Archives
Sep 1999
Oct 1999
Nov 1999
Dec 1999
Jan 2000
Feb 2000
Mar 2000
Apr 2000
May 2000
Jun 2000
Jul 2000
Aug 2000
Sep 2000
Oct 2000
Nov 2000
Dec 2000
Jan 2001
Feb 2001
Mar 2001
Apr 2001
May 2001
Jun 2001
Jul 2001
Aug 2001
Sep 2001
Oct 2001
Nov 2001
Dec 2001
Jan 2002
Feb 2002
Mar 2002
Apr 2002
May 2002
Jun 2002
Jul 2002
Aug 2002
Sep 2002
Oct 2002
Nov 2002
Dec 2002
Jan 2003
Feb 2003
Mar 2003
Apr 2003
May 2003
Jun 2003
Jul 2003
Aug 2003
Sep 2003
Oct 2003
Nov 2003
Dec 2003
Jan 2004
Feb 2004
Mar 2004
Apr 2004
May 2004
Jun 2004
Jul 2004
Aug 2004
Sep 2004
Oct 2004
Nov 2004
Dec 2004
Jan 2005
Feb 2005
Mar 2005
Apr 2005
May 2005
Jun 2005
Jul 2005
Aug 2005
Sep 2005
Oct 2005
Nov 2005
Dec 2005
Jan 2006
Feb 2006
Mar 2006
Apr 2006
May 2006
Jun 2006
Jul 2006
Aug 2006
Sep 2006
Oct 2006
Nov 2006
Dec 2006
Jan 2007
Feb 2007
Mar 2007
Apr 2007
May 2007
Jun 2007
Jul 2007
Aug 2007
Sep 2007
Oct 2007
Nov 2007
Dec 2007
Jan 2008
Feb 2008
Mar 2008
Apr 2008
May 2008
Jun 2008
Jul 2008
Aug 2008
Sep 2008
Oct 2008
Nov 2008
Dec 2008
Jan 2009
Feb 2009
Mar 2009
Apr 2009
May 2009
Jun 2009
Jul 2009
Aug 2009
Sep 2009
Oct 2009
Nov 2009
Dec 2009
Jan 2010
Aug 2010
Sep 2010
Oct 2010
Nov 2010
Dec 2010
Feb 2011
Mar 2011
Apr 2011
May 2011
Sep 2011
Oct 2011
Nov 2011
Feb 2012
Mar 2012
May 2012
Apr 2023
May 2023
Jun 2023
Jul 2023
Sep 2023
Oct 2023

Nov
14
1999
11/14/1999 more identity ramblings

I dunno...I really like my original concepts for online identity, but I'm a bit unsure about real-world application. The most it accomplishes is to bring about individual awareness to the information harvesting going on, and the manipulation thereof, but you still only use one interface at a time. Humans aren't designed for more than that.

Lately I've been chatting on the disinformation site. Within my rules of online identity, when you connect, you create an aspect of yourself, designed specifically to interface with that specific "realm" of cyberspace. In this case, you pick a username, select an icon to represent you (amusingly, the chat applets calls this an "avatar"), and you're in. Interfacing is done with the keyboard for typing and the mouse for menu selection and some drawing capabilities.

That makes up for a pretty run-of-the-mill online experience. You create the identity, use the interface to manipulate that identity, and it's a 1-to-1 representation of yourself.

Now, last night I was also using ICQ to talk to my brother. So, I had my exsisting identity on ICQ, and a different interface, keyboard for communication, mouse for manipulation, and some sound interface for event notification. While the disinfo chat ran in the background, I could watch the words scroll by as I wrote back and forth to my brother.

At this point we have two identities and two interfaces. Now, let's add mailservers. In a sense, a mailserver is an autonomous avatar -- when the SMTP server gets an email message for me, as a local user, it accepts the message on my behalf and stores it until the real-world me can stop and pick it up. My identity there is part of a larger system of users, but my identity there exists wether or not I am online. I interface with it on demand, but for the sender of the message, the letter was delivered to me without a problem. At this time, I have 5 or 6 email servers working for me, waiting to accept messages on my behalf.

That makes up the bulk of my active avatars. Beyond that, my online identity is defined through file records, entries in databases, log entries, and various other data trails.those make up _me_, but they don't have a lot of effect on my chatting or ICQ use. It does have a degree of impact on my email use, though -- the commercial database entries get me spam, and listserv subecriptions get me news and other information on a regular basis. I suppose, once h.jones becomes more active in an online sense, there will be more to tie that aspect of my identity to the rest of me. It was just created, so it is decidedly autonomous compared to the rest of my online aspects.usenet posts will remain online in archives & as quotes in threads, spam will begin to arrive at the h.jones email address, and the webpage will begin to get hits, being indexed by search engines & web indexes.

I guess I'm still not looking at the whole picture, though. Most of an online identity is made up of non-internet things, but you can't use that identity in real-time like you can on the internet. that identity is still made up of avatar interaction and is recorded by the other users, not by any sort of online storage space. That's where I'm missing something; there's a point where those two need to cross, but it's not very defined. Once that is defined, then my homunculi definition of online identity will be more real-world applicable. At this time, it's a nice definition, but it does not dictate any sort of response to be taken. Looking at TV and reading in books about examples of online interfacing, something just doesn't seem right to me. You can't just "jack in" to the internet and go zooming. Neurotechnology aside, the idea of becoming a single aspect within a computer network is exceedinly limiting and unproductive. The 'matrix' is not a big virtual space -- our 3-dimentional ideas of time & space are not only non-applicable to the matrix, but are counterproductive to it's existence.

Even, when you think about trying to represent the matrix in a virtual reality sense, why are you wasting all that computer power to turn thething virtual into an approximation of the real world? The reason we use the matrix the way we do is because it _isn't_ anything like the real world. We don't want it that way -- online distance is measured in miliseconds, time is described in MFLOPs, and temperature, weight, up, down, color, smell, etc., all are counterproductive to the system. That's why it's so hard to develop a truly real-time computer system. You have to take away from the computer's natural habitat it's ability to just do what it does. Teaching a computer that when an object falls and is stopped by another object, it's mass & energy exert a force on the other object, is very easy. Scientists and high school students use that all the time in order to predict the action of an object. But when you try to get a computer to represent that in a virtual 3-dimentional space, you have a whole lot of new things to have the computer think about besides the force itself. There are new rules for the computer to obey, besides just being able to use a mathematical equation which represents the 3-dimentional actions.

If we were to try to take the internet, and give everyone VR glasses so that they can walk around the internet like it's some mall somewhere, you have to twist the internet's current environment, bog it down with VR computations, and make into a poor approximation of what it would look like if it were created in the real world. Unfortunately, if it worked in the real world, it would have happenned that way. It doesn't exist in any of the dimensions that our senses detect, which is the main reason that I don't think the "avatar" idea of online identity doesn't work. You can't just be a single autonomous identity wandering the streets of cyberspace. There aren't any streets to wander, and cyberspace is a misnomer -- there isn't any _space_ within cyberspace. The form that a real-world human takes has to conform to the rules of existence within cyberspace, not the other way around. To twist cyberspace to conform to the environment that humans are used to is a hinderance to the online world.

In order, however, to interact with the online world, us humans need to go through some real-world restrictions. We aren't multitasking, we are restricted by limitations of the laws of physics, time moves so slow, and we think in a very abstract way. This is probably where the homunculus apex is, but not really. Each of the credit cards in your wallet is part of your homunculus, any computer you sit down at, any password that you memorize, but that is not the homunculus that does anything. It's the structure, but not the substance. That substance is made up from the user's application of the structure, moving within cyberspace and creating more information and acting upon the user's needs, thoughts, and attitudes.

Following this tangent, since I think I'm getting on to something....my grandmother is going to Florida to visit relatives today. She was concerned about getting her AOL email down there. She can log on to AOL via my aunt's computer, but she wanted to make sure that it wouldn't show up as a long distance bill if she checked her email. Without going into too much highbrow detail, I explained, no, that physical location isn't an issue, as long as you have a local dialup to use. She kind of changed the subject with a comment about her email being "up there", in North Dakota. Well, when I started the thought, I had something, but maybe not.

I guess this journal entry isn't worth a whole lot -- my disjointed rantings put into text, without much of a point. I'll have to go back and read this later, see if I have any points at all....

No comments at this time.


Your Name:
Email:
Webpage:
Your comment:



blog advertising is good for you
Looking For "Wookies"?