Login
You're viewing the discuss.systems public feed.
  • Esther Payne :bisexual_flag:onepict@chaos.social
    Oct 21, 2026, 10:45 AM

    @jonny thank you for risking your brain.

    I'm really looking forward to you publishing in non toot form about this.

    Because it needs to be a book and I'd like it to be hardback to beat the sense into slopfondlers.

    💬 1🔄 2⭐ 13

Replies

  • jonny (nonvenomous)jonny@neuromatch.social
    Oct 21, 2026, 10:56 AM

    @onepict i have had trouble not just retreating in disgust after these. i don't know what the story is aside from strapping myself in and letting the shifting sands of bullshit take me. I have had to break out Solaris a few times to remind myself that contending with an infinitely mutating ocean planet of trickery is not actually a new idea (i am not endorsing the anthropomorphized swarm genius read, but the "maybe it's just seductive imitations of somethingness put on by nothingness" read)

    The first attempts at contact were by means of specially designed electronic apparatus. The ocean itself took an active part in these operations by remodelling the instruments. All this, however, remained somewhat obscure. What exactly did the ocean’s ‘participation’ consist of? It modified certain elements in the submerged instruments, as a result of which the normal discharge frequency was completely disrupted and the recording instruments registered a profusion of signals — fragmentary indications of some outlandish activity, which in fact defeated all attempts at analysis. Did these data point to a momentary condition of stimulation, or to regular impulses correlated with the gigantic structures which the ocean was in the process of creating elsewhere, at the antipodes of the region under investigation? Had the electronic apparatus recorded the cryptic manifestation of the ocean’s ancient secrets? Had it revealed its innermost workings to us? Who could tell? No two reactions to the stimuli were the same. Sometimes the instruments almost exploded under the violence of the impulses, sometimes there was total silence; it was impossible to obtain a repetition of any previously observed phenomenon. Constantly, it seemed, the experts were on the brink of deciphering the ever-growing mass of information. Was it not, after all, with this object in mind that computers had been built of virtually limitless capacity, such as no previous problem had ever demanded? And, indeed, some results were obtained. The ocean as a source of electric and magnetic impulses and of gravitation expressed itself in a more or less mathematical language. Also, by calling on the most abstruse branches of statistical analysis, it was possible to classify certain frequencies in the discharges of current. Structural homologues were discovered, not unlike those already observed by physicists in that sector of science which deals with the reciprocal interaction of energy and matter.
    elements and compounds, the finite and the infinite. This correspondence convinced the scientists that they were confronted with a monstrous entity endowed with reason, a protoplasmic ocean-brain enveloping the entire planet and idling its time away in extravagant theoretical cognitation about the nature of the universe. Our instruments had intercepted minute random fragments of a prodigious and everlasting monologue unfolding in the depths of this colossal brain, which was inevitably beyond our understanding. So much for the mathematicians. These hypotheses, according to some people, underestimated the resources of the human mind; they bowed to the unknown, proclaiming the ancient doctrine, arrogantly resurrected, of ignoramus et ignorabimus. Others regarded the mathematicians’ hypotheses as sterile and dangerous nonsense, contributing towards the creation of a modern mythology based on the notion of this giant brain — whether plasmic or electronic was immaterial — as the ultimate objective of existence, the very synthesis of life. Yet others. . . but the would-be experts were legion and each had his own theory. A comparison of the ‘contact’ school of thought with other branches of Solarist studies, in which specialization had rapidly developed, especially during the last quarter of a century, made it clear that a Solarist-cybernetician had difficulty in making himself understood to a Solarist-symmetriadologist. Veubeke, director of the Institute when I was studying there, had asked jokingly one day: “How do you expect to communicate with the ocean, when you can’t even understand one another?” The jest contained more than a grain of truth. The decision to categorize the ocean as a metamorph was not an arbitrary one. Its undulating surface was capable of generating extremely diverse formations which resembled nothing ever seen on Earth, and the function of these sudden eruptions of plasmic ‘creativity,’ whether adaptive, explorative or what, remained an enigma. Lifting the heavy volume with both hands, I replaced it on the shelf, and thought to myself that our scholarship, all the information accumulated in the libraries.
    amounted to a useless jumble of words, a sludge of statements and suppositions, and that we had not progressed an inch in the 78 years since researches had begun. The situation seemed much worse now than in the time of the pioneers, since the assiduous efforts of so many years had not resulted in a single indisputable conclusion. The sum total of known facts was strictly negative. The ocean did not use machines, even though in certain circumstances it seemed capable of creating them. During the first two years of exploratory work, it had reproduced elements of some of the submerged instruments. Thereafter, it simply ignored the experiments we went on pursuing, as though it had lost all interest in our instruments and our activities — as though, indeed, it was no longer interested in us. It did not possess a nervous system (to go on with the inventory of ‘negative knowledge’) or cells, and its structure was not proteiform. It did not always react even to the most powerful stimuli (it ignored completely, for example, the catastrophic accident which occurred during the second Giese expedition: an auxiliary rocket, falling from a height of 300,000 metres, crashed on the planet’s surface and the radioactive explosion of its nuclear reserves destroyed the plasma within a radius of 2500 metres). Gradually, in scientific circles, the ‘Solaris Affair’ came to be regarded as a lost cause, notably among the administrators of the Institute, where voices had recently been raised suggesting that financial support should be withdrawn and research suspended. No one, until then, had dared to suggest the final liquidation of the Station; such a decision would have smacked too obviously of defeat. But in the course of semi-official discussions a number of scientists recommended an ‘honorable’ withdrawal from Solaris.
    💬 1🔄 3⭐ 0
  • Esther Payne :bisexual_flag:onepict@chaos.social
    Oct 21, 2026, 11:27 AM

    @jonny I think that's the story. The shoddyness , grifting and hopium that seems to be in these these things.

    Theres not science in this and perhaps that's the whole story. Surfing the bullshit.

    💬 0🔄 1⭐ 0