I don't necessarily agree that you should rush

things, but I will help you do so because you asked me to, and because I

think it'll be a lot of fun for both of us. Like I said, try not to hurry

to push yourself into an adult mindset too son, because you can't go

backwards. Not easily.

You desiring this trancendence of humanity not only does not make sense to

me -- why you desire it at this point in your life, the goal itself, etc. --

but it also goes against everything I believe about the way things work, and

against what I consider the proper way to go about life. But, if you ask me

to, and it is in my power, I will still help you. Because you are my

friend. Possibly the first real one I've had in years.

> No, I don't have personal experience of this . . . yet. But I've heard of

> people who've transferred their minds, either into other organic bodies or

> even to a silicon substrate.

Really? Were they happy?

> You've gotta understand, half the goal of my entire Tradition is to upload

> everyone to a brand-new world with no real connection to our current

> physical bodies, where we can look like whatever we want, and even change

> it from day to day. Obviously, that depends on the disembodied minds

still

> being "us." I just want to take that a step further.

> This is the first time I've really talked to somebody who thought

differently.

I'll have to think about that. My first inclination is to question whether

they were truly disembodied, but we can talk about it later.

> All right. You've hooked my curiosity, as I'm sure you knew you would.

>

> Let's do it.

>

> [OOC: Sensory deprivation? Or something else?]

[OOC: Got eet een one, Mr. Garibaldi ]

> >The Mind is you? It wouldn't be if we took away your Life. In that

sense,

> >Life is more fundamentally you than your mind. Indeed, your mind had to

> >originate somewhere ... why not from the protoculture in your body? Life

> >can definitely exist without a Mind -- just look at Kelli -- but I have

> >serious doubts whether the reverse is true.

>

> Hmm. But, IF it is possible to separate the two, my living body without

my

> mind is not ME (however much you protest and sputter about the Caitlin

> business, Professor). My mind without my body would still be me.

Actually, if you want my personal opinion, the likely outcome is that 1)

your detached mind would fracture and dissipate, having no foundation to

hold it together as well as no connection to the protoculture, and 2) your

body may or may not develop another, similar mind to your original (since

there is no useful referent here for what constitutes the "same" person, "a

similar mind" is the best way to phrase it).

> Or at

> least, more me than the alternative. There would be differences -- but

> there were rather notable differences between my adult body and my current

> one, and I don't see anyone arguing that that wasn't still me.

Of course not. Because it WAS you ... just you in the future. Same body,

different point in time. I imagine that if you'd stayed there for longer

than two days, you might have felt a lot of very strange signals...which

would have affected your mind not unlike the Night of Raging Lust (I'm not

referring exclusively to sexuality either.)

> I mean, what if I'd had a more extreme mind-switching experience? What if

> you and I, one day, decided to switch consciousnesses for a day, perhaps

to

> really figure out this whole male/female thing? Would you not still be

> you, even when wearing my body? Obviously, the body would have some

effect

> on the experience -- or else the experiment wouldn't be worth much -- but

> the Kerry-ness of Kerry goes with Kerry's mind, not his body.

Certainly, but is this a case of detachment? Or is it a case of projection?

That is, your mind stays in your body, but overlaps mine enough to perceive

the things I would normally perceive. And vice versa. Call it a case of

short-circuiting -- the perceptions get routed to the wrong mind.

Hmm, your idea for an experiment is fascinating. Perhaps I should write it

in for a later phase of the study....

> > These things might fascinate a lesser mind, but not you,

> >I think. If you increase your capacity to omniscient levels, you

probably

> >magnify the number of things that are completely boring.

>

> Boy, you just tear holes in everything, don't you?

No, I just poke at the holes that are already there, so you'll notice them

before the whole thing winds up ripping apart when you need it the most. In

the end, I must rely on you to use your judgement to decide whether there

are too many holes or not.

> Not that I'm complaining. This is how both hypotheses and plans are

> properly tested.

True.

> >[OOC: Man, Kerry *is* a pessimist. I hadn't noticed. I wonder were it

is

> >coming from... ]

>

> [OOC: Dunno. Should be interesting to explore. . . .]

[OOC: Indeed. In the sense of the old curse "may you live in interesting

times". ]

> I'd have to say they help. All right, yes, the mind initially develops in

> an organic physical substrate, so physical characteristics might well

shape

> the basic personality package. But you can't deny that experiences (which

> become memories) change a person. I give you our Mr. E, whom you mention

> below.

Certainly. And experiences also change the body, through Vernalism and a

variety of other processes. And we've duplicated the body as it was most

recently. The process is not a one way street ... much like her body at

birth determines her personality, so her body at whatever the analogue to

birth is here should help determine her personality in the future.

Naturally, environment DOES play a role. The best we can do is to speak in

tendencies.

> > Nor do I think she will join up with the cult again.

> >As with Mr. E, we must give her a chance to turn out for the better, even

if

> >we don't expect it.

>

> Who's this "we"? I don't think I'm a member.

An artifact of phrasing, nothing more.

> Do you really mean that, Kerry?

Do I really mean what? That we must give Caitlin a chance and I doubt she

will join up again? Certainly.

> >Not at all, unless you know a lot more than you've mentioned.

>

> Well, obviously the future Tyler thought . . . which means we were . . .

> and he said we'd been dating for a couple years at that point . . . so if

> he wasn't . . . the future me would've had to . . . nope, I don't buy it.

Had to? No, I don't think she would've *had* to. There are any number of

potential vectors (so to speak). I could concievably cook up an air borne

spermatazoid right *now*. But that would be exceedingly dangerous. What

if it got out of control? (OOC: And it always does. "Epidemic of

unexplained pregnancies sweeps the nation! Film at 11!")

And furthermore, your description of your marital bliss (or lack thereof)

makes me question whether the arrangement at the time of conception was

exclusive.

> Gaah. I think I liked "Mr. Negative" Kerry better than "Happiness Is

> Mandatory" Kerry. You have my official permission to change back now.

Thank you. ^_^

K.

means

>becoming something not human, while all along trying to convince yourself

>that it is better than human. "Better" is a matter of opinion.

Well, I would never say "better" in some kind of "rule the world" sense.

[OOC: Oh, *wouldn't* she?]

But I think "better for my purposes" is clear, at least.

>> See, I don't understand people who say that knowing more about something

>> will ruin it.

>

>c.f., Santa Claus "nope, disproved him on my first try".

>

>I'm guessing that you missed out on a few years of wonder because of that

>Jasmine. So he's maybe not real in an objective sense (if the concept

makes

>sense). But when a child gets something from Santa, Santa is real for that

>child, and the objective truth can frankly go stuff itself.

I think we have a serious philosophical disconnect, there.

The idea of perpetrating a fraud of that magnitude on a child strikes me,

well, like a punch in the gut. Maybe just because I *am* a child who

occasionally fears that the older people around me don't tell me everything.

The only justification I can see for the Santa Claus scam is if you wish to

encourage your child to develop good critical thinking and investigation

skills by disproving the entity.

>Hypothetical question: You and Tyler are on your first real date. It's a

>beautiful night. It's romantic. Then you get curious about what he's

>really thinking. Ignoring questions of privacy for the moment, do you

>listen in? Do you REALLY want to know what is running through his mind at

>any particular moment? More relevant to your statement, do you really

think

>the mood will survive it?

I might want to . . . but maybe I'm just weird that way. Remember, I've

exchanged memories with him, and crawled around inside that slaughterhouse

he calls a mind, just because I'd rather *know* him for real, even if I

don't like what I find out, than remain ignorant. You might guess from my

mind/body stance that I'm almost more eager to try the old mind-meld

someday than actual physical sex. But you're probably right that such a

thing would at least require a *different* mood than an ordinary date, and

the two would probably not mix well.

>[OOC: And now he's becoming a cynic, too. I think this conversation is

>sucking the life out of my character ;-)

>

>Which is not to say that it is uninteresting, mind you.]

[OOC: heh]

>Surely. But as those notes are about you, you could probably find the

>results as easily as I can. Possibly easier. You just have to know how to

>look.

Not sure that's true. I'd think your "bias" and "observer effect" concerns

would come into play, especially in the psychological tests.

>But, if you ask me

>to, and it is in my power, I will still help you. Because you are my

>friend. Possibly the first real one I've had in years.

Uhh . . . wow. Thanks. I'll try to do a good job.

>

>> No, I don't have personal experience of this . . . yet. But I've heard

of

>> people who've transferred their minds, either into other organic bodies

or

>> even to a silicon substrate.

>

>Really? Were they happy?

Actually, most of them were nutty-as-a-fruitcake Technos or Nephandi, like

Julia Dornfeld.

But [OOC: she said defensively, again] that didn't necessarily have

anything to do with the process itself.

>I'll have to think about that. My first inclination is to question whether

>they were truly disembodied, but we can talk about it later.

Well, the Web emulates physical reality, right now. That's why I said my

plan goes a step further.

>Actually, if you want my personal opinion, the likely outcome is that 1)

>your detached mind would fracture and dissipate, having no foundation to

>hold it together as well as no connection to the protoculture, and 2) your

>body may or may not develop another, similar mind to your original (since

>there is no useful referent here for what constitutes the "same" person, "a

>similar mind" is the best way to phrase it).

Hmm. Another test case, I guess. Have to say I hope you're wrong, but I

haven't got anything to back that up right now.

>

>> Or at

>> least, more me than the alternative. There would be differences -- but

>> there were rather notable differences between my adult body and my

current

>> one, and I don't see anyone arguing that that wasn't still me.

>

>Of course not. Because it WAS you ... just you in the future. Same body,

>different point in time.

But in a lot of ways, that body was just as alien as yours would be. Yet I

can still say *I* experienced that, because my mind was there.

On the other hand, when I talk about the woman who belonged in that body, I

don't usually say "me." I say "Future Jasmine," or "that other Jasmine,"

or something like that -- because she was so *mentally* different from me

or anyone I ever intend to be.

See the distinction?

>Certainly, but is this a case of detachment? Or is it a case of

projection?

>That is, your mind stays in your body, but overlaps mine enough to perceive

>the things I would normally perceive. And vice versa. Call it a case of

>short-circuiting -- the perceptions get routed to the wrong mind.

Well, that depends on what you mean by "in," and what connection the mind

and body have to begin with. It would be equivalent to a VR hookup, in

that case, and it's conventional to refer to that as being "in" cyberspace.

But if we wanted a REAL test, we'd actually have to find a way to copy my

"program" onto your brain, and vice versa. That way, the entire physical

component, including any Weird Boy/Girl Brain Chemicals, would be

consistent.

>Hmm, your idea for an experiment is fascinating. Perhaps I should write it

>in for a later phase of the study....

I was hoping you'd say that, Professor. THEN you'll see I'm right. ;P

>> Do you really mean that, Kerry?

>

>Do I really mean what? That we must give Caitlin a chance and I doubt she

>will join up again? Certainly.

Not Caitlin. Screw Caitlin. Did you mean that you don't think TYLER will

improve?

>And furthermore, your description of your marital bliss (or lack thereof)

>makes me question whether the arrangement at the time of conception was

>exclusive.

Hrmm. You're just SO good at making a girl feel good. If you ever acquire

a girlfriend yourself, you had BETTER invest in that ice-cream machine. . .

. ;)

J.