Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - SmilerLoki

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 42
Author Q&A / Re: The Rape of Omindalea
« on: February 04, 2023, 02:09:26 pm »
Yeah, Bakker says so 7 years ago, and yet nothing gets done, which is a serious cause for doubt.

News/Announcements / Re: Any news or updates from Bakker?
« on: February 04, 2023, 02:12:24 am »

Author Q&A / Re: The Rape of Omindalea
« on: February 02, 2023, 10:07:01 am »
This is indeed not in the books and never was in any published versions, at least to my knowledge, so the canonicity of the event is moot.

News/Announcements / Re: Any news or updates from Bakker?
« on: February 02, 2023, 10:05:17 am »
The last bit of news we got was this:

General Q&A / Re: Second Apocalypse and Philosophy
« on: November 25, 2022, 06:24:05 pm »
Some here do still read!

The No-God / Re: Any news from Bakker?
« on: May 26, 2022, 05:43:05 am »
Checking in again... any news/updates at all that I have missed over the last few years?
Not so much, no.

The Crabikiad / Re: Crabby Fails
« on: February 03, 2022, 01:57:53 am »
There is no official word.

Wutteat says something about traviling through the void through the ages, maybe even many worlds, so its at least somewhat supported by the text, rather than "one persons' head canon".
Aurang uses the same terminology in regards to traveling on the Ark and the Inchoroi's many genocides, so that's not in favor of Wutteat being some kind of unique space dragon - just another creature of the Ark.

Its vague, but the general consensus is Wutteat was found in space. I believe the books are more clear that Wutteat is the template that the Earwa inchoroi used to create the Wracu.
I wouldn't call it consensus - it's so far one person's head canon, which other people seemed to for some reason accept without further examination. I consider it just one of several possible scenarios. Wutteat can just as well be an advanced program of the Ark. Even more so, he refers to some unknown party as "his makers", which, considering all the Tekne aspects at play, goes more against the idea of his natural origins than for it.

I disagree completely, but we're reading the same stuff so there's nothing else to say for this one. IMO, complex social behaviors indicate an extraordinary level of intelligence, well beyond anything we see of the wracu - which are closer to bashrag/sranc though maybe a bit smarter.
Wracu seem rather fond of pathos, but otherwise pretty intelligent. Their communication reminds me of Aurang, only he just thinks about his genitals and all the things he would like to do with them, while Wracu prefer to vocalize their inner monologue - although with more focus on devouring (it's the size thing, I'd venture).

All this to say, Wracu very much fit into the standard Weapon Race role. They aren't exceptional, other than their physical variation. I see no significant reasons for why they should have special rules.
It's more that Bakker's comments seem to imply that - he outright states that Wracu have souls, that they have metaphysical interaction with Chorae, that their fire is neither sorcerous nor mundane, that they might be living topoi, etc.

Why does the Wracu high rate of mutation rule out selective breeding?  Its a basic tool of managing traits and the high rate of mutation means you're going to have a bunch that don't function very well or can't live because they're messed up internally.  Sky high hatching mortality is likely and probably keeps their numbers low.   Wracu are long lived so its quite possible their have only been a few generations with which to direct their development.
It's because selective breeding doesn't break species barriers so drastically, nor by producing so few organisms. There is no realistic way to selectively breed a species in such a manner that one member of it would have many legs (Skuthula) while others contemporary with it, not so much (every other dragon we've seen). There is also no in-between Wracu here, which would've happened if it was a randomly encountered and then specifically bred for trait.

All of this is a clear sign of engineering as opposed to breeding.

As for the No-God controlling the Wracu, the writings suggest to me willing submission not control.   The No-God does not shout through Wracu throats.   They behave like vassals, not puppets.
Wutteat phrases his claim of freedom from the Black Heaven in a way that suggests it's something extraordinary.

Wutteat was apparently found somewhere in the void and tagged along
Let's say he was on the Ark before the Fall, there is no real data as to how and why.

My point being that we know that Skin Spies do not have souls and imo they are smarter than Wracu
The inability of skin-spies to comprehend paradox is pretty damning smarts-wise. In this sense they seem to be a stand-in for real-world psychopaths, who you can spot fairly easily if you know what to look out for. They try to counter that by only interacting with others superficially, but that fails the moment anyone presses the issue with them.

Selective breeding is basic biological selection, and given the rest of Scott's work, overwhelmingly likely to have been employed.
Wilshire's right, the variety of traits Wracu possess makes it demonstrably unlikely. Selective breeding produces similar-looking creatures, not extremely diverse ones.

Bakker has mentioned that some apes and whales as well as a the rare Sranc or Bashrag have souls.
I remember Bakker saying that an occasional animal can develop a soul, but nothing about Sranc or Bashrag doing the same.
Quote from: R.Scott Bakker
The idea has been that only the rare animal ever 'awakens' enough to develop a soul in Earwa, but that's not something I've ever explored to date

The No-God / Re: What else will the No-God say?
« on: August 12, 2021, 05:01:26 am »
As a result, what "we" hear the No-God say might only be residual or leftover remnants of the Insertant, while what the Consult (Wracu, Sranc) "hears" comes from the System itself.
This would not, in fact, be a take on the philosophical zombie thought experiment, or at least not in any way a fruitful one. It'd just be, ultimately, a technical detail.

The No-God / Re: What else will the No-God say?
« on: August 11, 2021, 01:51:38 pm »
One of the most interesting traits of the No-God is the seeming disconnect between its actions and statements. While its statements perhaps signal a sort of existential confusion, its actions are precise and show clear intentionality, which is corroborated by various accounts (Aurang's, Skafra's, to an extent Wutteat's) testifying to the agency of the No-God. It does things, it's not just a predetermined algorithm, at least not from the point of view of its intelligent servants. It possesses all the common signs of intentionality in its actions.

The issue, thus, is in its statements. I would say that this disconnect outlines Bakker's original framing of the philosophical zombie thought experiment - here, the aforementioned zombie is behaving intelligently, but, if we're to go by its own account, doesn't recognize it itself. It lacks a crucial something that makes humans human, the exact something the philosophical zombie experiment endeavors to pinpoint. I'm currently unprepared to make any assumptions as to how that might work or what it might ultimately mean.

Returning to the question at hand, my guess is, any further pronouncements of the No-God would only strengthen the framework of Bakker's take on the philosophical zombie idea. One thing I want to note is that I don't believe the Insertant retains in any way enough identity to impact the System while it's operational, although maybe at the end of the cycle, when the System is less stable, that might change. During the First Apocalypse, the No-God was active for nearly 12 years, and the number 12 appears to be thematic for both TSA and the Book of Revelations (the biblical Apocalypse), being present in the much discussed 144000.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 42