Cynthia posted:
> Seriously, I do *NOT* understand this prejudice against realistic
> cybertechnology -- yes, *realistic*. The cyber/computer technology
> depicted in "cyberpunk" and other near-future science fiction is the most
> likely and realistic technology I've seen yet in Traveller -- so you
> dislike that and prefer jump drives/gravitics instead? Or computers
> obsolete by 1990's standards? I are confused...
JUMP SPACE MECHANICS
Ok, I'll bite... I certainly won't argue over the problems with
gravitics and computers in Traveller. On the other hand, I could
write an equation for "jump space mechanics" where the energy event of
jump space insertion allows the ship to travel through "complex" space
(described mathematically as Riemannian space). Reintroduction into
"real" space at one's destination can be described as "popping"
through a Reimann surface at a singularity (satisfying the boundary
conditions of the yet unwritten differential equation of jump travel
arbitrarily). Misjumps? Well, bad insertions could be used as
initial boundary conditions for travel through Reimannian space, thus
skewing the "solution" of the differential and the final time/place of
arrival.
On the other hand, I've never cared for lanthium grid technology...
< Warning - nerd attack: The above "jump space mechanics" are
modelled on the REAL WORLD solution for the arrival of Love
and Rayleigh waves in a teleseismic event, where the energy
event (ie, a big earthquake) happens in real mathematical space,
the displacements travel in complex mathematical space <some
of which are entirely imaginary...>, and arrivals happen at
singularities when the wave train "pops" through a Riemann
surface back into exclusively REAL space... Helmberger at the
Seismic Lab at Caltech did the mathematics in the late 60's -
truly grusome stuff, makes great reading late at night if you
want to be put to sleep... >
COMPUTER-TO-PERSON DIRECT INTERFACING
This has always been one of the two things in cyberpunk that I've
always had the most trouble with. I have no confidence, based on what
I know (which isn't that much, admittedly), that near-future
technology can support computer to person direct interfacing. I just
don't think "jacking-in" is possible.
It turns out from what people have learned from PET scanning of the
human brain that smart people are effecient thinkers (low PET
emissions during problem solving), and not-so-smart people are
wasteful thinkers (high PET emissions during problem-solving). In
addition, we know that memory retrieval is probably a tree search, and
we also know where different functions occur in the brain more or
less.
We know that synapses pass electro-chemical signals through the brain,
and that there are several different emzymes that act essentially as
bio-resisters, bio-transitors and bio-capacitors along synapse paths.
We also know that there is an upper limit on the SPEED, ie the
electric current, along the synaptical pathways. Last, we know that
the brain is self-wiring, and that the virtual wiring in every brain
is different. (Remember, the brain is a really cool organ - after
brain damage which isn't too severe, the brain can relearn and rewire
most of its functionality along new paths - which is why stroke
victims are often able to relearn talking and walking...) The basic
ROM "instruction set" on "wiring" is stored in chromosomes at the cell
level, which is to say that an analog computer is probably a better
model for the hardware/software or the brain that a digital
computer... Neural input/output is analog - think about hand/eye
coordination, for example.
So, smart thinking is efficient, but along pathways which have an
upper limit on speed, and which can't be described because their
specific location is unknowable (because of the self-wiring nature of
the brain). Given those constraints, I personally find it hard to
believe that a near-future biomed engineer will be able to design the
sort of interface described in the cyberpunk genre books for
"jacking-in", mostly because of the dynamic and unique virtual wiring
property of individual brains.
So given that the hardware/software system is DYNAMIC, how can you
make a jack (which will be fixed in space) that can interface with a
self-rewiring analog biochemical processor whose instruction set has
no knowledge of the world beyond the cellular level??? I don't think
it can be done (personal opinion).
Mind you, I only have the sort of "knowledge" on bioscience that comes
from reading Scientific American and Science News. This isn't to say
that I'm inflexible in my opinion; but I've thought about this a bit,
and I made conclusions on what I think I know. I'm willing to be
convinced otherwise if one of the smart-link, chipping-in, and/or
jacking-in proponents can propose a plausible means by which
computer/brain interfacing can be achieved.
OK, end of rant... You can take out your smart guns for pot shots at
me now...
Catie Helm
[email removed] _or_ [email removed]