Roleplaying Higher (posthuman?) Beings

[simon_hibbs]

I think your looking at this from the wrong point of view. Being the human, yes we can understand the concepts behind machines, plants and animals. However, I for one could not go walking up to a monkey and expect to hold a meaningful dialogue.  I may understand that the monkey is intelligent, I may understand that it has some form of rudimentary language. But it really won't help me that much.

I don't see why not. We've developed quite a good understanding of the psychology of many animals. It's at least as good and probably better than our understanding of our own psychology, on the basis that theirs is simpler and therefore easier to model.

And if it is anything like humans and how we interact with animals it may get frustrated when trying to communicate ideas - ...

We're perfectly capable of getting frustrated when trying to communicate with other humans. The fact that we're capable of a huge variety of irreconcilable views, while superficialy supporting your argument, actualy points to how flexible our intelect realy is. 'Transcended' beings (whatever that means) still live in the same universe as us, experience the same physical and mathematical principles or laws. All the examples I've seen are tantamount to magic. 'Wearing blue' indeed. It's another case of a self fulfilling prophesy. If you start from the assumtion they're going to be incomprehensible, then of course all your arguments will lead to that conclusion.

Simon Hibbs

[simon_hibbs]

simon-hibbs-
What you suggest forgets the fact that we can only understand things from our point of view and frame of reference.  As human beings we are constrained by our intellect, our emotions and our needs.  Superior beings, even with needs and emotions may have an underlying set of behavior that we can't comprehend.

Actualy we are perfectly capable of understanding things from different points of view and frames of reference from our own. We do this by constructing theoretical models. We do it all the time in interpersonal relationships, scientific research, computer programming, etc, etc. It's a core intelectual tool.

Take for example differences between cultures and their own views of what constitutes 'reality'.

This is jus playing into my hands. Yes, human beings are capable of a huge variety of world views and conceptual gymnastics. How exactly is this evidence that we will be unable to understand alien inteligences? Surely it's evidence of the opposite.

If there can be such wide discrepancies even between humans (and the difficulties of one culture trying to understand the other), how would we be able to fathom the mind of something that can think in multiple dimensions, that sees time in a different fashion than we do, that does not have language to communicate, has no desire for pro-creation or self-preservation, or does not have any dualistic notions?   At best we can only guess.

As a matter of act it's quite possible, indeed a common occurance, for humans from one culture to become thoroughly familiar with another. Having a Chinese wife, this is a subject close to my heart. Also we are perfectly capable of imagining and workig in multiple dimensions, conceptualising events that occure in infinitesimal fractions of a second or billions of years, of handling non-linguistic communication modes, etc, etc. The last few objections are trivial. e have non-dualistic philosophies, not all of us are driven to procreate and last time I checked were perfectly capable of placing other priorities as higher than our own survival.

Our point of view restricts what we can possibly imagine and know.  For example, while Heisenberg proved that it's impossible for us to know both the position and velocity of an atomic particle, is it impossible for all sentient creatures?

Yes, because it's a fundamental principle about information in our universe, not about us in particular. If these inteligences inhabit our universe, theh the Heisenberg Principle applies to them.

I agree with contra_cycle.  I think that playing super-intelligences as players is probably not a good idea simply because it's beyond our understanding and more importantly it's harder for the player to relate to.  While you can always fake it, I think that one of the major benefits of roleplaying is to allow the player to connect with and learn from their character.  

Beings being alien from us and beings having super-inteligence seems to me to be two completely different things. There's nothing obvious about increased intelectual capability that necessitates that the being must have a different world view to ours. If you look at human scientific and mathematical progress, there's no evidence that any of the problems or questions facing us are intractable. We're making huge progress on ultiple fronts with no brick walls so far. Higher inteligences might be able to think faster and deeper than we can individualy, but we've yet to reach an intelectual limit of any kind.


Simon Hibbs

[contracycle]

Beings being alien from us and beings having super-inteligence seems to me to be two completely different things. There's nothing obvious about increased intelectual capability that necessitates that the being must have a different world view to ours.

I agree that alienness and super-intelligence are two different matters.  But I believe the original point was super- or post-human intellectual levels.

I do not in fact think that I have a qualitatively superior experince of the world to that of say a gorilla; but I do think that I am so heavily informed by our material culture and technology that the analyses and conclusions I draw are by and largely incomprehensible to gorillas.  I therefore suspect that a gorilla would be functionally incapable of roleplaying a human even if they had appropriate by-gorilla's-for-gorilla's RPG's.

[Erling Rognli]

A note on transcendence: In phenomenology (Husserl), as I remember it, the Transcendent self is that part of the subject capable of percieving itself. The transcendent self is capable of (with training) recognising its own biases and subconcious interpretations of phenomena, thus being able to investigate those phenomena (any- and everything really, as it appears to our conciousness) from an (near) objective perspective. Of course, there are other views on transcendence, many of them metaphysical, but I find this one of particular interest in this question. Perhaps a superhuman being has no other self than the transcendent one, being free of instincts, subconcious desires and fears and indeed subjectivity. This shouldn't be too difficult to play. After all, it could also be a description of a players relation to a character. The difficult part is to figure out what motivates such a being. No act is rational in an absolute sense, only relative to achieving some desired goal.

Erling

[Ben O'Neal]

Perhaps a superhuman being has no other self than the transcendent one, being free of instincts, subconcious desires and fears and indeed subjectivity. This shouldn't be too difficult to play.

If trancendence is that part which is capable of percieving self, then I would have thought that a being with only transendence could not exist, as there is nothing of itself for it to percieve. Any being free of subjectivity, fears, desires and instincts has no self... no individual perspective, and thus no transendence. Hence, no such being is possible.

-Ben

[Andrew Morris]

Random thought here:

Why would it be impossible to roleplay a higher intelligence? We play characters that are stronger and smarter than ourselves sometimes. We play characters that are nonhuman (elves, orcs, aliens, etc.). Heck, I've played characters who were insane. But I've never heard anyone claim that it is impossible to accurately roleplay such characters. Why would "higher" humans be any more problematical? Am I missing something here?

[xiombarg]

Why would it be impossible to roleplay a higher intelligence? We play characters that are stronger and smarter than ourselves sometimes. We play characters that are nonhuman (elves, orcs, aliens, etc.). Heck, I've played characters who were insane. But I've never heard anyone claim that it is impossible to accurately roleplay such characters. Why would "higher" humans be any more problematical? Am I missing something here?

It's because unlike say, being faster, being intelligent has a distinct affect on the decision-making process -- which is something controlled by the player and generally not covered by stats.

When you're not as smart as your character, it's tough to avoid making mistakes the character wouldn't make, but that you, as a lower-intelligence being, are prone to.

[Andrew Morris]

It's because unlike say, being faster, being intelligent has a distinct affect on the decision-making process -- which is something controlled by the player and generally not covered by stats.

I think it is covered by mechanics in many games. And if the focus of this particular game is more intelligent characters, then the rules should support it.

For example, there could be a "probability check" or something similar. The player comes up with an idea, rolls his probability check, and based on the roll, the GM tells the player how likely the action is to work. Yeah, I know that's crude, but it's just for example.

[wicked_knight]

Simon Hibbs -


Allow me to paraphrase the discussion.

Although the original question was to whether a person could successfully roleplay a transcendant individual. Your argument is that the concept of a trascendant being is initself a fallacy.

The points are - Mine:

1) A transcendant being is one that is spiritually or intellectually advanced beyond the scope of humans that there is no longer a common frame of reference for exchange of ideas.
2) That a limited form of communication could occur by specifically limiting the transcendant beings vocabulary and/or method of communication.
3) That because of this limitation, the ideas and thoughts of the transcendant being will often appear to be confused, jumbled, and that the logical leaps between events and conclusions could appear incomprehensible.

Your argument to that (paraphrased) is:

1) I, being a human, can understand a whole lot.
2) If it's incomprehensible to me then it's not valid, and is in fact tantamount to magic.

 
Well yeah... it would be. It's common to accept that when one technologically advanced race encounters another then the technology of the advanced race appears to be like magic. This isn't something that someone thought up on a lazy afternoon. This is because this has happend several times throughout human history.

The point of the argument is that by definition (mine at least *grin*) a transcended being will appear to be incomprehensible at times, because if they weren't, and they always made sense. Then they wouldn't be transcended would they?
Now to illustrate the point I mentioned the relationship between humans and the other animals that are on the planet.

I think your looking at this from the wrong point of view. Being the human, yes we can understand the concepts behind machines, plants and animals. However, I for one could not go walking up to a monkey and expect to hold a meaningful dialogue.  I may understand that the monkey is intelligent, I may understand that it has some form of rudimentary language. But it really won't help me that much.

I don't see why not. We've developed quite a good understanding of the psychology of many animals. It's at least as good and probably better than our understanding of our own psychology, on the basis that theirs is simpler and therefore easier to model.

Actually no, we haven't developed anything close to a good psychology of animals. Sure we can map behaviours but that not the same thing. The problem of course is that we can't exchange ideas.

We can't. We haven't done it yet. It's never been done. The closest we've come is to teach some apes a hundred signs in sign language (limiting our vocabulary to their frame of view )  But there's still argument  as to whether we've actually exchanged ideas with them.

... actualy points to how flexible our intelect realy is. 'Transcended' beings (whatever that means) still live in the same universe as us, experience the same physical and mathematical principles or laws. All the examples I've seen are tantamount to magic. 'Wearing blue' indeed. It's another case of a self fulfilling prophesy. If you start from the assumtion they're going to be incomprehensible, then of course all your arguments will lead to that conclusion.

I agree with you that we amazingly flexible beings with regards to our thinking... at times. The thing to remember is that there is a good chance that most of our understanding of physics, chemistry, etc, is incorrect. For example, if you were to go back seventy years and try to convince a physicist that the universe was actually composed of miniscule vibrating strings. That gravity is a particle called a gravition, and that its possible that the universe was created by a collision of oscilliating dimensions.. he would think you were off your rocker and possibly incomprehensible. There's a good chance that in another seventy years what we assume about the universe and reality will have changed dramatically.

So regardless of how much we think we know. There is a possiblity (especially in the context of a roleplaying game) that the natural assumptions of the universe is wrong. Given that possiblity, then if there was a transcendant race, they could look at us like simple minded children with no true grasp of the reality that we live in.

[Andrew Morris]

The point of the argument is that by definition (mine at least *grin*) a transcended being will appear to be incomprehensible at times, because if they weren't, and they always made sense. Then they wouldn't be transcended would they?

I don't know that they will appear incomprehensible at times, but I've got no argument that they may seem incomprehensible at times. And let's take a moment to look at defininitions -- are we referring to "transcendent" beings, or beings who have "transcended" human limitations? It's a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.

If we're talking "transcendent" beings, then yes, by definition they are beyond our understanding. I'd cite the Palainians from the Lensmen series as examples of transcendent beings, but the Lens gave humans the ability to understand them on some scale, so that doesn't really work. Taken from another viewpoint, we might be transcendent beings from the viewpoint of a dog. We can travel through walls (open doors), create food out of rocks (open a can), and make night into day (turn on the lights). Forget about the whole idea of proactive reasoning and planning, it's totally beyond any frame of reference the dog has.

If we're talking about beings who have "transcended" human limitations, then there's no reason to assume that they are beyond human understanding. A genetically engineered human with superhuman strength and speed and the ability to see all electromagnetic frequencies would be an example of a being who transcended human limitations. We can still understand this creature.

[wicked_knight]

I don't know that they will appear incomprehensible at times, but I've got no argument that they may seem incomprehensible at times. And let's take a moment to look at defininitions -- are we referring to "transcendent" beings, or beings who have "transcended" human limitations? It's a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.

Okay, I made an assumption here. The assumption was that we were discussing a being that was not human, was from a race of transcendent beings, and was in some way making themselves available for some reason or other for the game.

Now you brought up something interesting

A genetically engineered human with superhuman strength and speed and the ability to see all electromagnetic frequencies would be an example of a being who transcended human limitations. We can still understand this creature.

I'm going to focus on the ability to see electromagnetic  frequencies as an example of where problems come in between a transcended human and a regular everyday human.

Even though we understand that the character can see frequencies that we can't. We can't really appreciate what he's seeing. There may be times when the character pauses to look at a plain wood door.. all the while entranced with an image no one else can see. He may be able to determine the differences between objects when no one else can. All of this making the character appear magical in their capabilities. Given the situation, he may not be able to fully express or go into details on decisions that he is making based on information no one else can see. He may also forget at times that no one else sees what he sees. Leading to confusing and cryptic remarks.

So, with regard to a transcended human, I agree that for the most part we can understand what they are saying. But I would say that there is a good chance (especially in time critical situations) where the transcended individual would make sense only in retrospect after you've had a chance to quiz him as to what the hell he was talking about.

[Blankshield]

I've been following this thread with some interest; as I'm involved in a game build that has players taking non-human and (in some cases) hyper-capable beings as characters.  (Not my place to go into details; it's someone else's baby.)

The points about transcended humans or the incomprehensibilty of higher order beings make me think of Dorsai! by Gorden Dickson.  He does an admirable job of portraying a character that is transcending over the course of the book.  Donal Graeme's motives and methods are baffling and even infuriating to the characters around him, but they are transparantly obvious to him.  

James

[Andrew Morris]

Even though we understand that the character can see frequencies that we can't. We can't really appreciate what he's seeing.

I can't say I agree with you on this point. We have intelligence and imagination, so why can't we appreciate what the character is seeing? I mean, we can't work magic, but we can appreciate what our magician character is doing and understand the basic in-game reason why it works, right?

But I would say that there is a good chance (especially in time critical situations) where the transcended individual would make sense only in retrospect after you've had a chance to quiz him as to what the hell he was talking about.

Yeah, I'll buy this. Given the time, they can relate their experience to normal humans, but it'd be like speaking in a foreign language -- not so great during emergencies.

[Dauntless]

Simon_hibbs
Let me try to tackle this from a different direction.  If we can comprehend Transcendant beings, would this not mean that we ourselves are transcendant beings?  There are only two explanations of why we could understand such beings
1) The behavior the transcendant being displays still exists on a lower level.  In a similar way we can understand 2d objects because we live in a 3d world.  

However, the transcendant being could operate and think at levels beyond our own understanding.  When I mean understanding, I don't mean our knowledge or theory...I mean our capability to analyze and deduce.  So we may think we understand their thought processes, but it would be in our frame of reference

2) We ourselves are transcendant beings and operate at all levels of awareness and cognitive capabilities as a transcendant being.  This is not as far-fetched as it sounds.  there are levels of consciousness that are still being researched.  Perhaps "enlightened" people have become transcended by opening up new capabilities of the mind.

Let me give an example.  Take the concept of the computer you have sitting in front of you against a Quantum computer.  A Quantum computer can emulate a traditional computer, but a traditional simply can not do some tasks that a Quantum computer can (no matter how much time and processing power you give it).  Fundamentally a traditional computer is a binary device that must be in one of two states.  A Quantum computer however can operate on Qubits or something that can be on, off, both, neither or all.  In a sense, it can calculate everything at once.  Because of these properties, it has been mathematically proven (to our knowledge) that they can create uncrackable encryption schemes due to the nature of how they operate.

What I posit is the analogy that our minds are like traditional computers.  We can do a lot with traditional computers, perhaps even create artificial intelligences with them, but they have built in limits that they can not surpass unless you change the way they function.  Transcendant beings are akin to the Quantum computer.  They operate in a different manner though outwardly, it too manipulates data.

I also posit that the Heisenberg Principle is true only in sofar as our comprehension of the Universe goes.  It's quite possible that everything we understand about nature (and science) is wrong.  If there is one thing Science teaches us, it's that Science doesn't prove anything.  In fact, one of the jobs of scientists is to further our understanding by discovering something that doesn't fit our current model.  When it doesn't fit, the model has to be changed.  In essence, scientists try to find things that break the model we have...they try to disprove the current model, and create a new one that fits all of the old data plus the new data.

Not only are our empirical senses limits to our cognitive abilities, so is language.  Our thoughts are constrained by the words we have.  We are in many ways biological machines akin to robots.  We take in data according to our senses and act on this data in our minds.  Now, according to some mystic and philosophical beliefs, the world we see is an illusion (sophists and buddhists for example).  This also leads to the possibility that we are indeed transcendant beings ourselves, but have forgotten our true nature (this is the angle taken by Buddhism and Shintoism for example).

About cultural differences, I meant that how we think is shaped by language and culture.  I am of mixed race myself (my mom's Filipino/Indonesian) and am acutely aware of cultural shaping on one's cognitive world view.  While we can get along with other cultures and learn other languages to a degree, it does show how world views can seem alien.  Although you are right, there's a huge difference between something that is alien and yet comprehensible (a foreign culture) and something that is alien and incomprehensible (say for example a non-organic lifeform).

Pro-creation is also a hallmark of all organic life.  Perhaps pro-creation is a bad word because it implies creation of new life at the individual level.  Perhaps a better word is Species Survival.  But if a transcendant being is effectively immortal, how can we understand this?  We can try to imagine, but it is simply guess work.

Finally, I leave this with a quote from a neuro-scientist:
"If the mind were so simple that we could possibly understand it, we wouldn't possibly be able to understand it"

[Ben O'Neal]

Finally, I leave this with a quote from a neuro-scientist:
"If the mind were so simple that we could possibly understand it, we wouldn't possibly be able to understand it"

Hahaha. That quote is awesome.

But yeah, I seriously doubt we could ever understand any being "higher" than us. If we thought we could understand it, we would simply be "humanizing" it, ie: understanding it through relationships to ourselves. Like dogs for example. We look at them and think we know that they are bored because they look like a human might when bored. We think they are sad because they whimper. But in reality, we have absolutely no understanding of how their internal processes work. We don't know how they think or how they experience anything at all. They don't have language, and that is how we think. The same can be said of babies. We can understand how they react to their environments, because that is how we would react (actually, the logic here is inverse, because we react because that is how babies react, because they come before us). But who really knows the mind of a baby? So if we have trouble understanding "lesser" beings, how could we possibly understand "higher" beings? The best we could ever do is give them human attributes and see how they respond to their environment. We might think they are "cold", "warm", "logical", "emotive", "moral", "immoral", whatever, but these are merely human attributes, that would apply to them no more than they would a "cute-looking" rock or a "lonely" puppy.

Hell, when you throw in senses that humans don't have, it becomes even worse. I can't imagine what it is really like to be able to "see" heat like a snake can. Actually, this heat-sense is apparently more like tasting/smelling the heat. The closest I can come is mapping this to my existing senses. I could never in a million years "imagine" what it is truly like to have something that I have no correlating function in my brain to imagine.

-Ben