NP Friday October 18, 2019

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,586]

https://egscomics.com/egsnp/parable-022

Quote

In 1673 John Milton wrote:

"They also serve who only stand and wait"

Arthur, it's time to punch in from your break and punch out for lunch

[hkmaly 490]

I think he consider himself lucky to not arrive little later.

[Scotty 1,061]

I expected Arthur to attempt to push things along, did not expect that he'd make a physical appearance to do so, and did not expect him to "nope" out soo easily.

Still, let the girl have her fun. She deserves it.

[hkmaly 490]

11 hours ago, Scotty said:

I expected Arthur to attempt to push things along, did not expect that he'd make a physical appearance to do so, and did not expect him to "nope" out soo easily.

Which is weird, because in retrospective it totally makes sense. We already had him try telepathic and being ignored, so trying something else makes sense both in-universe and for the "not repeating the same joke" out-of-universe perspective.

Now, in real-life, getting child would take nine months (at least). Somehow I expect it will work differently in fable ... or Arthur will be waiting really long.

[Don Edwards 548]

Well, a lot of things do tend to happen at different time rates in fiction. It's an old joke about TV soap operas that it can take a woman two years to have a premature baby.

[hkmaly 490]

51 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

Well, a lot of things do tend to happen at different time rates in fiction. It's an old joke about TV soap operas that it can take a woman two years to have a premature baby.

And Maggie Simpson managed to get to age 1 without her siblings aging single day.

[Don Edwards 548]

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

And Maggie Simpson managed to get to age 1 without her siblings aging single day.

That's okay, Sally Brown managed to go from newborn when Charlie learned his mom was going to have another child to first grade without any of the other characters aging.

[hkmaly 490]

3 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

5 hours ago, hkmaly said:

And Maggie Simpson managed to get to age 1 without her siblings aging single day.

That's okay, Sally Brown managed to go from newborn when Charlie learned his mom was going to have another child to first grade without any of the other characters aging.

Of course that's nothing to Peter Pan, who didn't aged a bit while Wendy, originally 12, became grandmother and her granddaughter Moira Banning (or maybe Margaret) became 12 ... but Peter Pan was (and IS) abusing fairy magic and might not be entirely human.

(I mean ... there is precedent. Another quite famous character who was explicitly given choice and decided to not grow up ... well, ok, in his case it was more like stop aging, because he already grown. Elrond Peredhel.)

[The Old Hack 2,448]

53 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

(I mean ... there is precedent. Another quite famous character who was explicitly given choice and decided to not grow up ... well, ok, in his case it was more like stop aging, because he already grown. Elrond Peredhel.)

Let's not forget Hob Gadling of Sandman fame, who decided that death is a mug's game.

[hkmaly 490]

5 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

59 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

(I mean ... there is precedent. Another quite famous character who was explicitly given choice and decided to not grow up ... well, ok, in his case it was more like stop aging, because he already grown. Elrond Peredhel.)

Let's not forget Hob Gadling of Sandman fame, who decided that death is a mug's game.

... and only did away with that because Death and Dream listened and agreed that it would be fun to give him eternal life.

Although yes. Who knows who listened to Pan claiming he don't want to grow up.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

... and only did away with that because Death and Dream listened and agreed that it would be fun to give him eternal life.

Not eternal life. Not even nearly. Just... an extended lease.

See some of the other immortals in the story. Even Hob himself commented on it.

[ijuin 572]

“Immortality” comes in at least three distinct flavors.

First is simply being immune to death by old age (often but not always combined with a physical appearance that stops aging). Someone with this variety of immortality can still be killed through sufficient injuries due to violence or accident, but will not die of “natural” causes. This is the easiest and most realistic sort of immortality.

Second is immortality via immunity to damage—either they can resist all damage like Superman, or they are incorporeal in some fashion.

The third is immortality via recovery. One might be able to heal from anything short of total annihilation, like Wolverine of the X-men, or perhaps recreate one’s physical body in its entirety, or immediately reincarnate. All variants of this form of immortality share the aspect that the immortal being’s consciousness/memory/soul is contained or backed up somewhere where it can endure the destruction and replacement of their brain.

[hkmaly 490]

12 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Not eternal life. Not even nearly. Just... an extended lease.

See some of the other immortals in the story. Even Hob himself commented on it.

Dream said "Death will not touch you, unless you truly desire it." ... might not be truly eternal, but I don't see any other limits being mentioned ...

6 hours ago, ijuin said:

“Immortality” comes in at least three distinct flavors.

First is simply being immune to death by old age (often but not always combined with a physical appearance that stops aging). Someone with this variety of immortality can still be killed through sufficient injuries due to violence or accident, but will not die of “natural” causes. This is the easiest and most realistic sort of immortality.

Note that this usually, although not always, include immunity to diseases. Which is actually more realistic, because "death by old age" is usually related to some sort of disease. Well ... maybe not all diseases, but very few authors and readers have enough medicine knowledge to just start dividing diseases into ones which could kill you by itself, one which can only kill you when weakened (like by age), ones caused by accumulation of toxins and ones which are pure result of old age (like many, but not all, forms of cancer).

6 hours ago, ijuin said:

Second is immortality via immunity to damage—either they can resist all damage like Superman, or they are incorporeal in some fashion.

The Superman variant is likely least realistic, at least if it's really supposed to resist ALL damage (like, falling into black hole?). Also it raises questions about the diseases ...

The "incorporeal" one, or more exactly "not being from ordinary matter", could work.

6 hours ago, ijuin said:

The third is immortality via recovery. One might be able to heal from anything short of total annihilation, like Wolverine of the X-men, or perhaps recreate one’s physical body in its entirety, or immediately reincarnate. All variants of this form of immortality share the aspect that the immortal being’s consciousness/memory/soul is contained or backed up somewhere where it can endure the destruction and replacement of their brain.

Soul, by definition, shouldn't need to be backed up: it's already supposed to survive physical death. Just, in most cases, this doesn't cause preservation of memory. Consciousness, meanwhile, don't not need to be preserved: it's not preserved over normal sleep either. I would say that what needs to be preserved is memory and personality.

Also, just as important as the backup is restore. As IT people say, if your backup can't be restored, you don't have any backup.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Dream said "Death will not touch you, unless you truly desire it." ... might not be truly eternal, but I don't see any other limits being mentioned ...

If Hob happened to get completely crushed by falling rocks and lay in intense pain, unable to in any way function, his instincs might scream at him to die in order to escape. I still don't think he would have lived this long without a healthy helping of common sense and caution.

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Also, just as important as the backup is restore. As IT people say, if your backup can't be restored, you don't have any backup.

Then there's the little bit that the restore may not actually be you. Let's say I get backed up. Then my physical form gets completely obliterated. The backup is put in a new body. Is it me?

Or similarly, I get backed up. Then someone creates a new body that is an identical copy of mine and puts the backup in it. Is it me? And what do I -- we -- get to say about it?

And so forth, and so forth. This is the kind of thing that would keep me sleepless at night if I didn't already have other worries that did that just fine.

[hkmaly 490]

4 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

7 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Dream said "Death will not touch you, unless you truly desire it." ... might not be truly eternal, but I don't see any other limits being mentioned ...

If Hob happened to get completely crushed by falling rocks and lay in intense pain, unable to in any way function, his instincs might scream at him to die in order to escape.

... yeah, he would likely accept in such case. But maybe not. He did NOT accept despite being so hungry anyone else would die of it.

4 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

I still don't think he would have lived this long without a healthy helping of common sense and caution.

And, probably, big amount of luck. Wasn't he in multiple wars?

4 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

7 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Also, just as important as the backup is restore. As IT people say, if your backup can't be restored, you don't have any backup.

Then there's the little bit that the restore may not actually be you. Let's say I get backed up. Then my physical form gets completely obliterated. The backup is put in a new body. Is it me?

Or similarly, I get backed up. Then someone creates a new body that is an identical copy of mine and puts the backup in it. Is it me? And what do I -- we -- get to say about it?

And so forth, and so forth. This is the kind of thing that would keep me sleepless at night if I didn't already have other worries that did that just fine.

Those question are not really hard to answer, just hard to accept those answers.

However, people who actually have such option tend to create belief which allows them to use those options. It's too tempting. Or rather, better than the alternative.

Whole Federation accepted that you can "move" yourself using the transporter, despite occasional accidents proving that transporter is closer to "copy & destroy one  copy" than actual moving.

One way to look at it is used and explored in Schlock: when you make backup, then die, then gets restored, it's the same you which made the backup, but not the same as the one which died.

... recently, they got copied and now the author reached new meaning of "splitting the party" by having two copies of same people at different place doing different part of moving the story forward.

 

[The Old Hack 2,448]

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

... recently, they got copied and now the author reached new meaning of "splitting the party" by having two copies of same people at different place doing different part of moving the story forward.

I LOVE IT! XD

[ChronosCat 155]

On 10/20/2019 at 1:01 PM, ijuin said:

The third is immortality via recovery. One might be able to heal from anything short of total annihilation, like Wolverine of the X-men, or perhaps recreate one’s physical body in its entirety, or immediately reincarnate. All variants of this form of immortality share the aspect that the immortal being’s consciousness/memory/soul is contained or backed up somewhere where it can endure the destruction and replacement of their brain.

While having a mental backup (& recovery) is standard and desirable in such cases, there are some stories where that is not the case.

For example, in the old Toho monster movie "Frankenstein Vs. Subterranean Monster Baragon" (AKA "Frankenstein Conquers the World"), the disembodied heart of Frankenstein's Monster is hit by radiation from the Hiroshima nuclear bombing, causing it to regenerate a new body which has a mind like that of a small child, and apparently no memories of the Monster's previous experiences. (Then in the sort-of-sequel, "War of the Gargantuas", torn off skin from the first monster regenerate into a second monster with a completely different personality.)

...For that matter, even the movie version of Wolverine can only regenerate brain tissue, not the knowledge stored within that tissue (at least according to "X-Men Origins: Wolverine").

16 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Then there's the little bit that the restore may not actually be you. Let's say I get backed up. Then my physical form gets completely obliterated. The backup is put in a new body. Is it me?

Or similarly, I get backed up. Then someone creates a new body that is an identical copy of mine and puts the backup in it. Is it me? And what do I -- we -- get to say about it?

And so forth, and so forth. This is the kind of thing that would keep me sleepless at night if I didn't already have other worries that did that just fine.

11 hours ago, hkmaly said:

One way to look at it is used and explored in Schlock: when you make backup, then die, then gets restored, it's the same you which made the backup, but not the same as the one which died.

I pretty much agree with the view hkmaly mentioned, though it does get a little more complicated if the two versions of you are alive at the same time. In that case, both parties have continuity with the you who made the backup, but one version has more continuity than the other.

Ideally in such a case, both versions could come to some sort of agreement as to what their relationship to one another and the being who made the backup is. In that case I would respect that agreement.

When the two versions can't agree is when things get really tricky...

(Incidentally, this side track is actually rather relevant to EGS, as it ties into the relationship between Elliot and Ellen...)

Edited October 21, 2019 by ChronosCat
Rephrased for clairity and reduced redundancy.

[hkmaly 490]

14 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

While having a mental backup (& recovery) is standard and desirable in such cases, there are some stories where that is not the case.

It's debatable, however, how much of immortality it is then.

14 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

...For that matter, even the movie version of Wolverine can only regenerate brain tissue, not the knowledge stored within that tissue (at least according to "X-Men Origins: Wolverine").

Putting the movies together, the idea seem to be that while brain damage can make him forget something, it is still recoverable. Although, it may be just that they are recovering memories stored in the part of brain which wasn't damaged.

Also, while he does forget memories, it seems his personality is preserved.

14 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

I pretty much agree with the view hkmaly mentioned, though it does get a little more complicated if the two versions of you are alive at the same time. In that case, both parties have continuity with the you who made the backup, but one version has more continuity than the other.

The view itself is not getting more complicated. Of course, how those two deal with it is.

14 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

When the two versions can't agree is when things get really tricky...

...

14 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

(Incidentally, this side track is actually rather relevant to EGS, as it ties into the relationship between Elliot and Ellen...)

Yes ... while there is no doubt Elliot is the original AND they are taking him as such, it's also obvious Ellen has same relation to him as if made from his backup. If Elliot would not survive meeting the security guard (like, if he would get unlucky with that hit to the head), they would probably let Ellen take over his life ... if only because going through all those troubles with Ellen when original Elliot is dead wouldn't be worth it.

 

[Don Edwards 548]

On 10/21/2019 at 10:41 AM, ChronosCat said:

...For that matter, even the movie version of Wolverine can only regenerate brain tissue, not the knowledge stored within that tissue (at least according to "X-Men Origins: Wolverine").

Justin Epimetheus in Wapsi Square has that problem... pretty much his entire brain was destroyed at one point fairly recently, so he only has memories approximating a lifespan equal to his apparent age. (His actual age? Well... his brother is better known - from Greek mythology.)

Monica Villareal, on the other hand, regenerates a complete 28-year-old body with all memories intact up to and including the circumstances of her most recent death. The body is of a 28-year-old because that's how old she was the first time her friends killed her. (No foe has killed her to date; her friends, at least three times.)

[The Old Hack 2,448]

43 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

(No foe has killed her to date; her friends, at least three times.)

With friends like these...

[Darth Fluffy 302]

On 10/20/2019 at 11:09 PM, The Old Hack said:

If Hob happened to get completely crushed by falling rocks and lay in intense pain, unable to in any way function, his instincs might scream at him to die in order to escape. I still don't think he would have lived this long without a healthy helping of common sense and caution.

Then there's the little bit that the restore may not actually be you. Let's say I get backed up. Then my physical form gets completely obliterated. The backup is put in a new body. Is it me?

Or similarly, I get backed up. Then someone creates a new body that is an identical copy of mine and puts the backup in it. Is it me? And what do I -- we -- get to say about it?

And so forth, and so forth. This is the kind of thing that would keep me sleepless at night if I didn't already have other worries that did that just fine.

I'm not the same me I was twenty years ago. So, where's the cutoff? Ten years? Five? One? A couple of months?  Days? Hours? I suppose the answer would depend on the person perceiving the answer.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

53 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I'm not the same me I was twenty years ago

Nor am I. And a good thing too, that guy was a jerk. Good riddance to bad rubbish says I.

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,586]

1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I'm not the same me I was twenty years ago.

 

56 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Nor am I. And a good thing too, that guy was a jerk.

I too am a continually developing jerk
It is amazing how many different ways one can be a jerk

[hkmaly 490]

3 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

3 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

(No foe has killed her to date; her friends, at least three times.)

With friends like these...

I think they knew she will survive. At least in SOME of those cases.

3 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

The body is of a 28-year-old because that's how old she was the first time her friends killed her.

... aaaand might even know about this perfect reason why to not wait with killing her too long.

1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I'm not the same me I was twenty years ago. So, where's the cutoff? Ten years? Five? One? A couple of months?  Days? Hours? I suppose the answer would depend on the person perceiving the answer.

You are not the same you you was YESTERDAY, actually. Which is the other extreme of how to answer the question of identity.

1 minute ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

Nor am I. And a good thing too, that guy was a jerk.

I too am a continually developing jerk
It is amazing how many different ways one can be a jerk

And stupid. How often do I say "person writing this was stupid" then realize it was me some time ago ... (speaking about code ; posts on internet age better ... usually).

[The Old Hack 2,448]

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

And stupid. How often do I say "person writing this was stupid" then realize it was me some time ago ... (speaking about code ; posts on internet age better ... usually).

I don't really write code, so I don't even have that excuse.