From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Oct 25 10:48:18 1999 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA29426 for ; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 10:48:17 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.3/8.9.1a) id KAA11177 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 25 Oct 1999 10:46:44 -0500 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 10:46:44 -0500 Message-Id: <199910251546.KAA11177@lists.io.com> From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #1374 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Monday, October 25 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1374 In this digest: Re: IN> bright lilim question Re: IN> A question. Re: IN> AI in IN Re: IN> AI in IN Re: IN> AI in IN Re: IN> AI in IN Re: IN> AI in IN Re: IN> AI in IN Re: IN> AI in IN Re: IN> bright lilim question Re: IN> bright lilim question Re: IN> AI in IN Re: IN> AI in IN Re: IN> AI in IN IN> RE> More on Mercs. Re: IN> AI in IN Re: IN> AI in IN Re: IN> AI in IN Re: IN> AI in IN Re: IN> AI in IN Re: IN> AI in IN Re: IN> AI in IN Re: IN> (Nicole Fluff) Re: A question. Re: IN> [Campaign Seed] Election Day! Re: IN> RE>Choir/Band names Re: IN> Relationships in IN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 17:28:14 -0600 From: Tim Groth Subject: Re: IN> bright lilim question >Can a bright lilim fall? if they get dissonant enough is it possible for >them to go through the typical falling procedure? just formulating a >little odd theory. Yup, like most other angels brights can fall. Please share your odd little theory. Timothy, Angle of Rambling If you have a hankering for waffles or chicken i know the place for you: http://d106-h032.rh.rit.edu/~tim/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 02:04:16 +0100 From: "Liam" Subject: Re: IN> A question. From: Steel Angel > Well, I'm not sure it'd be that simple. What if someone is terminally > ill? If they're good, an angel has knowledge few humans have. An angel > -knows- what happens after death. And if the person is due to die, their > Destiny is either met, or they're never gonna make it the whole way except > in rare enough circumstances where you assume the angel knows something's > up. Mercurians (should, IMO) hate seeing a human in pain that they can > alleviate. > Remember, a lot of this is -intent-, like a Seraph. If a Mercurian > punches you in the face, there are precious few occasions where it's -not- > an intent to harm (ask any Malakite). If a Mercurian shoves you out of the > way of a train (or a Calabite) bearing down on you and you skin your knee, I > doubt there's any Dissonance involved. So if you're for sure for certain > gonna die (and yes, I'd make sure it's -totally- certain, there are enough > Servitor Attunements to make sure with), a Mercurian is saving you pain if > he decides to move you along. Again, the angel has got to be -perfectly- > sure you're terminal and that there's nothing else for you to do on Earth. > It'd be rare, but I'd say it's possible. > i agree that intent is important, but there's a difference. i would usually allow a mercurian off without dissonance if they harmed a human, if they didn't intend to (ie it was a total accident). they'd be wracked with guilt, but they wouldn't have purposefully gone against their nature. hence (IMC at least)no dissonance. but if a mercurian chooses to harm a human, even if it's for "their own good", i'd slap 'em with dissonance faster than you can say "impudite". it doesn't matter if the human is in terrible pain, or about to die anyway, or is about to shoot someone else, or has achieved their destiny, or whatever, if the mercurian willingly hurts them they are being dissonant. if the mercurian truly believed the human would be better off in heaven, he should call in an elohim pal or something. but even that should wrack his conscience liam ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 01:54:19 +0100 From: "Liam" Subject: Re: IN> AI in IN From: Ben Glickler > > What if a Kyriotate of Jean *falls* while in possession of a computer? Jean > would never approve of one of his Kyriotates pretending to be an AI, one > suspects, but once the Kyriotate in question is a Shedim, and somehow still > in possession of his previous host... > that's a cool idea. imagine some computer geek serial killer claiming "my computer told me to do it" as the cops drag him away... liam ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 02:08:06 +0100 From: "Liam" Subject: Re: IN> AI in IN From: trina mccowan > > O.K i'm new. i haven't bought anybooks yet but i have kinda kept up on > general information. now here's my question: so are you saying that besides > having to be nice to your kitty in IN, that it has a soul too? it's off > subject i know but i was just wondering. > erm, basically any living creature on earth has a soul (its celestial forces) and so travels on after its death. animals are a much simpler part of the symphony and so travel direct to jordi's savannah in heaven. humans are more complex, and so have the choice between heaven and hell. they can also ascend to the higher heavens, unlike angels liam ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 02:13:00 +0100 From: "Liam" Subject: Re: IN> AI in IN From: The Alien > > I'm not so sure. The list is definitely not in agreement on when > a human develops various Forces. Perhaps the state change from vastly > complex system to true intelligence is like the change from "some cells" > to "a human". Whether you think this change occurs at conception > "sperm+egg=human" or later in development... > in IN terms, i'd say it occurs at conception. as soon as the possibility of a human being begins, their destiny and fate become maifest... or at least, that's how i imagine it > At some point, newly existing life gains Forces. Dogs. Humans. > Whatever. I humbly suggest that if anything develops true sentience, it > would develop Forces as well, if you favor a world where a computer system > could ever attain true sentience. > personally, i agree that there's nothing in theory to stop an AI being as alive and sentient as a human being. in terms of the IN game, however, God created us and gave us souls and stuff, and i don't think a computer could, no matter how clever, be truly "alive". not any more alive than a car or a calculator could liam ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 02:17:02 +0100 From: "Liam" Subject: Re: IN> AI in IN From: Walter Milliken > > An AI, created through the natural processes of the corporeal Symphony > (i.e., humans, and not celestial intervention) is not necessarily any > more unnatural than a human baby. of course it is. humans only exist in the first place due to celestial intervention > Until someone actually builds an AI in > the IN universe, the question of whether or not it would have a soul is > simply speculative (probably CDaU, and certainly a GM call right now). > actually, i bet yves or jean would be fairly certain about the matter. still, i guess you could run a campaign where the "special thing" about humans that god was so big on turns out to be that they are effectively "mini-gods", able to create a new form of life themselves (AIs). i dunno, i'm always inclined to take a fundamentalist approach when running IN. it wasn't around in biblical times, so it's probably a work of the devil... :) liam ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 02:22:15 +0100 From: "Liam" Subject: Re: IN> AI in IN From: Whistling in the Dark > > > I see Jordi taking it in. i couldn't disagree more, to be honest. surely these would be the antithesis of everything jordi believes in, twisted mockeries of natural life created by those upstart humans that he hates > After all, he created many creatures of > Myth, i thought all the creatures of myth were ethereal creatures created/strengthened by dreams? i don't think archangels can create any living creatures apart from angels > and mourned their destruction and treated them as other > animals. That these Computer Souls were human born originally > doesn't change the fact that they're animal souls -- I just don't see > Jordi being that sort of hypocrite. > i don't see AIs as being very animal-like, at least anything that we would recognise as AI. they'd presumably be very analytical and logic-based > Jordi only disliked humanity because they were overbalancing the > rest, and they weren't being restrained by the rest, after all. > and so now they create artificial things which aren't even part of the natural cycle of eating and reproducing? i can see jordi's disdain of humanity reaching all-new highs liam ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 21:50:42 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> AI in IN At 2:22 AM +0100 10/25/99, Liam wrote: >From: Whistling in the Dark > > > > > > > I see Jordi taking it in. > >i couldn't disagree more, to be honest. surely these would be the antithesis >of everything jordi believes in, twisted mockeries of natural life created >by those upstart humans that he hates They are life. Even as a bioengineered animal would be welcomed by Jordi who then reviled the ones who made it, so too these would be. They too have a place, and more of one than those who made them. > > After all, he created many creatures of > > Myth, > >i thought all the creatures of myth were ethereal creatures >created/strengthened by dreams? i don't think archangels can create any >living creatures apart from angels It's been established in Canon, particularly in the APG/IPG and Fall of the Malakim, that Jordi created the creatures of myth that populated the Earth. > > and mourned their destruction and treated them as other > > animals. That these Computer Souls were human born originally > > doesn't change the fact that they're animal souls -- I just don't see > > Jordi being that sort of hypocrite. > > > >i don't see AIs as being very animal-like, at least anything that we would >recognise as AI. they'd presumably be very analytical and logic-based Not necessarily. I've seen a lot of 'neural net' research, and the idea isn't to make an analytical, logical computer. The idea is to make a reasoning one, who conceptualizes and makes decisions even as you or I do. > > Jordi only disliked humanity because they were overbalancing the > > rest, and they weren't being restrained by the rest, after all. > > > >and so now they create artificial things which aren't even part of the >natural cycle of eating and reproducing? i can see jordi's disdain of >humanity reaching all-new highs Agreed. But I don't see him taking that disdain out on the creatures. After all, he's not like *they* are. He might loathe the research and still cherish the life created by it. - -- Eric Alfred Burns It was then I felt my heart break like a in-sabre@annotations.com fragile Scooby Snack upon the harsh teeth of http://www.annotations.com Reality -- and it's been broken ever since. http://www.annotations.com/~journal --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 22:01:58 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> AI in IN At 2:17 AM +0100 10/25/99, Liam wrote: >From: Walter Milliken > > > > > An AI, created through the natural processes of the corporeal Symphony > > (i.e., humans, and not celestial intervention) is not necessarily any > > more unnatural than a human baby. > >of course it is. humans only exist in the first place due to celestial >intervention That's not really supported, is it? All we *really* know about humans is that God said "hands off" of them. No Archangel made them. > > Until someone actually builds an AI in > > the IN universe, the question of whether or not it would have a soul is > > simply speculative (probably CDaU, and certainly a GM call right now). > > > >actually, i bet yves or jean would be fairly certain about the matter. >still, i guess you could run a campaign where the "special thing" about >humans that god was so big on turns out to be that they are effectively >"mini-gods", able to create a new form of life themselves (AIs). i dunno, >i'm always inclined to take a fundamentalist approach when running IN. it >wasn't around in biblical times, so it's probably a work of the devil... >:) Ah, but we already know humans are mini-gods capable of creating new forms of life. Namely, Ethereals. Now, the Angels went on a Crusade to wipe them out, but they're still creations of human thought and imagination.... ...and we don't know that *God* is against Ethereals. Heck, we don't know if God actually *is* an Ethereal who got so powerful he could rewrite the Symphony to reflect his views of history. - -- Eric Alfred Burns It was then I felt my heart break like a in-sabre@annotations.com fragile Scooby Snack upon the harsh teeth of http://www.annotations.com Reality -- and it's been broken ever since. http://www.annotations.com/~journal --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 20:25:13 -0700 (PDT) From: john karakash Subject: Re: IN> bright lilim question - --- Ben Aldred wrote: > Can a bright lilim fall? if they get dissonant > enough is it possible for > them to go through the typical falling procedure? > just formulating a > little odd theory. Ummm, yes, of course. This is mentioned several times (basically whenever Bright Lilim are mentioned). The only angels that are 'exempt' from Falling are Malakim. ===== +++Author, cook, computer genius, modest as heck +++ John Karakash __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 99 14:30:01 PDT From: "Azrael" Subject: Re: IN> bright lilim question I am not so sure that Bright Lilim are even angels. After all The Book says that Lilim are not demons, thus there analouges could not be angels. Like a Lilim who are not quite demons, Bright Lilim are not quite angels. Although there appearence changes slightly. They do not change. Lilim Bright or otherwise are still Lilim. IMHO it is not possible for a Bright Lilim to fall as she has nowhere to fall from. Azrael - ---------- > > > --- Ben Aldred wrote: > > Can a bright lilim fall? if they get dissonant > > enough is it possible for > > them to go through the typical falling procedure? > > just formulating a > > little odd theory. > > > > Ummm, yes, of course. This is mentioned > several times (basically whenever Bright > Lilim are mentioned). The only angels that > are 'exempt' from Falling are Malakim. > > > > ===== > +++Author, cook, computer genius, modest as heck > +++ John Karakash > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 23:13:41 PDT From: "Jo Hart" Subject: Re: IN> AI in IN >From: Whistling in the Dark >They are life. OK, back that up! (I used to work in a lab next door to the AI/neural net lab. I always felt it was questionable as to whether the AI /researchers/ counted as 'life' :) ) Let's see. They don't sleep or dream (there is no reason to assume AIs would have dreamscapes -- ethereals don't). They don't die. They are created, not born. And more to the point, what happens if people clone an AI by just copying and running the code? Have you suddenly (and very easily) gone on to create new souls? If you destroy the computer that one was running on, have you 'killed' it? Or can you just activate its backup? Too many things that make more sense, and are MUCH more easily explained in IN by just assuming that they are soul-less man-made ethereals. If they can ever truly exist without demonic intervention in the INverse. jo ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 16:31:52 +1000 From: "Chris Rose" Subject: Re: IN> AI in IN From: Jo Hart > And more to the point, what happens if people clone an AI by just copying > and running the code? Have you suddenly (and very easily) gone on to create > new souls? If you destroy the computer that one was running on, have you > 'killed' it? Or can you just activate its backup? > > Too many things that make more sense, and are MUCH more easily explained in > IN by just assuming that they are soul-less man-made ethereals. If they can > ever truly exist without demonic intervention in the INverse. > > > jo BUT - Think about the fun plot's you could come up with where AI's did have souls/celestial forces ! AND - weren't the Ethereals born out of mortal collective subconscious ? So - with the propogation of AI's in pop culture - wouldn't an ethereal whose "description/form", for want of a better term, was that of an AI, be as much of a true AI as Odin is a "Norse God" ? Wrap your brain around that one ... Chris ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 02:40:46 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> AI in IN At 11:13 PM -0700 10/24/99, Jo Hart wrote: >>From: Whistling in the Dark >>They are life. > > >OK, back that up! (I used to work in a lab next door to the >AI/neural net lab. I always felt it was questionable as to whether >the AI /researchers/ counted as 'life' :) ) We were specifically speaking of AI's that had gone to Heaven after accruing Celestial Forces somehow, and whether or not Jordi would accept them on the Savannah. In that specific situation, I said "yes sir, by gum!" They're life and he's Jordi! Do I think it would happen? Eh -- not in my game, but the Jean/Vapula relationship's almost never even mentioned 'round my parts. True AI's I would either ascribe to Jean's influence (we call them "Kyriotates") or Vapula's (we call them "serendipitous accidents"), and the issue wouldn't come up. And you, my friend Jo, have never met Doctor Michael Harm, Brain Surgeon. (Yes, he's also a neural net/AI researcher -- he pioneered a neural net to duplicate brain function and learning, and promptly lobotomized it to simulate aphasia's effects). He's life all right. What sort of life, I'm not at all sure.... (It was one thing to bring a jello brain to a Halloween party. It's another to stick little flags describing the parts of the brain in it. It's still a third to spend the party standing in Scots regalia, drinking heavily and cheerfully describing the effects on the patient as you scooped out bits to eat. "And there's loss of motor control! And there's a failure to recognize his mother's face! *Oh,* there goes higher math!") - -- Eric Alfred Burns It was then I felt my heart break like a in-sabre@annotations.com fragile Scooby Snack upon the harsh teeth of http://www.annotations.com Reality -- and it's been broken ever since. http://www.annotations.com/~journal --Johnny Bravo ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 16:50:39 +1000 From: bichwa@telstra.easymail.com.au Subject: IN> RE> More on Mercs. >Of course a student of science would know that being "chokeslammed" onto a bed of >nails isn't anything special. >I bed of nails will only hurt someone's head as the thousands of points distribute the >force marvellously. I have seen and have had cement block broken (with a >sledgehammer I might add) on someone's chest/stomach area while in a bed of nails >sandwich. It is when he stands up and there's blood streaming down his face/back/lots of places. I'm thinking mainly of Mick Foley here, so go and read his bio, or look at some of his fan sites. There's also a stunt/whatever referred to as slicing, where a wrestler conceals a blade in one of their pads, then takes a couple of asprin to dilate their veins and slashes themself - see ECW in particular. >Anyone with a pause button can easily see that many blows (mainly the "slamming" of >peoples heads into the steel barricade thingges) are pulled to such an extent that >absolutely no contact is made between the"slamee" and the barricade. Yes, MOST blows are pulled. There are still accidents, mistakes, and some blows which while pulled would still hurt - again see Steve Austin who had his neck damaged, Bret Hart who landed wrong, and broke several bones, and others. >Your example of pulling punches does not make the wrestling match any less fake, in >fact the fact that every thing is "carefully choreographed" does not make anything >less fake, merely carefully choreographed and fake. In any case if you have ever >been punched, punched somebody or seen a real fight you would realise that those >punches and strikes wouldn't hurt (much) even if there was force behind it. I was using that as an example of Mercurians - a pulled punch is still a punch, and therefore violent, making wrestling a no-zone for mercs. It's that (much) which is important. >Sticking a flare in someone's face is easy to do without creating harm, a low->temperature flare will do no harm but the smoke will sting the eyes Look at the Undertaker's face. You can still the the scar he got from a flare. Not very well, but it's there. Violence = no Mercurians. Kris, who managed to sort of bring that back on topic. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 14:26:20 +0100 From: "Liam" Subject: Re: IN> AI in IN From: Whistling in the Dark > > That's not really supported, is it? All we *really* know about > humans is that God said "hands off" of them. No Archangel made them. > i meant god, not an archangel > > Ah, but we already know humans are mini-gods capable of creating new > forms of life. Namely, Ethereals. Now, the Angels went on a Crusade > to wipe them out, but they're still creations of human thought and > imagination.... > maybe. i prefer to think of them as nebulous forms of life that alreayd exist, taking on form and purpose from the dreams of humanity. but, as i said, you could take the "mini-gods" approach. personally i don't think humans need this to be important in the IN universe. IMC it's their free will that's important. ultimately it's humanity, not the angels or demons, which will decide if the symphony meets its destiny or fate > ...and we don't know that *God* is against Ethereals. Heck, we don't > know if God actually *is* an Ethereal who got so powerful he could > rewrite the Symphony to reflect his views of history. > well, we don't *know*, but i think that would spoil things if god was just a big guy with a beard all along. i prefer him to be The God, with the "ethereal theory" just being propaganda from the pagan gods liam ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 14:21:51 +0100 From: "Liam" Subject: Re: IN> AI in IN From: Whistling in the Dark > > They are life. Even as a bioengineered animal would be welcomed by > Jordi who then reviled the ones who made it, so too these would be. > They too have a place, and more of one than those who made them. > they mimic life. that's not the same > It's been established in Canon, particularly in the APG/IPG and Fall > of the Malakim, that Jordi created the creatures of myth that > populated the Earth. > you could be right on this, it's been a while since i read the books, but it seems wrong to me. the creatures of myth were ethereal, that's why they were destroyed in the purity crusade. if jordi had made them they'd be celestial creatures, out of uriel's reach. so they'd still be around, certainly in heaven if not on earth. i know jordi was friends with many creatures of myth, but i don't think he created them > > Not necessarily. I've seen a lot of 'neural net' research, and the > idea isn't to make an analytical, logical computer. The idea is to > make a reasoning one, who conceptualizes and makes decisions even as > you or I do. > well, maybe i worded it wrong. i meant pretty much what you said, "reasoning" and "conceptualising" aren't very animal-like traits. they're pretty much what makes humans human, after all > > > >and so now they create artificial things which aren't even part of the > >natural cycle of eating and reproducing? i can see jordi's disdain of > >humanity reaching all-new highs > > Agreed. But I don't see him taking that disdain out on the > creatures. After all, he's not like *they* are. He might loathe the > research and still cherish the life created by it. > maybe. i guess you see jordi as a nicer guy than i do. if he was a carey-sharey cherub i could go along with this. i think he'd consider them the evil spawn of humanity/hell/jean (all as bad as each other...) liam ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 14:31:06 +0100 From: "Liam" Subject: Re: IN> AI in IN From: Chris Rose > > BUT - Think about the fun plot's you could come up with where AI's did have > souls/celestial forces ! > i guess. i suppose my problem is that it would mess with my idea of IN "universal laws" or something. and you can have plenty of fun plots with AIs as evil demonic devices (or sneaky angelic ones, for that matter) > AND - weren't the Ethereals born out of mortal collective subconscious ? > So - with the propogation of AI's in pop culture - wouldn't an ethereal > whose "description/form", for want of a better term, was that of an AI, be > as much of a true AI as Odin is a "Norse God" ? > i could see "AI ethereals" being born in the marches, but they wouldn't be actual AIs created by humans (just as odin isn't really a big norse man). they would just be ethereal spirits who act in the way most people imagine artificial intelligences would. i would suspect that these "false" AIs would tend towards the evil kill-all-humans angle, because that's how the vast majority of them are pictured in popular culture. liam ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 09:57:24 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> AI in IN At 2:21 PM +0100 10/25/99, Liam wrote: >From: Whistling in the Dark > > > > > They are life. Even as a bioengineered animal would be welcomed by > > Jordi who then reviled the ones who made it, so too these would be. > > They too have a place, and more of one than those who made them. > > > >they mimic life. that's not the same We postulated that they had Celestial Forces and therefore went to Heaven. If that's the case, Jordi would welcome them, IMHO. I'm *not* advocating sentient computers, just working with the postulate and Jordi. > > > It's been established in Canon, particularly in the APG/IPG and Fall > > of the Malakim, that Jordi created the creatures of myth that > > populated the Earth. > > > >you could be right on this, it's been a while since i read the books, but it >seems wrong to me. the creatures of myth were ethereal, that's why they were >destroyed in the purity crusade. if jordi had made them they'd be celestial >creatures, out of uriel's reach. so they'd still be around, certainly in >heaven if not on earth. i know jordi was friends with many creatures of >myth, but i don't think he created them As I said, it's Canon he did. Uriel's take was that Jordi shouldn't be making creatures, and therefore they were fair game. Much like Blandine's side of the Marches was fair game to go and raze in the name of Purity. As I recall, it's in the History section of the Angelic Player's Guide, as well as other places. > > > > Not necessarily. I've seen a lot of 'neural net' research, and the > > idea isn't to make an analytical, logical computer. The idea is to > > make a reasoning one, who conceptualizes and makes decisions even as > > you or I do. > > > >well, maybe i worded it wrong. i meant pretty much what you said, >"reasoning" and "conceptualising" aren't very animal-like traits. they're >pretty much what makes humans human, after all Well, not by these definitions. A rat who learns how to navigate a maze and receive cheese is reasoning and conceptualizing by the definitions of most AI research. We're a long long long long long way from HAL 9000. If we could build an AI capable of the same level of stimulus/response/learning/behavior modification as, say, a dog -- well, there'd be a lot of happy scientists out there. > > > > > >and so now they create artificial things which aren't even part of the > > >natural cycle of eating and reproducing? i can see jordi's disdain of > > >humanity reaching all-new highs > > > > Agreed. But I don't see him taking that disdain out on the > > creatures. After all, he's not like *they* are. He might loathe the > > research and still cherish the life created by it. > > > >maybe. i guess you see jordi as a nicer guy than i do. if he was a >carey-sharey cherub i could go along with this. i think he'd consider them >the evil spawn of humanity/hell/jean (all as bad as each other...) I see Jordi as a totally nice guy. The problem he has is, one species on Earth has overbalanced the others. Now, with all other species, he was able to go in and take punative measures to ensure the balance of the whole, the web of life, was preserved. But when he went in to do this with Humanity, he was told he couldn't. And he saw the imbalance grow and grow, but he can't do anything about it. Humanity's 'special.' They're above the rules that govern all other animals. So Jordi's got a mad on about them. If you gave him control for just a *few* years, he'd winnow them out and force them into healthy competition again. And if that meant they had to go away -- well, c'est la vie. The dinosaurs had to pass on when it was time, and so does humanity. But they won't *let* him. It's *very* simple and it would make things *ever* so much better but they *won't* *let* *him.* That doesn't mean it's the fault of any species who shows up on the Savannah. They're not human, and AI's who showed up there certainly wouldn't be overbalancing the web of life. It's Heaven for them too, after all.... - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 10:01:57 -0400 From: Whistling in the Dark Subject: Re: IN> AI in IN At 2:26 PM +0100 10/25/99, Liam wrote: >From: Whistling in the Dark > > > > Ah, but we already know humans are mini-gods capable of creating new > > forms of life. Namely, Ethereals. Now, the Angels went on a Crusade > > to wipe them out, but they're still creations of human thought and > > imagination.... > > > >maybe. i prefer to think of them as nebulous forms of life that alreayd >exist, taking on form and purpose from the dreams of humanity. Which works, I think, though it's pretty Canon that they're created by the imagination and belief of humanity. But this is six of one, not half a dozen of the other. >but, as i said, you could take the "mini-gods" approach. personally >i don't think humans need this to be important in the IN universe. >IMC it's their free will that's important. ultimately it's humanity, >not the angels or demons,which will decide if the symphony meets its >destiny or fate Totally agreed, which makes humanity *vitally* important. The whole War is about the Symphony meeting its Destiny or its Fate. And the demons and angels don't get to decide that, no matter how much Michael and Baal wish otherwise. Armageddon, in the end, is written on the hearts of man, not in the annals of a battle roll. If Selflessness wins, then the Demons will ultimately be proven wrong. The importance of Man becomes apparent. The Fall was a mistake and they're on the wrong side. If Selfishness wins, then the Demons were right, and God's plan was screwed up, and Lucifer was right to deny it and these fallible creatures. > > ...and we don't know that *God* is against Ethereals. Heck, we don't > > know if God actually *is* an Ethereal who got so powerful he could > > rewrite the Symphony to reflect his views of history. > > > >well, we don't *know*, but i think that would spoil things if god was just a >big guy with a beard all along. i prefer him to be The God, with the >"ethereal theory" just being propaganda from the pagan gods > I play my game the same way -- God is God, Ethereals are Ethereals.... But my *Ethereals* are convinced it's the other way around, and no one can be quite *sure.* It's faith, not fact. Which is appropriate for a religious game, I think. - -- Eric Alfred Burns | | now with web site content! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 10:04:20 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> AI in IN Perhaps AIs would go to *Jean's* Cathedral when they die, rather than to Jordi's. If AIs achieve sentience/Celestial forces without anyone immediately noticing, there might be an awkward time-gap in which the only ones noticing the way they turn up in Heaven might be that seraph at the Pearly Gates (I forget its name) and, presumably, Yves. Jean himself would be next, but strikes me as the sort who could easily get buried in his current project list and not become aware of new topics unless they are brought to his attention through standard channels. Of course, if they are capable of moral choice, then some will be bad, get spotted by Dominic's two Final Filters at the gates of Hell, and, presumably zip straight to Vapula's labs for eternal debugging. Then Dominic would find out about them. Or maybe AIs, for some reason, always go to the Marches and wind up as a rapidly expanding population of permanent dream shades when they die. THAT would change the complexion of the Marches! And startled Beleth and Blandine. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 10:50:25 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> AI in IN The Alien wrote: "I humbly suggest that if anything develops true sentience, it would develop Forces as well, if you favor a world where a computer system could ever attain true sentience." I would put it more strongly: in the IN universe, the Celestial Forces ARE the sentience, so to develop the one is to develop the other. Liam wrote: "personally, i agree that there's nothing in theory to stop an AI being as alive and sentient as a human being. in terms of the IN game, however, God created us and gave us souls and stuff, and i don't think a computer could, no matter how clever, be truly "alive". not any more alive than a car or a calculator could" What God does in one case, He can do in another: Jean, addressing a consternated Seraphim Council: "It's really quite simple. Human, like any other mammal, engage in some physically simple action that initiate the development of a new organism that is many orders of magnitude more complex than the actions that initiated it. Part of that organism is a brain, composed largely of protein and water. Our Lord almost invariably then bestows upon such brains the necessary Celestial Forces to compound a mammalian (in this case, human) soul. "In building an AI, there is an interesting, possibly amusing, inversion. The actions humans take to bring it about are very much more complicated, but the brain produced is, physically, much simpler. However, a brain of silicon and copper is no MORE material than a brain of protein and water, and although it lacks the metabolic infrastructure, this simplicity gives it a great deal of speed--" (Janus: "Cool! I get the first AI saint!") Jean: "You do NOT. *I*-- Hem. As I was saying, these brains are now made with a degree of sophistication that allows representation of intentions and concepts within them, and it appears that Our Lord is also pleased to endow them with Celstial Forces, just as He regularly does with organic brains. Some of these souls have now run their mortal course and achieved their Destinies. As a result, they are now piling up at the Gates. In little cardboard boxes, with instruction manuals, which I confess is surprising. Perhaps Yves could tell us where the instrucition manuals are coming from...?" (Expectant pause that no one fills.) Dominic: "Are any going to Hell? Or are they all coming here, like animals?" Michael: "Your gatekeepers haven't noticed?" Dominic: "They may have, and not have understood what they were seeing." Michael: "THAT wouldn't surprise me at all." Laurence: "Most Holies, please. Jean, could you set some of your servitors to unpacking those boxes at the Gates and assembling the contents? We need to get these new souls -- uh -- "up and running" if we are to have any clear idea of how they will figure in the War. If any ARE going to Hell, we could be facing a new species of Undead soon." Yves: "And, Jean, make sure your servitors READ those instruction manuals." Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 10:57:54 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> (Nicole Fluff) Re: A question. Steel Angel wrote: > Okay, it's an old thread, so I'll be very -careful- about how I go > about this. It comes down to, -must- a Mercurian -care- about > humanity, or must a Mercurian just abide by the rules? Is it nature > or obedience? All celestial dissonance conditions are supposed to reflect the celestial's nature. No Mercurian can spontaneously want to do violence to a human. A Mercurian that gets into the habit of doing so, and of thus collecting dissonance, has developed some other motive that it is giving precedence over its natural inclination. Nothing keeps a Mercurian from hating someone, for instance, for most of the reasons humans can hate. The Mercurian may then feel that it's worth taking the pain of dissonance in order to get the pleasure of vengance. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:14:15 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> [Campaign Seed] Election Day! Once again, I am delighted to see the consistently high quality of Neel's IN ideas. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:28:07 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> RE>Choir/Band names Azrael wrote: > > In the front on IN all angels are reffered to as the bene-elohim. > Bene meaning good, thus elohim probably means celestial or something. "Bene elohim" is Hebrew for "sons of the gods" or "sons of God." "Bene" is "sons of" or "children of." (Thus, in "Dune," the "Bene Gesserit" were the "children of Gesserit," whoever Gesserit might be. Since the order was exclusively female, it should have been something like Bet Gesserit, a fact that annoyed my Hebrew- literate father.) "Elohim" is a plural form, which can be translated "gods." In the Bible, it more often means "God." Hebrew sometimes uses a plural form of a noun to indicate excellence or supremacy. Thus "behemoth" is the plural of the word for "beast" (a feminine plural this time). "Behemoth" is the Beast of Beasts, the Beastissimo. Likewise Elohim is the supreme god. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 11:05:39 -0400 From: "Chris Bergstresser" Subject: Re: IN> Relationships in IN - ----- Original Message ----- From: Azrael To: IN Sent: Sunday, October 24, 1999 11:07 PM Subject: IN> Relationships in IN > On the INC Beth of Divinely Infernal Line Editing Demon Princess wrote an article on Homosexuality in IN. > I wasn't here when it was discussed but in the article under Blandine it says she probably would approve of homosexuality in IN. I would say that probably is not the correct term, although definately is. > > I say this because before The Fall she and Beleth were lovers, unless it was a typo in The Book then they both consider themselves female and thus were in a smae sex relationship. So for fear of being a hypocrite and damaging her word I'd say that Blandine definately would approve of homosexuality. Angel's don't "consider" themselves anything. The gender of vessels has no more import for any of them than a particular set of clothes does for humans. - -- Chris ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #1374 ******************************** The material here is (C) 1999 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.