Comments on: RHAE 3

By: annasbones

annasbones — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:58:27 +0000

my point was: things like going to moon used to be considered (and this was taught in school, in science classes) mathematically impossible. all that matters is he present indeed, a present that doesn’t include homo machina in it, so who are we to say Rhae’s not actually spot on.

anyway, it’s a great read, and the science sounds as probable as the reading pleasurable. awaiting poll results!

By: JDEvolutionist

JDEvolutionist — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 05:37:15 +0000

Correction – Natural Selection … arising out of the evolution of life forms (organic forms) …, which of course is related to sensory evolution leading to evolution of the brain.

By: JDEvolutionist

JDEvolutionist — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 05:29:07 +0000

I’m not sure if this is the right place to discuss this as really this should be about Rhae’s work! But briefly… My problem is that I see in evolution a fundamental uniqueness – think in terms of position in space-time, nothing can ever be other than totally unique from the smallest to the largest. It is this that creates randomness. Under such conditions nothing can ever be engineered to create a known result because nothing knows exactly what the coming ‘present’ will be in terms of its Condition of Existence. The concept of ‘influential consequences’ attempts to capture this in terms of condition – Natural Selection is secondary to this process (a proposal that is generally not readily accepted and usually classes me as talking nonsense!!). I see Natural Selection as an evolutionary process arising out of development of mind and hence entering the evolution of existence later along the time line of its role out – recognising that in terms of the real components of the Physical Universe time does not exist, nothing exists other than in the present.
For all that, Rhae’s Homo Machina has every chance of becoming one of those real components.

By: Kaylie Jones

Kaylie Jones — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 01:55:08 +0000

I’m really captivated. With SF, I’m willing to wait a little longer for character, because the set up in this tabula-rasa land is so crucial. But get there in the next installment!

By: annasbones

annasbones — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:16:31 +0000

“… and the idea of a genetically engineered ‘future’ which I would argue is not possible.” – JDEvolutionist

They said that about flying, going to the moon, subways and submarines. Sometimes it takes a little fiction to give us a little vision. Aldous Huxley? Jules Vernes?

Moreover, many discussions are presently being held in the scientific community about how ‘human evolution is over’ precisely because we are so conscious of our power as selective agents, and so controlling (manipulative?) over the processes guiding our own evolution & its direction.

Anyway, am not sure if Rhae’s world is all so improbable in the end!

PS: ‘influential consequence’? Isn’t that just a fancier way of saying natural selection?

By: Rhae

Rhae — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 22:31:42 +0000

JD, it appears we have maxed out the number of replies possible on a single nested comment strain. Just one last thing I forgot to mention: Houellebecq’s book “Atomized” that I told you about is published under the title “Elementary Particles” outside of the US.

By: Rhae

Rhae — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 19:25:38 +0000

I don’t think that any geneticists would claim that an engineered future can exist independently of evolutionary processes or that it is predicated upon determinism. I have never heard of the phrase “influential consequence.” I assume it’s your own phrase? Whatever the case, I will make sure to look into it. Thanks for your thoughts, Jim.

By: JDEvolutionist

JDEvolutionist — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 19:13:03 +0000

I think the difference here lies in the reality of genetic engineering (specific modification of the structure of genetic sequence) and the idea of a genetically engineered ‘future’ which I would argue is not possible.
As for ‘influential consequence’ – consequences brought about by the influence of factors modifying the prevailing environment, recognising that all elements within the environment are mutually interactive both with themselves and with the environment of which they are constituents. Enough, you have better things to do!!

By: JDEvolutionist

JDEvolutionist — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 06:52:03 +0000

No I’m not familiar with Michel Houellebecq. If I get a chance I may try to correct that! Interestingly though I suspect I would agree with you with regard to taking issue with a genetically engineered future; principally because, while I accept that genetic engineering is a contributor of growing significance to current state, that is Condition of Existence, it can and only operates in conjunction with everything else within that continually evolving state. Hence the process of ‘engineering’ in a deterministic sense is invalid and must be dismissed in favour of ‘influential consequence’. (Though the latter might be arguably defined as having deterministic consequences!!!) – keep up the good work, Jim

By: Jodi Cleghorn

Jodi Cleghorn — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 01:33:16 +0000

I’m finding this interesting – but your backstory is competing with other narratives and characters which are galloping fowards having engaged the reader.

Like Dan I want to see a protagonist. I’m not sure how much further you can push the reader without engaging them with a character.