Guidelines For Lem-Inspired Stories?

[Terminus]

Well then maybe you could look at wikipedia's article about AI. It's clearly visible there, that the field is subdivided into many separate, such as ability to communicate, recognize people, and so on. So formulating a question "What is AI" is - I raiterate - no simpler than answering question "What is Intelligence ?".

Zen masters would be delighted

[OlegY]

Thanks Terminus. The fact that we presently are describing Human Intelligence simply as a collection of features such as imitation of communication, semblance of ability to conclude, pattern recognition, and so forth - this fact somehow confirms that we are unfortunately unable see the root of the phenomenon. We see only its manifestations which we try to recostruct, but  the engine of all those is still left unknown.

Tzok, I might be wrong but the last decades of progress have shown that we can extensively develop only computer calculating capacity and speed. However no new quality such as an independent judgement of computer "mind" has been achieved so far.
Speaking of Rennaissance Age there were hundreds of naturalists like Leonardo. He is the famous one for us - that's all. You may request info about Kardan for example. A dozen more names can easily be found in Wikipedia. And I'm sure the others couldn't leave a trace in history just because of the poor information exchange at that time.  They remained unknown magician and alchemists. But they practiced science and succeded.

Free access to vast volumes of information nowadays has actually  revealed a problem when user lacks the ability to process that information the way to get some use of it. We have learned to compile pieces of information to produce a resemblance of some report or a science work.
But that all is 99% of nonsense. So the number of actual scientists has approximately been staying constant during last hundreds of years.

[Terminus]

That's why I mentioned Zen masters - because as in the case of our intelligence, there are many phenomena in natural world that we only think we can describe. Standard question: what does it mean "me"?
Can you answer that in a nontrivial way?
I sincirely doubt that!
For "Intelligence" the chance of proper description are similar, at least in my opinion. It is very elegant that you've called it: a sum of manifestations. The same can be said about a "person"... "flower"... etc. Because what a "person" is? An individual with a name? Name can change, look can change, and all the atoms in body change every few years. What's constant? Only some manifestations (Of genome, maybe, but that's different matter).

Also, Oleg, I sense you have fought some battles in scientific world, am I wrong?

[OlegY]

No, I've never participated in some scientific debates. I was graduated as an oil processing engineer and presently work as an administrator in a company which deals in information security issues.
What does "me" means to myself (or "you" to yourself)- that's the great question! You might try to seriously ask this question to a friend of yours or a relative. And in most cases the answers wouldn't satisfy neither you nor the person who'd been asked. It's kind of magic question.
And I'm not satisfied with my own answer to that also   (Terminus you doubt it right)

As to the problem of "manifestations": well, it really exists as well. Too often we see things which are not  real objects but seem to be the projections of our own (?) psychic activity. Even in everyday life - when communicating with the family, at work, with friends etc. How to distinguish things inspired mostly by your mind from ones related to outside world? That is the key point when you choose how to react, isn't it?
Thanks to St. Lem and some others, we can at least aware the problem.
I'm sure after decade or two this matter will be taught at school. Otherwise we are hopeless.

[tzok]

Tzok, I might be wrong but the last decades of progress have shown that we can extensively develop only computer calculating capacity and speed. However no new quality such as an independent judgement of computer "mind" has been achieved so far.

If we talk about AI strictly, then you're right - we're nowhere as close as scientist prognosed in ~1950s when AI research started. However this imporvement "only in capacity and speed of calculation" led to some really advanced innovations. There are now produced chips that enable blind people to see again (of course not in every situation). We are also at the beginning of thought-driven interaction which will allow disabled people to live a close to normal life (thought-driven = with use of special hard- and software, people can do some actions only thinking about them). Many interesting things may be done with this huge information processing capabilities that nowadays we have

Free access to vast volumes of information nowadays has actually  revealed a problem when user lacks the ability to process that information the way to get some use of it. We have learned to compile pieces of information to produce a resemblance of some report or a science work.
But that all is 99% of nonsense. So the number of actual scientists has approximately been staying constant during last hundreds of years.

Nicely said . I agree with this. We're overloaded with information each and every day. I've read somewhere, that it's the first time in human history, that more information is produced than consumed. It has always been the other way round. Now we are doomed to reject some data, to filter the rest, and to finally process only the small part.

However still I am on a position, that it's better to have choice over 1000 books, than to have 10 poor books . It's just that we have stronger pressure to choose correct data sources.

[OlegY]

However still I am on a position, that it's better to have choice over 1000 books, than to have 10 poor books . It's just that we have stronger pressure to choose correct data sources.

So you are generally satisfied with the way things presently are in scientific progress, aren't you?
Well honestly if  I was deaf or blind and could use the appropriate new devices to compensate my disability - then I would be satisfied too. That's where the progress shows best results. I agree.
All in all we should appreciate our living in technology. You shouldn't work like a dog for a living, you have more free time to waste, more choices. You have your right to make mistakes at last. Because they can be corrected easily.
On the other hand every coin has it's other side.
From 1000 books most of us choose 1 or 2 or maybe 10 poor ones and read them instead of continuing to search the better.
How many people read Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown and other bestsellers alike? And what's your estimation on how many of them ever try to get familiar with Lem works?

[tzok]

So you are generally satisfied with the way things presently are in scientific progress, aren't you?

I'll place myself in the middle between contentment and disapproval.

I am not fully satisfied with current science status. But still I try to look at things more optimistically, because there are for sure some areas of scientific research where things are not that bad.

I think we have in fact quite similar opinions about this matter. Mine is slightly more biased towards the good sides of our civilization, yours on the opposite. It's good we can confront these together

From 1000 books most of us choose 1 or 2 or maybe 10 poor ones and read them instead of continuing to search the better.
How many people read Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown and other bestsellers alike? And what's your estimation on how many of them ever try to get familiar with Lem works?

Sad, but true. People don't read much, and if they do, it's often just some crappy books .

I know a person who reads a lot of books, but mostly very simple ones. Once I borrowed him my copy of "Solaris" and he concluded it was too hard and required too much thinking of him

[OlegY]

People don't read much, and if they do, it's often just some crappy books .

Ok, so we are getting back to the topic.
If you want your books to be sold in million copies you have to be provided with investors, an experienced publisher and marketing specialists. That doesn't mean that you need to be a talanted writer. One or two fashionably old ideas and a set of time-tested plot templates are quite enough. Market promotion will do the rest.
But creating innovative mind exciting texts is the other matter.
I am sure there are some authors who write story good enough to gain interest of Lem fans, the most hard-to-please part of the audience. But they are certainly unknown to the public.
Please if anybody could name them or give links - I would appreciate it very much. If those works appear to deserve attention than we may spread the information farther therefore contributing to good taste in literature  

[tzok]

It'd be good if Q could join our discussion, as he will for sure describe some notable books of other authors. I can only tell from what I've read and this would be Strugacki brothers, but of course you must be familiar with their books

[OlegY]

 Yeah, I love Strugatsky brothers. It was quite a pleasure for me to find out that Lem said about their Picnic with an admiring envy that he felt somehow he himself had had to write this story.
On the other hand he didn't approve the Hard to be a God novel because the planet described was inhabited with humanoid race and that assumption was strongly antiscientific.
May be the reason was that Strugatskie felt slightly more sympathy towards English/American sci-fi than Lem did and therefore they could afford using the recognizable archetype.  

Well all that should be a separate topic here.
The fact is that Strugatskie already are world-wide known authors so there's no need to further. However I believe there are authors mostly unknown whose works could really challenge Lem or Strugatsky or Phillip Dick ones.
The explanation is simple: an author who really cares about quality simultaneously having necessary competence in fact is not sure to mind business.

So that would be wonderful if we could discover such authors for ourselves and may be for others too.
Actually I'm far from hope those works appear to be somewhat of a breakthrough in SF. The art of posing real practical questions and suggesting non-trivial answers which inspire using your brain - that  is more important  





 
.

[Terminus]

you guys have flown so high into this, I'm gonna need like a two weeks more to catch up:)

[OlegY]

Ok. I must admit that I presently cannot name authors who are worth to compete  Lem in constructing stories. Just one link for those who knows Russian
http://www.rusf.ru/lukin/
I really hope to find others, would they be Spanish or French or Chinese or Japaneese - doesn't matter. I'm sure we'll recognize the proper one right away

[Sternenfisch]

Lem himself never categorized his work as science-fiction.

And evidently, the usual categories of Science-Fiction (pseudo-technologic pulp)
indeed are those that have to be avoided when writing in his realm.

However, the thing to keep in mind is his quote (that was in Wikipedia before, I just recollect):
" I never identified myself with science-fiction. Those who categorized my work into SF did that on their own accord.
I merely extended situations and probabilities as far as my mental horizon would reach."

[Q]

It'd be good if Q could join our discussion, as he will for sure describe some notable books of other authors.

Yes, I read some Lem-Inspired Stories:
- "Appendix Solariana" by Wiktor Żwikiewicz,
- "Miejsce na Ziemi" by Marek Oramus,
- "Serce Mroku" by Jacek Dukaj,
- "Powrót Robinsona" by Jacek Inglot,
- "Ukryty w gwiazdach" by Marek Oramus,
- "Oko potwora" by Jacek Dukaj,
- "The Tale of Trurl and the Great TanGent" by Ian Watson.
But no one of them was good enough.


Edit: Gregory Benford's "A Dance to Strange Musics" is probably strongly inspired by "Solaris'" vision of extraterrestial alienees, and Peter Watts's "Blindsight" looks like poor man's "Fiasco".

[Q]

"Возвращение" ("Return", 1980), soviet animated movie, allegedly inspired by "Solaris":
Возвращение - м\ф (СССР 1980г)_Return (USSR 1980)