I can't speak for others, but I know one reason I don't think SR and CP are all that different is because CP has sufficiently advanced tech that it is no different than magic, whereas SR just makes some of the tech magic.  The whole soul sucked into the net story in the main rulebook of CP is PFM  (Pure Fucking Magic).  Right off the bat, CP tells a supernatural story, with at best vague technological trappings to explain it.

Personally I find the whole cyberpsychosis thing no more believable than possession by spirits (it's also jarring since it's so blatantly a game balance mechanic) and frankly it would make more sense if it was possession by tech spirits.  Giving an amputee a new limb doesn't make them go crazy or become less well, it tends to dramatically uplift them.  That it was worked into the CP world reasonably well nonetheless is a testament to the generally enjoyable world-building in CP.

I also find it funny that the guy who gave us Neuromancer and Loas is even slightly bothered by Shadowrun when he himself saw the parallels between tech and magic and went so far as to use mystical terms for both his book titles and entities within his books.  I've said he's one of my favorite writers, but I think he missed his own point with his Shadowrun comments.

So I think folks can see how this hard line of "no magic in my cyberpunk" is a pointless distinction to at least me, and it seems a number of others as well.  Clarke's Third Law basically states that at a certain point, you are talking about magic, no matter that you call it tech.  So fine, if some want cyberpunk without sufficiently advanced tech, they can have it, but they are cutting out most of the fiction written about it because it's already magic, by virtue (or flaw if you prefer) of being sufficiently advanced as to be no different.

Sure, as long as you ignore that sci-fi devices are often extrapolated from real science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_field_(fiction)

Quote from: Headless;882667Sufficiently plot convient technology is indistinguishable from magic and all that

The end result might look the same, bu the base assumptions are like night and day, aren't they? Sci-fi devices are often extrapolated from actual science, or tech that actually exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_field_(fiction)

Can you say the same about the assumptions behind magic?

QuoteI think No Country is more an inversion of a western.  But that is another thread.

If it's the visuals and period costumes.  Fire fly has them.  And to the second point.  I would just disagree.  

We could pick any other example than NCFOM, that deviates from the time perio, and place, and the rest of the assumptions of the genre. The point is that most people qualify them with something more than 'western'.  Because it's more than just the visuals and period costumes, it's the place, the landscape, the period itself that are important. These carry meaning.

That's why if you add spaceships and shit to a western, it's no longer a western, but a space western. Those other things were never part of the genre.

QuoteTo me, the the narrative meaning and purpose of elfs is more important than any auto felationatory explanation of where the elfs come from the author indulges in.

That doesn't make those things part of the genre of cyberpunk. And if they're magical in nature, they're even more dissonant to the whole idea of cyberpunk.

QuoteWell no.  When they start doing that on a regular basis than they are scientists.

Either you're missing what I meant , or you arguing that Gandalf is a scientist.

QuoteThis seems a fluid and arbitrary disctinction.  If I find a way to provably summon an extra plainar being, a daemon, than shadow run becomes cyber punk.  And AI and mind machine implants is proved impossible Neuromance becomes cyber fantasy?  

No. That would mean that cyberpunk becomes sci-fantasy, and Shadowrun would become sci-fi. But the latter is not going to happen in a million years, so we don't have to worry about that.

QuoteI find that unsatisfactory.

That's not the genre's fault. If I were you, I would fault your assumptions on what constitutes elaborating on science and what's an outright fairy tale.

Quote from: Brander;882756I can't speak for others, but I know one reason I don't think SR and CP are all that different is because CP has sufficiently advanced tech that it is no different than magic, whereas SR just makes some of the tech magic.  The whole soul sucked into the net story in the main rulebook of CP is PFM  (Pure Fucking Magic).  Right off the bat, CP tells a supernatural story, with at best vague technological trappings to explain it.

Personally I find the whole cyberpsychosis thing no more believable than possession by spirits (it's also jarring since it's so blatantly a game balance mechanic) and frankly it would make more sense if it was possession by tech spirits.  Giving an amputee a new limb doesn't make them go crazy or become less well, it tends to dramatically uplift them.  That it was worked into the CP world reasonably well nonetheless is a testament to the generally enjoyable world-building in CP.

I also find it funny that the guy who gave us Neuromancer and Loas is even slightly bothered by Shadowrun when he himself saw the parallels between tech and magic and went so far as to use mystical terms for both his book titles and entities within his books.  I've said he's one of my favorite writers, but I think he missed his own point with his Shadowrun comments.

So I think folks can see how this hard line of "no magic in my cyberpunk" is a pointless distinction to at least me, and it seems a number of others as well.  Clarke's Third Law basically states that at a certain point, you are talking about magic, no matter that you call it tech.  So fine, if some want cyberpunk without sufficiently advanced tech, they can have it, but they are cutting out most of the fiction written about it because it's already magic, by virtue (or flaw if you prefer) of being sufficiently advanced as to be no different.

Also once something becomes objectively true, with repeatably proven methods, 100% reproducible, and used to create goods and provide services, it becomes by the very definition of the word - scientific technology.

The world of Neuromancer is not our world.  The creation and merging/procreation of the Wintermute and Neuromancer AIs, and their capability to beam themselves to Alpha Centauri isn't "magic"?  Is it reproducible, can anyone even really describe what actually happened?  It's a transcendent, revelatory event as magical or mystical as the resurrection and ascension of Christ.  You find the same type of Transcendent Event in Idoru that is as scientifically explainable as the end of 2001's Star-Child.

I can take gold and inject it into a donut-shaped mold, that does not make it a donut, not even if I paint it to look like one.

Gibson has always had magical and mystical elements in his stories, and those elements in his stories function more like *magic* than ANY magic in Shadowrun, which is scientifically defined, reproducible and quantifiable.  Hell, I've heard people say Shadowrun isn't fantasy at all because of this fact.  

Vampires don't turn into mist, wolves, or bats.  They're infected with a disease, a virus, that like metahumans, has certain non-coding elements of their DNA activate and turn into coding elements when a type of energy rises to a certain level.  I don't see Darwin's Radio billed as a fantasy novel, it's got damn near the same premise.

Magic wrapped in mirrorshades doesn't mean it's not fantastical, and a mutant with a magic robe doesn't make him Gandalf.

Quote from: Brander;882756So I think folks can see how this hard line of "no magic in my cyberpunk" is a pointless distinction to at least me, and it seems a number of others as well.  Clarke's Third Law basically states that at a certain point, you are talking about magic, no matter that you call it tech.  

I'm not going to adress the rest of the post, because I'd be retreading arguments that've already occurred.

I'll just say that this interpretation of clarke seems wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

This says more about the person observing the technology than the technology itself. That's the whole point of a conneticutt yankee, no? The people of the past have not even the slightest idea of the science behind some technology, so yeah, it looks like magic, and they might actually believe that it is being powered by some mystical force even if it isn't. But that's a matter of perspective.  

You can't say that the characters in cyberpunk, or even the readership of cyberpunk, can't distinguish the tech from magic, because pretty much everything is an extrapolation of technology and science of our world. As such, you can assume that the tech runs on scientific principles/hypothees or extrapolated from such. Neither the characters, nor the readership have this sense that some mystical force is powering their tech. It is assumed that there is some scientific basis for it.

Oh wait, that sounds like the real world! No one assumes that their toaster is running on mana or that a little dragon is browning their bread. No, they know it's electricity, even as they don't really understand the physics of electricity.

Another point: some of the technology that cyberpunk predicted has started to become true in many ways, just like the advent of space exploration started to make other sci-fi extrapolations true. Some things will hit and some will miss. On the other hand, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for anything like the magic in SR or Tolkien to ever enter this universe or work like it. That's one of the things that makes extrapolating from technology different from assuming some mystical force at work.

If you guys want to insist that these things are indistinguishable, *shrug*. It's your prerogative to ignore the big differences in favor of your rhetorical points.

Is this what you're referring to as "woo woo shit"?

One small piece..."Research by the Harvard Medical School and others has demonstrated that the practice of Qigong affects gene expression, and immune, nervous system, and cellular function."

Life energy affecting genetic expression, hmm, what does that sound like, I remember someone saying something about that... :hmm:

Not sure why Chinese beliefs are "woo woo" or what that epithet is trying to convey, BTW.

That seems pretty far away from casting magic fireballs. Do you ever anticipate a quigong practicioner doing that?

As to quigong itself, I'd direct you to the skeptics dictionary, or at least look outside of a site dedicated to quigong itself. I mean, getting proof of quigong from a quigong website is a little like getting proof that vaccines cause autism from an anti-vaccine site.

Not having read enough on the subject, I'd say that it looks a bit like quackery:

http://skepdic.com/chikung.html

But you know what, a quick google search on epigenetics and quigong points to a study of taichi. And, surprise! It turns out that exercise does the same thing? Is this because of some mystical energy like "chi" or is it just a benefit of exercise? Last time I looked, weightlifting science doesn't mention chi anywhere.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics_of_physical_exercise#DNA_Methylation

I define 'woo woo' shit as stuff that relies on mystical explanations in the face of science.

Even if, let's say, chi became a scientific fact, that's a long long way from mana and magic returning to earth, and people being able to harness these energies via words, symbols, etc.

This one was funded by the NIH and the CDC, not Mr. Woo Woo.

It shows that processes like Yoga (manipulation of Prana) and various Chinese Qigong (manipulation of Qi) not weightlifting or skiing, can literally turn genes on and off.

Scientific fact.  Manipulation of body energy though practiced exertion of will, affects DNA.

Hmm, so now that we know that SCIENTIFICALLY, let's extrapolate what would happen with higher levels of that energy?  

• Might some of the genes we have no clue what they do or are there for possibly have a purpose we haven't found yet?  
• Might we be able to channel or focus this energy in other ways?  
• Shaolin monks and other martial artists, as well as Yogis and practitioners of other cultures (the Woo Woo people) who have a written history going back to when white people were in caves claim the focusing of this energy is the reason they can do things like resist blades thrust through their bodies or other things most of us can't do.  Could it be something other than half the world sharing the same delusion?

Yeah, that's a whole lot less magical than AIs transcending to Space Gods...for sure.

DOes the study in the link mention prana, mana, or chi anywhere? anywhere? Hello?

I didn't think so. The gist seems to be:

QuoteThe RR is characterized by decreased oxygen consumption, increased exhaled nitric oxide, and reduced psychological distress. It is believed to be the counterpart of the stress response that exhibits a distinct pattern of physiology and transcriptional profile. We hypothesized that RR elicitation results in characteristic gene expression changes that can be used to measure physiological responses elicited by the RR in an unbiased fashion.

a relaxation response, you know, which is as far from mystical as you can get.

You let me know when they've measured the prana, mana and chi levels of these practitioners, and actually posited a hypothesis of how these mystical forces are changing genes.

Hey, maybe they'll eventually change their DNA enough to pop out elves and fairies by the dozen. Let's make sure they meditate on Tolkien.

QuoteYeah, that's a whole lot less magical than AIs transcending to Space Gods...for sure

nice strawman.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;882785DOes the study in the link mention prana, mana, or chi anywhere? anywhere? Hello?

I didn't think so. The gist seems to be:



a relaxation response, you know, which is as far from mystical as you can get.

You let me know when they've measured the prana, mana and chi levels of these practitioners, and actually posited a hypothesis of how these mystical forces are changing genes.

Hey, maybe they'll eventually change their DNA enough to pop out elves and fairies by the dozen.



nice strawman.

Oh, I thought you were aware that Yoga means Prana, and that Tai-Chi or other Qigong means Qi and that those are both forms of energy.

I also thought you read the ending of Neuromancer.

I also thought, being someone who thinks he knows what Science is that the first step is proving that something does in fact exist.  At that point, we move on to the how.  We proved, for example, that the brain exists a long time ago, we're still working on the exact how.  Mechanisms take a little longer.

Although I'm starting to feel like I'm discussing house architecture with someone who thinks a house is a Victorian because it has floral wallpaper.

Oh, now you're saying that chi, prana and mana aren't mystical energies? Are they just a form of exercise and relaxation, or are they mystical energies? Please clarify because it looks a lot like moving the goalposts.

We don't know a lot about how the brain works, but I can assure you science is not looking into mana or chi anytime soon.  

QuoteAlthough I'm starting to feel like I'm discussing house architecture with someone who thinks a house is a Victorian because it has floral wallpaper.

So, is your opinion, as someone who knows so much more about physics, physiology, and all that stuff that the brain runs on mystical energies? What energies would those be? But wait, you can't decide whether chi/prana are an exercise type or a type of woo woo energy running through our bodies.

Please take pity on your intellectual inferior and enlighten me on the subject.  And if you take a firmer stand on saying that prana and chi are some sort of energy, please show me where in the scientific studies the measurement of such are being mentioned.

Ok, I did just explain this a post ago, but Science 101.

Half the world claims two things
1. These practices have medical benefits.
2. These practices do this through manipulation of a form of energy.

Step 1. Evaluate the claims that the practices have medical benefits.
Result - Not only proven, but shows unexpected results, like the activation and deactivation of genes.

Step 2. Evaluate the claims that these practices achieve their effect through some form of energy manipulation.  Determine the mechanism.  Hypothesis and studies to follow.
BTW, that will include the "energy measuring" part.

By comparison, no one has ever come even remotely close to anything resembling AI, and certainly not a AI-merged ascension.  

Life Energy affecting Genes is further along on the "proven for extrapolation" spectrum then AI is.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;882691I have seen entirely too much of this behavior on this website. I really expect better of people than this.
Regardless, I hope you are aware that when you pull this 'I-declare-myself-the-winner,-and-that-my-opposition-is-"butthurt"' whinery, you pretty much insta-lose in the eyes of everyone else (you know it's true, think back to the last time someone else pulled it here. Did you respect it then?). Something to think on.

Cheers.

Depends on whether the opposition did indeed behave like a whiner, might be "yes", or "the exact opposite".
That's a general comment, not a comment on the specific interaction. As it happens, I can't even read half the replies in it;).

Pardon an intrusion...

Guys, before you'll strangle each other, please remember that there's no precise, universally accepted definition of ruah/mana/prana/chi/ki/qi/the Force. It varies from a system (or more precisely "model of reality") to a system, from a school to school, from a master to master. Sometimes practitioners agree it's one and the same, someone they don't and usually there's more than just a handful of differences. As such, you're both right and wrong at same time - science confirms some elements of certain systems, disproves other ones.

Effectively, you're both arguing about concepts you probably don't understand in precisely same way and you both aren't free of oversimplification and generalizations.

Neither of you can "win" this discussion, or prove his point in such a way it'll be acceptable by the other, I'm afraid.

Quote from: CRKrueger;882792Ok, I did just explain this a post ago, but Science 101.

Half the world claims two things
1. These practices have medical benefits.
2. These practices do this through manipulation of a form of energy.

Step 1. Evaluate the claims that the practices have medical benefits.
Result - Not only proven, but shows unexpected results, like the activation and deactivation of genes.

And the study you linked attributes that to a relaxation response, not an energy called chi/prana/whatever, no?

QuoteStep 2. Evaluate the claims that these practices achieve their effect through some form of energy manipulation.  Determine the mechanism.  Hypothesis and studies to follow.
BTW, that will include the "energy measuring" part.

Which again, the study you linked apparently does, and attributes all that to a relaxation response, not an energy called chi/prana/whatever, no?

When do you anticipate t hey will have a study to try and measure chi/prana/whatever?

QuoteBy comparison, no one has ever come even remotely close to anything resembling AI, and certainly not a AI-merged ascension.  

Self aware AI's? No. AI does exist, though, no? Expert systems, smart apps, etc. We even recently got a computer to beat a strong Go player.

QuoteLife Energy affecting Genes is further along on the "proven for extrapolation" spectrum then AI is.

Ha, no. If you said relaxation response, you might have a point, but you are saying Life Energy, which is just flat out wrong given what you linked.

Quote from: JesterRaiin;882796Pardon an intrusion...

Guys, before you'll strangle each other, please remember that there's no precise, universally accepted definition of ruah/mana/prana/chi/ki/qi/the Force. It varies from a system (or more precisely "model of reality") to a system, from a school to school, from a master to master. Sometimes practitioners agree it's one and the same, someone they don't and usually there's more than just a handful of differences. As such, you're both right and wrong at same time - science confirms some elements of certain systems, disproves other ones.

Effectively, you're both arguing about concepts you probably don't understand in precisely same way and you both aren't free of oversimplification and generalizations.

Neither of you can "win" this discussion, or prove his point in such a way it'll be acceptable by the other, I'm afraid.

I"m willing to accept this, sure. But you also have to accept that there is still a slight, though apparently decreasing, possibility that one day strong AI might beat a turing test before you ever see someone shooting fireballs or hadokens through the air because "Life Energy duuude!"