>From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune@mars.superlink.net>
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.com
>To: <extropians@extropy.com>
>Subject: Re: Computer Orgasms WAS Re: Interesting Idea
>Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 11:12:55 -0700
>
>Tuesday, August 17, 1999 6:11 PM phil osborn <philosborn@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
> > > > An interesting idea. Since orgasm is a mind/body interaction would
>two
> > > > upload personalities having sex actually experience anything?
>Cybersex
> > > > between a computer and human in a virtual reality suit would make
>sense
> > > >but between two computers????
> > >
> > >I don't see why not. If the uploaded personality could experience
>other
> > >things -- if it's completely isomorphic to the nonuploaded personality
>--
> > >there seems to be no reason it could not experience orgasms, stubbed
>toes,
> > >or whatever, provided the stimuli were provided, such as exciting the
>right
> > >connections, parts of its software, or what have you.
> >
> > It is clear that you do not understand what an orgasm is. I will send
>the
> > full explanation later, but, for the moment, think about what happens
>when
> > you get the microphone too close to the speaker in a PA system....
>Also,
> > consider the details of the system - what frequency is produced, how
>pure
>it
> > is, how quickly it rises, what the respective components share in
>common,
> > and how do sound engineers block such feedback... There are fairly
>exact
> > analogies to orgasm here....
>
>I don't follow Phil here. Obviously, if an orgasm is like a positive
>feedback loop, then this can also be done on nonorganic hardware. Heck,
>the
>example he uses -- the piercing screach of a speaker-microphone loop -- is
>hardware!
>
>My point was and IS that I think this can be done in a computer too. Maybe
>things will have to be redesigned a bit, but it's not ruled out by anything
>Ralph Lewis or Phil Osborn have written that I've read.
>
>And if anyone should bring up that current computers place limits on such
>feedback loops, I'd also point out that human brains seem to have similar
>limits. After all, orgasms only last a brief period in most people. They
>do not go on for years until your head pops.:)
>
>Cheers!
>
>Daniel Ust
>http://mars.superlink.net/neptune/
I wasn't argueing against computers having orgasms. I just haven't heard any indication that anyone in the discussion knows what an orgasm is. Again, if you examine the analogy I presented, you will find some rather close parallels, but it is not nearly as trivial an analogy as you have apparently concluded. Without going into the really necessary detail:
For me, and probably most males, it is usually sufficient merely to see a "sexy" female to start that mental feedback function going. On the other hand, if the female in question is one of the more obnoxious Y-geners, for example, of the school that reaches back and scratches their anus through their dress - just to be out there, then that loop gets broken instantly, like totally... ;) So the essential loop is value-loaded, is what I'm trying to illustrate. The values are tapped to generate the fantasy imagery and create an emotional load that might result in trying to "hit up" on the female, involving her directly in the loop or might result in masturbation, or might just die off. Similarly, in a PA system, the various components, as well as the physical room or auditorium all have particular resonent frequencies and harmonics thereof. Only when the "vibes" match is the feedback/orgasm possible.
Why the loop exists is another long discussion relating to the epistemology of purpose and perceptual reaffirmation.