The Second Apocalypse
Earwa => The No-God => Topic started by: mrganondorf on August 05, 2021, 05:45:05 pm
-
I find it unlikely that the No-God only repeats the same phrase unendingly. I think it more likely that Bakker narrowed his lines down thus far for effect. So, what else might Mog say? Probably more self-agony stuff.
I'm betting there's at least one scene with Esmi speakin with her son(s), a bakkeresque subversion of those scenes where a character gets a robot to recall that they were once human kind of thing.
-
Also keep in mind that Skafra tells Seswatha:
“Our Lord,” the dragon grated, “hath tasted thy King’s passing, and he saith, ‘It is done.’”
Although there is no way to know if Skafra means it literally or figuratively.
-
Yes, a robot remembering he was human reminds me of David Bowen in 2010 Space Odyssey and more remote to the Frank Miller's comic Hard Boiled. A robot confused with it's consciousness, like how can this be if I'm not human. It adds to the terror of the thing, like if you had no control of your body, but you consciously experienced everything your body was doing against your will. Out of nowhere, you're slaughtering your family and friends, you're seeing it, living it, but not willing it.
-
Also keep in mind that Skafra tells Seswatha:
“Our Lord,” the dragon grated, “hath tasted thy King’s passing, and he saith, ‘It is done.’”
Although there is no way to know if Skafra means it literally or figuratively.
NICE ONE H!!!
-
Yes, a robot remembering he was human reminds me of David Bowen in 2010 Space Odyssey and more remote to the Frank Miller's comic Hard Boiled. A robot confused with it's consciousness, like how can this be if I'm not human. It adds to the terror of the thing, like if you had no control of your body, but you consciously experienced everything your body was doing against your will. Out of nowhere, you're slaughtering your family and friends, you're seeing it, living it, but not willing it.
TaoHorror - you make me think that Mog might try to kill Esmi specifically -- perhaps in some mangled fashion similar to a Nonman trying to recover himself via memory/murder
-
It wouldn't shock me though, if we get the same sort of move that Bakker pulled with Kellhus in TAE for the No-God in TNG. While we never did have a No-God POV, to me it seems likely that the No-God's POV will necessarily be hidden and we are left with only seeing it's seeming behavior.
Considering that Bakker has likened the No-God to a p-zombie, this likely is the only way that could make sense possibly. Because there is no POV, there is no "internality" to the No-God, there is only it's behavior and it's only post-hoc that we grant it seeming "Subjectivity."
-
I think you're correct, but if no internality, why is it asking quasi-self reflecting questions? Some remnant of consciousness expressing itself through the software? An effect of consciousness as code, perhaps.
-
I think you're correct, but if no internality, why is it asking quasi-self reflecting questions? Some remnant of consciousness expressing itself through the software? An effect of consciousness as code, perhaps.
Or, could it be that, since it lacks that might be called "genuine" introspection, it asks because it cannot feel or have an idea it's own state.
Perhaps more clearly said that the No-God is "pure" consciousness, absent self-consciousness. To get even more direct, let us say, perhaps, it has seeming awareness absent any sort of self-awareness. Since it's perception seems necessarily limited, since that perception seems to exclude (or, not include) itself, but the Insertant on which it is based likely has some memory, or sense, pointing to the idea that this is now a lack, it asks about it incessantly.
-
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.
-
It could well be the case that what happens once the Insertant serves it's "circuit-fulfilling" function, that the No-God does what it is made/programmed to do. The leftover "identity" of the Insertant is incidental and irrelevant to the general functioning of the System. The Insertant only serves to initiate Resumption.
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.
-
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.