The official news site for the Australian Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Association
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
blankfacebooktwitter2

Reality Bit(e)s


 

 

The first misconception about biological cloning that I’d like to clear up is that cloning is not the duplication of an existing person. For that you need malfunctioning Star Trek transporter technology (i.e. Star Trek: The Next Generation “Second Chances” where it is revealed that Riker had been duplicated in such a manner).

 

In real life there are three types of cloning: Monozygotic Multiple Births, Embryo Twinning and Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. And, before I lose everyone with my polysyllabic words, I want to stress that the last method is the only way of cloning someone after birth and the clone will never be identical to the original because they will always be younger.

Monozygotic Multiple Births

Nature’s way of cloning. This genetic occurrence at its most likely (i.e. Twins) has about three chances in a thousand of occurring in a normal pregnancy. The resulting offsprings are identical genetically, but can develop to look different through being exposed to different environmental influences. For example, identical twins grow up to have different finger prints.

 

Embryo Twinning

What nature doesn’t do naturally, can be induced. A fertilised egg begins to divide into more and more cells on its way to becoming an embryo. At this early stage (about six or eight cells) specialisation of the cells hasn’t occurred and by literally tearing the tiny mass of cells into two pieces genetically identical embryos will form. This technique is currently used in IVF programs to increase the number of viable embryos that can be used for fertilisation and I see no reason why this process couldn’t be repeated as required. This is how I see Boba Fett’s genetic makeup being transformed into a army of clones in Star Wars.

 

Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT)

Here we have the cloning most commonly referred to in fiction. This process is where a Somatic Cell (a cell with a specific bodily function) is used to create a clone of an individual. Simply stated, this technique takes advantage of the fact that every cell in the body contains the DNA for all aspects of the organism despite the fact that only certain parts of that DNA were used in creating that specific cell. The process involves placing the nucleus of a somatic cell within an egg of the same species which has had its own nucleus removed. If this process is successful the resulting individual will be genetically identical to the individual. The first successful mammalian clone created using SCNT was Dolly the Sheep in 1996 (see reference below).

 

773px-Dollyscotland_crop

The Preserved Remains of Dolly the Sheep: Cloned 1996, died 2003.

Image is in the public domain courtesy of Llull via WikiMedia Commons

 

Of course these techniques of cloning were all part of fiction well before Dolly made her first bleat. Prime examples are Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” and Ira Levin’s “Boys from Brazil”. SPOILER ALERT: In “Brave New World”, Embryo Twinning is used to create the large numbers of lesser caste humans needed to support the ruling elite. And the boys of Ira Levin’s “Boys from Brazil” are SCNT clones of Adolph Hitler. END SPOILERS

 

Now, back to my bugbear of cloning being used as a way of creating an exact duplicate of an individual. With the SCNT technique there are a number of reasons why the clone might not be identical to the cloned, apart from the obvious age difference.

 

1. Environment

As mentioned above, the environment the clone is exposed to while growing up to will dictate some of its physical and mental characteristics. As this occurs in Monozygotic Twins have (i.e. As adults they have different finger prints) there is no genetic reason why a clone should also not diverge from the cloned other given different growing conditions.

 

2. Mutations

With SCNT clones there is also no guarantee that the genetics of the Somatic Cell used to create the clone were exactly those of the cloned individual. The cell used for the cloning may be a healthy example of that type of cell, but as only part of the DNA it contains is active there is no way of ensuring that there aren’t mutations in the unused part that won’t become apparent until the entire genome of the individual is recreated in the clone.

 

3. Possible Reduced Life Span

There is a limit to the number of times the cells of the body can duplicate themselves. This limit is based on segments of inactive DNA called Telomeres that cap the end of a chromosomes DNA strains and are reduced by successive replications. When these Telomeres disappear the strands of DNA start to unravel and the cell starts to fail to duplicate properly and will eventually die of old age.

 

Although experimental results indicates this is not always the case (see references on Telomeres below), it is possible that a SCNT created clone’s chromosomes are based on DNA that has already used up a significant length of their Telomeres. This would mean that the clone’s cells would have fewer replications available to them before they started succumbing to the symptoms of old age.

 

4. Different Mitochondrial DNA

This is a subtle one, but one that could be very useful both in fiction and reality.

 

Mitochondria are organelles (specialised sub-units of a cell with their own DNA) found within all cells. Mitochondria are passed from mother to offspring through the fluid surrounding the nucleus in the egg and have nothing to do with the DNA of the cell’s nucleus or the father of the child. Therefore, the clone will have mitochondria with the DNA of the host egg, not the cloned individual and therefore be identifiable as being different from the original in most cases. The exception to this would be the SCNT clone of a woman made from her own egg or a close female relative. In this case the Mitochondrial DNA should be identical.

 

Well, that’s the basics, so I want all you writers out there who don’t know what they’re talking about to stop cloning about with this stuff ;-)

 

Until next time. Keep writing.

 

Phill.

 

References:

About that malfunction Star Trek Transporter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chances_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)

Dolly the Sheep: the first mammal successful cloned using Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_the_Sheep

Telomeres, knowing when to stop

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomeres

All about Mitochondria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondria

The Wikipedia on Cloning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloning

 

N.B. Please note that I although I use the Wikipedia (and WikiMedia Commons) a lot for references, this is for expediency and the familiarity of my readers. Anyone interested in further studies should make use of the references where available and understand that the Wikipedia is a co-operative project contributable to by anyone and must always be looked at in that light.

Reality Bit(e)s

User Rating: / 3
PoorBest 

It’s spectacular, but is it really necessary?

We’ve all seen it, space ships glowing red white with fire streaming off their bows while entering a planet’s atmosphere, and most time’s it just doesn’t need to be the case.

 

Time and time again I’ve seen it in science fiction — both on screen and in books — a ship enters the Earth’s atmosphere and suffers the terrible heat and buffeting of re-entry before flying on under its own power. This is a huge mistake.

 

The fires of re-entry mainly apply to objects ‘falling’ into the atmosphere of a planet. Objects like meteors and the space shuttle that don’t have any motive power that they can use during their descent. These fiery object are being dramatically slowed by the braking effect of the atmosphere they are passing through.

shuttle-entry

Artist’s impression of atmospheric entry of Space Shuttle into Earth’s Atmosphere

Image from NASA Archives and therefore in the Public Domain. Sourced from Wikimedia

 

And, slow themselves they must. The shuttle, for instance, normally operates in a Low Earth Orbit (servicing the International Space Station). This means to stay in orbit it has to travel at 27,650 km/hr which is roughly 23 times the speed of sound at sea level. To land it must lose all this kinetic energy and for economic and logistical reasons it does this by aerobraking through the atmosphere, effectively converting all that momentum into heat. It follows a glide path of roughly 8,000 kilometres to slow down this way.

 

The ‘economic and logistical reasons’ are the important thing here. If fuel and payload weight weren’t an issue then the shuttle could slow itself down in space using reverse thrusters and enter the atmosphere at a much more sensible speed avoiding all the heat and turbulence of flying at hypersonic speed in the atmosphere. However, all current propulsion systems require a reaction mass as a propellent and therein lies the problem. That mass needs to be carried into orbit in the first place as it cannot be obtained in space, so to avoid these concerns NASA has had to do things the hard, resource-conserving way.

 

What should you take away from this article?

 

Well, if in your story you have reaction-less propulsion systems that don’t require enormous payloads of fuel, then please don’t put your passengers to the extra danger of coming into the atmosphere way too fast to be safe when they can simple come down easily under ship’s power at sensible speeds.

 

Note: Aerobraking is a concept proposed for economically slowing down long distance space missions. Though the plan there is for the vessel to enter and then leave the atmosphere of the planet again having lost a lot of its velocity.

 

References:

An excellent article on how the Shuttle goes about re-entry

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A6381038

The Wikipedia on the International Space Station

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station

The Wikipedia on Aerobraking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerobraking

 

N.B. Please note that I although I use the Wikipedia (and WikiMedia Commons) a lot for references, this is for expediency and the familiarity of my readers. Anyone interested in further studies should make use of the references where available and understand that the Wikipedia is a co-operative project contributable to by anyone and must always be looked at in that light.

 

Reality Bit(e)s

User Rating: / 3
PoorBest 

Having looked at the history of Artificial Intelligence and the scope of the problem it represents let's now look at its future.


I'd like to start this article with a personal evaluation of the difficulties involved in developing Artificial Intelligence. The Computing Age is less than seventy years old (see ENIAC reference) and computer science and the technologies that underpin it are still evolving.


785px-Eniac

ENIAC, the world's first general-purpose compute.Sourced from Wikimedia Commons.

Image from a US Government department and therefore in the Public Domain.


Add to that the fact that we don't know how the human brain works anyway and it is hardly surprising that the development of Artificial Intelligence is difficult.


And speaking of evolving ...


Some people think that perhaps the technique used to develop the original should be used to develop the artificial version. Dr. Mark Humphrys, a student of Artificial Life (and presumably natural selection), believes that development of AI has been gone about in the reverse order to what it should have been (see reference below). He suggests that lower order artificial life forms need to be developed before the ultimate goal of a human level intelligence can be achieved. He also points out that it took three billion years to evolve a biological organism capable of intelligence and that it then just took two million years to evolve modern humans. My understanding of his paper is that he thinks we shouldn't expect true General AI to be developed whole cloth, and that it will only come about after natural selection operating on simpler machine intelligences brings about a natural evolution of smarter and generally more useful machines. This leads us into the areas of menial robots and the transhumanist (see reference) concepts of human-computer augmentation and cyborgs — the stuff of much science fiction.


However, natural selection and evolution are powerful forces and unlike humans, emerging machine intelligences will be able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Genetic Programming is a discipline of computing science that is based on the idea of using software to evolve optimal software solutions for specific problems from base units of programming. Extend these concepts to the arena of General Artificial Intelligence and ...


Science fiction writers (Vernor Vinge, see reference), futurists (Ray Kurzweil of OCR fame, see reference) and even some computer scientists (Dr. Anthony Berglas, see reference) have already considered this possibility and the advent of recursive artificial intelligence development leading to 'super intelligence' for computers becomes one of the most important factors behind the predicted 'Technological Singularity' which is supposed to hit us any time between now and 2050.


What is 'super intelligence'?


It's an intelligence so much greater than human norm that the likelihood is that we won't be able to understand it.


Aside: I am reminded at this point that most large computer programs are already joint projects worked on by many people using legacy software and external libraries amounting to thousands if not millions of hours of work. It is already doubtful that any one person could fully understand such a program.


Many people see the development of General Artificial Intelligence and 'super intelligence' as the next step in the evolution of sentience on the planet Earth.


Will this make us second class beings?


Will this mean our extinction?


I personally do not see our future as being anything like that depicted in such scare mongering movies as the Terminator series. That sort of competition mainly occurs when an ecological niche is being fought over, which will not be the case with man and intelligent machines; we being so different. More likely to me is the future depicted in the worlds of William Gibson and Dan Simmons where the artificial intelligences want to have little to do with us, but will deal with us when it suits their purposes.


Still, maybe Isaac Asimov had the right idea way back in 1950 when he first published the three Laws of Robotics in his 'I, Robot' anthology.


1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey any order given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.


We live in interesting times...


450px-HONDA_ASIMO

ASIMO manufactured by HONDA. Image sourced for Wikimedia Commons

Available under a Creative Commons Sharealike 3.0 licence.



References:

Website dedicated to the ENIAC, the world's first computer built in 1946.

http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~museum/

Mark Humphrys' view on the problems with the development of Strong Artificial Intelligence

http://www.robotbooks.com/artificial-intelligence-future.htm

The Wikipedia on Transhumanism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanist

Vernor Vinge, 'The Coming Technological Singularity"

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/singularity.html

And here is reference to a work of fiction by Vinge about the fallout from the singularity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marooned_in_Realtime

Ray Kurzweil, 'The Singularity is Near'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singularity_Is_Near

Warning about Artificial Intelligence by Dr Anthony Berglas

http://berglas.org/Articles/AIKillGrandchildren/AIKillGrandchildren.html

For a broader look at the Technological Singularity, here's a Wikipedia reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

Predictions of when the Technological Singularity will arrive

http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/articles/superintelligencehowsoon.htm

AI, the next step in evolution, a point of view.

http://rickforeman.com/?p=42

The ASIMO Blog

http://fk777.blogspot.com/2009/01/asimo.html


N.B. Please note that I although I use the Wikipedia (and WikiMedia Commons) a lot for references, this is for expediency and the familiarity of my readers. Anyone interested in further studies should make use of the references where available and understand that the Wikipedia is a co-operative project contributable to by anyone and must always be looked at in that light.

Reality Bit(e)s

User Rating: / 8
PoorBest 
alan-bw-2

Or how to learn how to get the fight right without getting beaten to a pulp doing research.


At Conflux 6 back at the beginning of October I attended a workshop entitled "Write the Fight Right" given by Alan Baxter. Alan is not only the author of two speculative fiction books: RealmShift and MageSign (see references below) but is also experienced in many martial arts and is a fully qualified instructor specialising in Shaolin Choy Lee Fut Kung Fu & Lohan Qi Gong (Tai Chi).

Who better to interview about problems writers have in writing hand-to-hand fight scenes? I thought. Luckily, Alan agreed and below are some answers to some questions I asked him on this topic.


PB: In your experience what is the thing that most authors get wrong about unarmed combat?


AB: People try to write fight scenes like the things they've seen in the movies. That makes it all unbelieveable action without any of the visceral emotions and entanglements of actual fighting. Some movie fights are getting better, but not many! Most movie fighting is really bad. People take numerous hits, any one of which would finish a real fight, then they take their turn and so on. Fighting never happens with fighters trading turns - this is a movie technique used for clarity. Fighting is anything but clear! At the end, the hero is often uninjured, which is completely unrealistic. A real fight is a nasty, messy affair and is usually over with in a few seconds. Even a long drawn out fight would rarely take more than a minute, with lots of pausing, moving around and stalemates involved.


PB: How important is continual training to a fighter's success? Or is experience, knowledge and the will to make telling blows sufficient?


AB: Experience and knowledge are the real keys to success, but it has to be tempered with rigorous training. You have to train long and hard to be good at fighting. Going to a martial arts class once a week is a hobby - you'll never be a class fighter. Constantly training, improving yourself and testing yourself is essential. After several years have been spent this way a fighter could probably back off on the training to some degree. The skills stay with you and the experience is forever. But a body can get soft and skills get rusty very quickly.


PB: How important is attitude? Case in point, your character Carlos in 'RealmShift' manages to terrorise and physically dominate many people after releasing himself from hospital. He is still injured, but this does not slow him down. And, yes I do realise there are two sides to this question, so please feel free to answer both.


AB: I think it was Mark Twain that said, "It ain't the size of the dog in the fight; it's the size of the fight in the dog." Attitude is everything. You need the skills and training to back it up, but without the right attitude you're lost. Carlos is a good example. He believes himself to be a weapon, has nothing but contempt for others and is convinced that his skills make him something like a god on earth. That translates into an incredible confidence which can easily be imposed on people. I've stepped on the mat before and known I've won a fight before the first bell. Sometimes my attitude has unnerved an opponent and you just know they're going to lose. In real life, this happens even more. I've avoided fights by attitude alone, where someone has changed their mind about fighting me. But, you must have the training to back up your attitude! Attitude on its own only carries you as far as the first real fighter you meet.


PB: Can you suggest the sorts of clues that an experienced fighter would look for when assessing how dangerous a particular person might be? I'm not talking attitude here, more the sort of physical sign that says, 'danger' or conversely the sort of thing that says, 'amateur'.


AB: Good question.


A good fighter will always look at the body language of a potential threat. How is he/she standing? Are his feet together (no threat yet) or apart, one foot slightly behind (potential threat). Also, how does the person hold his hands? A seemingly placatory hand position or gesture can very quickly be turned into a defensive or offensive guard. If someone is standing up in your face then they put one foot back they are about to launch a punch at you any second. Is the person paying attention to their surroundings? A good fighter will always know what obstacles are around. Are they moving to get the advantage of the terrain? Also, look at a person's face and neck. By their expression and face/neck tension a good fighter can tell if the person is all bluster or serious about meaning harm. Also check the breathing. The calmer the breath, the more a person is controlling their energy and adrenaline. If a person is breathing slow and deep and standing in a non-threatening position, that means that they don't feel particularly threatened, but they are almost certainly coiled inside and ready to act/react.


There are thousands of other things an experienced fighter will look for or recognise (many of them subconsciously) and only years of training and experience can teach a person all these things.


PB: Have you yourself ever been in a serious fight outside of competition?


AB: Once or twice. I had something of a volatile youth.


PB: Care to elaborate?


AB: Not really. :)


PB: Did it teach you anything that you have used in your writing?


AB: The emotions and adrenaline of fighting are unique. You can get close in full contact competition, but it's not the same as suddenly finding yourself really fighting. I suppose I've used those experiences to make my writing more realistic.


PB: What is your personal philosophy about violence and how has your martial arts training changed this philosophy?


AB: My philosophy is a little bit un-PC! First and foremost, there's usually no need for violence. Things can be settled with conversation and understanding. If there's the opportunity to get away from a fight, then do. Run away and live another day. Fighting is a nasty business and you will almost certainly get hurt, whether you win or lose. However, and here's the un-PC bit, some people only understand the language of a good ass-whooping. It's handy to be capable of handing that out if necessary. And here we get back to the attitude thing - the longer I've trained, the better I've become, the less I've had to fight. I can usually stop a fight before it happens and that's a result of all these years of training.


PB: Is there anything else you would like to tell the writers reading this interview about properly representing hand-to-hand combat in fiction?


Don't copy the movies! This is a big subject and difficult to get right without experience. Rather than go out and get into fights for your writing, talk to fighters. Talk to ring fighters like Muay Thai fighters and boxers and ask about their experiences. If you really want to learn about it, then go and sign up with a good martial arts club. By good, I mean one that does lots of pad work and sparring, so that you get to learn about this stuff and practice it, feel it, and then translate that into your writing.



I'd like to thank Alan for his time and suggest that people who want to find out more about his martial arts and his writing have a look at his website where he is also giving away some free serialised fiction.


References:

Alan Baxter's website.

http://www.alanbaxteronline.com/

Reality Bit(e)s

User Rating: / 3
PoorBest 

In the 1960s computer scientists predicted Artificial Intelligence would be with us very shortly. It's now 2009 and we're still waiting.

---

The human brain has roughly 100 billion neurons connected by roughly 100 trillion synapses all of which can operate simultaneously. If we say that the brain can change in some way once every tenth of a second, which is about as fast as our vision can register change, we have a theoretical capacity of 1,000 trillion 'changes' per second (though this is a lot of guesswork and I suspect depends a lot on how hard a night you had last night).

By comparison, Roadrunner, listed as the fastest computer in the world on the top500 website in June of 2009, is a cluster computer with 129,600 processor cores each running at 3.2 GHz. Roadrunner won its lofty position by achieving a maximum performance of 1,456,704 GFlops; where a GFlops is 1 trillion mathematical operations per second.

As a very rough comparison, this tells us that Roadrunner should 'think' about 1,450 times faster than a human ... and yet no computer has been able to consistently pass the Turing test (see last article). Why?

The term Artificial Intelligence (AI) was coined by John McCarthy in 1956. In its use as the name of a discipline of computer science it means "the science and engineering of making intelligent machines" with the word's other meaning being the goal of this endeavour. The reason why these early computer scientists got their predictions so wrong was because their definition of the word 'Intelligence' was very limited.

Robot ASIMO

ASIMO from Honda — Walking Stairs. Sourced from the Wikimedia Commons.

Today it is recognised that Intelligence has different aspects and that humans have multiple intelligence quotients (i.e. IQs) in areas as diverse as: linguistics, logic, spatial awareness and emotion. What the computer scientists back then were after was something that excelled in all these area, a capability that is now termed 'General Intelligence' or 'Strong Artificial Intelligence' which is the ability for a machine to perform ANY intellectual task that a human being can. Stong AI requires machine traits such as: reasoning, knowledge, planning, learning, communication, perception and the ability to move and manipulate objects.

For example, the Turing Test through its definition tests reasoning, knowledge, perception and communication. The AI has to be able to make a human believe that it can reason and has a similar knowledge of the world as the questioner and that it can understand and use nuances of language. If any of these are not up to scratch then the machine will fail the test because its questioner will not get the responses they are expecting from a real human.

I think it is an unfair test.

A human child the age of some of the AI programs being tested would probably not pass either because they are lacking in experience and common sense. Does this mean that the program would be able to pass the test if they were given the time to accumulate knowledge of the world and the common sense brought on by experience? Can a computer program even acquire experience and common sense?

Enter the Cyc project.

The Cyc Project is an attempt to assemble a comprehensive ontology and knowledge base of every day common sense knowledge, with the goal of enabling AI applications to perform human-like reasoning.

Word of the day: Ontology; In Philosophical terms an Ontology is the study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general. In Information Science terms an ontology is a formal representation of a set of concepts concerning an area of interest and defining the relationships between those concepts.

The Cyc project was started in 1984 by Douglas Lenat (see references) and has been continuing to develop its AI common sense ontology ever since. The scope of this project is immense. As an example of just how big it is, I'd like to put forward the analogy that a person's vocabulary is similar to their common sense ontology. According to Wikipedia the average person has a vocabulary of about 10,000 words. Just think of how many ways those 10,000 words can be put together into meaningful sentences. Currently, the Open Source version of the Cyc project's ontology consists of hundreds of thousands of terms plus the millions of relationships between those terms.

It is my belief that Strong AI is dependent on the contextual information provided by a common sense ontology like Cyc is developing. It has taken twenty-five years to reach this level of sophistication through the efforts of many, many hours of hand coding of these terms and their relationships. And, most individual adult humans still have a far greater ontology than Cyc and they do it much faster and by themselves ... It seems to me that technology still has a ways to go.

Hopefully I've shown here some of the difficulties involved in reaching the goal of true Strong Artificial Intelligence. Is it even possible? Will we ever achieve Strong AI?

Next article, we look at the possibilities for the future of Artificial Intelligence.

References:

The Wikipedia about Neurons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuron

Top 500 fastest public computers in the world.

http://www.top500.org/

The Wikipedia on different types of Intelligence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences

Definition of an Ontology in Information Science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)

The Wikipedia on Cyc, a comprehensive ontology and knowledge base of everyday common sense knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc

The Wikipedia on the average person's vocabulary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocabulary_development

N.B. Please note that I although I use the Wikipedia (and WikiMedia Commons) a lot for references, this is for expediency and the familiarity of my readers. Anyone interested in further studies should make use of the references where available and understand that the Wikipedia is a co-operative project contributable to by anyone and must always be looked at in that light.



Reality Bit(e)s

More Articles...

Page 1 of 8

Add a Review

Did you know you can add your own reviews? 

Just write at least 300 words and submit here!

Latest Tweet

awritingjourney
RT @garykemble: Writing a feature about #aus4, hopefully for @abcthedrum - what was the best thing about AussieCon4? Pls RT

40 minute(s) ago