(urth) Pike's ghost

[António Marques]

David Stockhoff wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 6:00 PM, António Marques wrote:
>> David, I think we're talking at cross-purposes here.
>
> I heartily agree (I think).
>> You may go on, but as far as I can tell our only disagreements are on
>> two points (to sum up what I also wrote below):
>>
>> - You (as many others) often like to assert "there's no reason to
>> believe X" when in fact it's merely that "though the odds are for X,
>> it may well be otherwise". That seriously gets on my nerves. If you
>> don't see yourself in this picture, then maybe it's my wrong
>> impression. If you don't like it as well, that's very good.
>
> Well, I wouldn't go so far as to put odds on anything, but I'm pretty
> sure that kind of argument pisses me off too. You can't prove negatives,
> so why argue for them? All that does is shoot down other people's
> suggestions.

Possibly I misapplied the word 'odds'. Yes, I think you're right.

>> - You (as probably others) seem to believe phenotypic plasticity can
>> lead to clones being very different from their originals. That is just
>> not the case in what regards higher animals, the more since the
>> environments aren't radically different, and specifically it won't
>> give you two persons with really different faces. Nor do I think that
>> could have been GW's intention.
>
> I have a few comments which may or may not be counterarguments:
>
> (1) You and I have never seen a human clone. Therefore, we really have
> no idea of that plasticity or how much control one may have over it or
> how we would react to it: Would you recognize your own cloned brother?
> Maybe you would think so at first and then dismiss it for many reasons.
>
> (2) Human faces are as different from other species as one could
> imagine. We have little facial fur and have evolved brains that focus to
> an amazing degree on facial recognition and distinction. We see
> resemblances easily, but also see differences: "Hey, that guy looks like
> Tom Hanks, except for the beard and the hair and the clothes...."
>
> (3) Yet our memories are poor and we really only recognize well about 80
> face types. But most of the research on this came out since BNS if not BLS.
>
> My point is that there is enough plasticity here for Wolfe to do
> whatever he needs to do. It's a major plot problem for characters to
> recognize one another when they can't be allowed to, as well as a great
> tactic to have characters suspect one another when they "just can't" be
> that person. Wolfe does all of this and more with great deviousness and
> precision. If there are strong signals that Silk is a clone of Typhon
> and strong signals that Silk doesn't look enough like him to be
> recognized (even by himself!) in a whorl where Typhon is forgotten or
> distorted, then that's the way it is. But this is not a "just so"
> story---I hate those too.
>
> Both are true, and if you want a biological explanation it lies in these
> 3 points and the fact that genotype is not phenotype, and the cloning
> techniques are unknown anyway. Certainly we know embryos are grown in
> vivo rather than in a vat, and that means "maternal" hormones will
> directly and possibly hugely affect phenotype.

I have no disagreemnt with any of the above.

> I prefer text-based arguments such as those I laid out in my post to
> Dan'l: Pas has been dead 30 years, the windows are all dark, and Typhon
> is unknown.

And the sleepers don't meet Silk - except for Mamelta who is still 
confused (if she had had more time, she would have had more time, but 
hey, there's a reason she didn't) - and the Duko who meets a very 
wizened Silk and didn't have all that much time.

'Silk looks a lot like Typhon but Pas not so much and nobody knows Pas 
very well anyway' is plausible.