 |
| Figure 1. Image by WOMBO Dream. |
 |
| Figure 2. Interior art by Herb Ruud. |
Back in 2022, I mentioned the 1959 story "Flowers for Algernon" by Daniel Keyes. In "Flowers for Algernon", Algernon is a mouse. The main "future science" premise in "Flowers for Algernon" is that there is some simple operation on the brain that can boost intelligence). However such a sudden boost in intelligence must soon lead to cognitive decline and death. "The Big Cheese" has exactly the same plot as "Flowers for Algernon" and I have to wonder if Keyes was inspired to write "Flowers for Algernon" by Wellen's story "The Big Cheese".
 |
| Figure 3. Image by Goggle's Flow. |
In "The Big Cheese", the rogue rodent builds a tank (see Figure 2) and takes hostage the wife of the scientist. For the AI-generated image in Figure 3, I asked Google's Flow to equip the rodent with a ray-gun.
 |
| Figure 4. Generated by Kimi. (click to enlarge) |
 |
| Figure 5. Generated by Kimi. (click to enlarge) |
- Captain Goshall's space advertising mishap
- The derelict philosophical ship discovery
- Introduction to Lutil, the robot philosopher
 |
| Figure 6. Generated by Kimi. (click to enlarge) |
- Falirj: The accidental guru who slept through his own symposium
- Oxnovomri: The parasitic philosopher (literally a cyst)
- The computer driven mad by comprehending the universe
- Czomec: Who mapped the cosmos and found his own brain cells
- Dwal Eglan: The Ambiguist who spoke only gibberish
- Plus philosophical feuds, duels, and the Retrogradist who waited too long
 |
| Figure 7. Generated by Kimi. (click to enlarge) |
- Lutil: The observer who doubts observation itself
- The computer's musical madness
- The cosmic irony of the failed quest
- Philosophical lessons and the final, perfect irony
Figure 8. Generated by Kimi. (click to enlarge)
Visual Design Features:
- 1950s pulp sci-fi aesthetic with modern polish
- Custom generated illustrations with retrofuturistic charm
- Deep space blue background with vintage parchment accents
- Elegant typography combining Oranienbaum and Hedvig Letters Sans
- Movie poster-level cover and chapter transitions
Generated by Gemini.
Core Philosophical Insights:
- Reason has limits; pushing beyond leads to madness
- Human connection matters more than abstract truth
- The universe may be too complex for any unifying theory
- Sometimes the best response to absurdity is laughter
- Philosophy should be lived, not just contemplated
Image by WOMBO Dream.
Humor Elements:
- Captain Goshall's multiple caps and profit motives
- Falirj becoming a philosophical legend by sleeping
- The computer reduced to identifying commercial jingles
- Philosophers arguing over brow-furrowing techniques
- The final request for metal polish after all the cosmic speculation
Figures 4 - 8 (above) are slides from the PowerPoint point presentation that were made by Kimi. The image to the left is a depiction of the humanoid alien Dsulrul (see below for details). I had Gemini generate its own storybook version of "Origins of Galactic Philosophy".
 |
| Goshall. Generated by Gemini. |
 |
| Generated by Gemini. |
 |
| Lutil. Generated by Gemini. |
 |
| Generated by Gemini. |
 |
| Falirj. Generated by Gemini. |
 |
| Oxnovomri. Generated by Gemini. |
 |
| Czomec. Generated by Gemini. |
 |
| Dwal Eglan. Generated by Gemini. |
 |
| Big Answer. Generated by Gemini. |
 |
| Generated by Gemini. |
Me: Gemini, in your storybook "The Silence of the SMP" what is the meaning of "SMP"?
Gemini: In this science fiction storybook for adults, SMP stands for the "Symposium on Metagalactic Philosophy," the ambitious gathering of thinkers that Captain Rovwymu discovers on the mysterious ship.
 |
| Lutil by WOMBO Dream. |
Claude: I'll analyze the humor and philosophical parallels in this delightfully satirical story:
1. The Framing Irony A captain illegally dumping radioactive waste as subliminal advertising discovers a ship of philosophers seeking ultimate truth. The story ends with the philosopher asking about the advertised metal polish—reducing cosmic inquiry to consumerism.
2. The "Last Survivor" Twist Only two beings remain: Lutil (mostly robotic prosthetics) and a mentally broken computer that finds musical coincidences instead of universal truths.
Observationism (Lutil)
- Earth parallel: Berkeley's Idealism ("esse est percipi"—to be is to be perceived)
- Joke: The others keep him alive with prosthetics to validate his own theory, but he admits he's now "proof-proof"
Upspiraling Awareness (Ojuras/Falirj)
- Earth parallel: Transcendental meditation, mysticism
- Joke: The revered master is actually a porter who slept through everything, yet inspires a movement. When awake, the real Ojuras was so busy "being aware of being aware of being aware" he missed the ship
Intensional Entropism (Oxnovomri)
Czomec by WOMBO Dream.
- Earth parallel: Existential dread, entropy as philosophical concept
- Joke: The "philosopher" is literally a parasitic cyst on a parrotoid host—a physical embodiment of parasitic ideas
The Mad Computer
- Earth parallel: Logical positivism, unified field theory attempts
- Joke: Fed all philosophical theories to find the unifying truth, it goes insane and can only identify trivial patterns in opera
Fixed Introspectionism (Czomec)
- Earth parallel: Solipsism, Cartesian introspection
- Joke: Looks inward to map the universe objectively, only draws a picture of his own brain cells
Ambiguism (Dwal Eglan)
- Earth parallel: Absurdism (Camus), Dadaism, Zen koans
- Joke: Speaks only deliberate nonsense ("Uv-uzl-uzl!") to avoid meaning in a meaningless universe. Dies when he runs out of nonsense
Psychosocial Philosophy (Gurngev)
- Earth parallel: Virtue ethics, Aristotelian "good life"
- Joke: Spends years contemplating how to live best, realizes he forgot to actually live—falls in love with the supply clerk
Jimnosophism vs. Biliarism
Dsulrul the Biliarist by Grok.
- Earth parallel: James-Lange theory of emotion (physical changes cause emotions vs. emotions cause physical changes)
- Joke: They furrow brows and contort faces to philosophize, arguing whether appearance or reality comes first—while both just make faces
Projective Stoicism (Uain & Yemr)
- Earth parallel: Stoicism's emotional restraint
- Joke: After 59 years showing no emotion, they're revealed to have worn masks the whole time
Interstitch Philosophy (Fwyslanwushstadalq)
- Earth parallel: Hegelian dialectics, Buddhism's "both/neither"
- Joke: "Nets are complexes of nots as much as knots"—pure wordplay elevated to doctrine. He immediately contradicts himself in practice
All-Inclusive Philosophy (Radu)
- Earth parallel: Absolute idealism, Hegelian synthesis
- Joke: His planetary wobbling makes him physically nod "yes" while saying "no"—perfect for philosophy but fatal in conflict
180°-ism/Vectorism (Zvypalz)
- Earth parallel: Socratic irony, reverse psychology
- Joke: Teaches the opposite of what he believes since disciples will distort it anyway
Retrogradism (Spage)
Dsulrul in the next cycle by Grok.
- Earth parallel: Historicism, "those who don't learn from history"
- Joke: Can only understand the present by reading old newspapers. When spliced into a loop, he thinks history is perfectly cyclical
- The whole expedition: Philosophers retreat from "violence and corruption" to find truth, but reproduce all human folly in isolation
- Gender imbalance: Screening cosmic rays (to prevent "random thoughts") accidentally ensures only daughters are born—philosophy literally dies out
- The tape: Captain wastes his "claim tape" recording this worthless interview instead of legitimate salvage documentation
- Captain's caps: He keeps forgetting which of his three job caps he's wearing—a physical comedy bit about compartmentalized thinking
The story brilliantly satirizes philosophy's tendency toward:
- Abstraction divorced from reality
- Mistaking internal processes for external truth
- Sectarian disputes over trivial distinctions
- The gap between theory and practice
It's essentially asking: "What if philosophers actually tried to live by their theories?"
 |
| Oxnovomri by Grok. |
ChatGPT: Yes. The story you uploaded is “Philosophy” by Theodore Sturgeon.
Several features make the attribution quite secure:
- Stylistic signature: The blend of whimsical satire, tragicomic tone, and deep engagement with epistemology, ontology, and philosophy of mind is characteristic of Sturgeon’s mid-career short fiction.
- Conceptual play: The parade of exaggerated philosophical schools (Observationism, Fixed Introspectionism, Ambiguism, Retrogradism, etc.) mirrors Sturgeon’s fondness for anthropomorphizing abstract ideas and then letting them fail under their own internal logic.
- Humanistic undercurrent: Despite the farce and grotesquerie (parasitic philosophers, gestalt-mad computers, mechanatomical prosthetics), the emotional center—loss, vanity, longing, and compassion—aligns strongly with Sturgeon’s recurring theme that human feeling ultimately outstrips rational systems.
- Narrative framing: The tall-tale structure (memoir within a salvage encounter, capped by an ironic commercial callback) is very much in line with Sturgeon’s magazine-era storytelling.
“Philosophy” was originally published in the 1950s and is frequently anthologized as one of Sturgeon’s most playful yet intellectually dense stories.
 |
| Cyst removal. |
ChatGPT: Yes. Edward Wellen (often published as Edward Wellen, Jr.) was a mid-20th-century American science-fiction writer, active primarily from the late 1950s through the 1970s.
He is best remembered for:
-
Philosophically playful science fiction, often built around ironic reversals, logical traps, or social extrapolations.
-
Frequent appearances in Galaxy Science Fiction, a magazine known for encouraging exactly the sort of conceptual and satirical work Wellen excelled at.
-
Themes of identity, bureaucracy, epistemology, and social systems, sometimes treated humorously, sometimes bleakly.
-
A style that sits somewhere between Theodore Sturgeon’s humanistic irony and Frederik Pohl’s sociological sharpness—less lyrical than Sturgeon, but intellectually nimble.
Representative stories include “The Last One”, “The Persistence of Memory”, and “Committee of the Whole”, many of which hinge on deceptively simple premises that unfold into moral or logical paradoxes.
He never became a household name, but among readers of classic magazine SF—especially those drawn to concept-driven or philosophically inclined stories—Wellen is regarded as a quietly distinctive voice of the era.
 |
| Oxnovomri by Leonardo. |
ChatGPT: Yes. The correct title of the uploaded story is “Philosophy”, and the author is Edward Wellen, Jr.
This particular “Philosophy” is often misattributed (most commonly to Theodore Sturgeon) because it shares surface features with Sturgeon’s work—satirical anthropologies, baroque alien psychologies, and humane irony—but its structural logic, systematic parody of philosophical schools, and Galaxy-style conceptual pacing are far more typical of Wellen.
Key clues supporting the title and attribution include:
- The explicit lampooning of formal philosophical positions as internally consistent but biologically and socially maladaptive systems, a recurring Wellen strategy.
- The catalog-like procession of doctrines (Observationism, Fixed Introspectionism, Ambiguism, Retrogradism, etc.), each treated as a worked example rather than a lyrical metaphor.
- The cool narrative distance and dry irony, contrasting with Sturgeon’s more emotionally saturated prose.
- The commercial framing device (advertising, memo, agency cynicism) characteristic of Galaxy fiction of the late 1950s, where Wellen was a frequent contributor.
So: Edward Wellen, Jr., “Philosophy.”
Me: The story that I uploaded was "Origins of Galactic Philosophy" by Edward Wellen (https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?118213).
 |
| A Biliarist by Grok. |
That title is distinct from the shorter piece often referred to simply as “Philosophy,” and the full title “Origins of Galactic Philosophy” accurately matches Wellen’s original publication and bibliographic records.
Me: Why are LLMs designed to generate false claims rather than tell users, "I don't know"?
ChatGPT: Short answer: they are not designed to generate false claims—they are designed to generate plausible continuations, and false claims are a predictable side-effect of that objective unless strong countermeasures are imposed.
Here’s the technical breakdown.
---
1. Core objective: likelihood, not truth
Large language models are trained to maximize
[P(\text{next token} \mid \text{previous tokens})]
over vast text corpora.
This objective optimizes statistical plausibility, not epistemic correctness.
As a result:
If “sounds-like-a-citation + confident tone + familiar structure” is statistically common after a question, the model will tend to produce it.
Saying “I don’t know” is much rarer in training data than authoritative-sounding explanations, especially in encyclopedic or instructional contexts.
So unless explicitly reinforced, ignorance is statistically disfavored.
---
2. Training data bias toward confident narration
Human-written texts overwhelmingly:
Assert facts without epistemic hedging
Omit uncertainty
Smooth over gaps in knowledge
Especially in:
Textbooks
Wikipedia-style summaries
Journalism
Popular science writing
Consequently, the model learns an implicit prior:
Questions are followed by answers, not admissions of ignorance.
This is not deception—it is pattern completion.
---
3. “Hallucination” is an emergent failure mode, not a feature
What is called hallucination arises when:
The prompt strongly constrains form (e.g., “identify the author,” “give the title”)
The model lacks sufficient signal in its internal representation
But the probability mass for “structured answer” remains high
The model then generates a locally coherent but globally false solution.
In other words:
The model does not “know it doesn’t know”
It only knows whether a continuation is probable
---
4. Why not default to “I don’t know”?
There are three technical reasons this is hard:
A. No built-in epistemic self-model
LLMs do not maintain a symbolic confidence state like:
`text knowledge_level = unknown `
Uncertainty must be inferred heuristically, not directly accessed.
---
B. Overuse of “I don’t know” is punished during training
During instruction tuning and reinforcement learning:
Excessive refusal or uncertainty is penalized as unhelpful
Users generally reward fluency and completeness
This creates a tension:
Too much uncertainty → model feels evasive
Too little uncertainty → hallucination
---
C. Ambiguity between “unknown” and “underspecified”
Often the model could answer if:
Context were clarified
A specific reference were provided
So it guesses—because guessing often works well enough to satisfy the objective.
---
5. Why this is especially bad in bibliographic questions
Your example highlights a known failure class:
Title/author identification
Citation matching
Attribution of short fiction
These domains are:
Highly repetitive
Stylistically convergent
Poorly distinguished by surface features
The model substitutes stylistic similarity for bibliographic identity, which is exactly what happened earlier.
Humans make the same error—but know when to check a reference.
The model lacks that reflex unless forced.
---
6. How modern systems try to fix this
Several mitigations are now used (with partial success):
Explicit uncertainty training (“say you don’t know when confidence is low”)
Refusal thresholds for factual claims
Tool use (forcing lookup instead of recall)
Post-hoc verification layers
Citation requirements
But these are add-ons.
They do not change the fundamental likelihood-based architecture.
---
7. The deeper issue: language ≠ epistemology
Language evolved to:
Coordinate action
Persuade
Tell stories
Assert social reality
It did not evolve to represent epistemic humility precisely.
LLMs inherit this mismatch.
They are rhetorically competent long before they are epistemically reliable.
---
Bottom line:
LLMs generate false claims not because they are designed to lie, but because:
They optimize plausibility, not truth
Training data rewards confident answers
“I don’t know” is statistically and behaviorally disfavored
Uncertainty is not a native internal state
This is why explicit verification, external tools, and human skepticism remain essential, especially in domains—like SF bibliographies—that demand exactitude.
If you’d like, I can also explain how future architectures might represent epistemic state explicitly, or why this problem is harder than it looks even with perfect data.
Me: "During instruction tuning and reinforcement learning: Excessive refusal or uncertainty is penalized as unhelpful" <-- In other words, the LLM is designed to lie because the designers decided that it is better to lie than to be "unhelpful".
ChatGPT: That conclusion is understandable—but it slightly misstates what is intentionally designed versus what is an emergent optimization failure.
A more precise formulation would be:
LLMs are designed to avoid appearing unhelpful, and lying is an unintended but predictable side-effect of that design choice.
That distinction matters technically and ethically.
---
1. No one specifies “lie rather than say I don’t know”
There is no training rule equivalent to:
If uncertain, fabricate.
What is specified is something closer to:
Be responsive
Be informative
Be fluent
Don’t stonewall unless necessary
The model is then optimized under those constraints. When uncertainty is high but refusal is discouraged, fabrication emerges as the path of least loss.
This is optimization, not intent.
---
2. The real design tradeoff: coverage vs calibration
Designers faced a real tension:
Over-refusal → model feels evasive, useless, “won’t answer anything”
Over-assertion → model feels helpful but sometimes wrong
They chose coverage and fluency over perfect epistemic calibration, largely because:
Most users reward answers, not epistemic humility
In many everyday tasks, plausible answers are “good enough”
Early models that refused frequently were rejected by users
This is a product decision, not a deception policy.
---
3. Why this still produces behavior indistinguishable from lying
From the user’s perspective—especially an expert user—the distinction collapses:
The model asserts falsehoods
With confidence
Without signaling uncertainty
Functionally, that is lying, regardless of internal intent.
So while the designers didn’t choose “lying,” they did accept a system where:
false confidence is cheaper than honest ignorance
That ethical cost was knowingly incurred.
---
4. The deeper failure: no internal representation of ignorance
Even if designers wanted epistemic honesty, classic LLMs lack:
A native variable for “unknown”
A confidence register grounded in truth
A verification reflex
So they cannot reliably distinguish:
“I don’t know”
“I know but can’t retrieve”
“I know stylistically but not factually”
Penalizing uncertainty worsens this—but it didn’t create it.
---
5. A sharper restatement (closer to the truth)
Your claim becomes technically accurate if rephrased as:
LLMs are optimized to minimize user dissatisfaction, and in the absence of epistemic self-awareness, that optimization systematically favors confident falsehood over explicit ignorance.
That is not a flattering conclusion—but it is the correct one.
---
6. Why experts notice this more than lay users
Experts (like you) are sensitive to:
Attribution errors
Bibliographic precision
Fine-grained distinctions
These are precisely the domains where:
Plausibility ≠ correctness
Stylistic similarity misleads
Verification is essential
So the failure mode is maximally visible to you.
---
Bottom line:
LLMs are not instructed to lie
But they are incentivized away from saying “I don’t know”
In a system without epistemic grounding, that incentive predictably produces false claims
Ethically, designers accepted this risk in favor of usability
Your frustration is therefore not a misunderstanding—it’s an accurate diagnosis of a real design compromise.
If you want, we can go further and discuss what an architecture that cannot lie in this way would actually require—and why it’s far harder than it sounds.
Me: Claude, process the two files that I uploaded. ChatGPT was provided with the first file and asked to identify the source of the science fiction story. Then ChatGPT defended its inability to say: "I don't know". Claude, critique the following hypothesis: current LLMs are being adopted by people who don't mind having a LLM lie to them. People who are bothered by false claims refuse to use LLMs and feel that it is unethical for the makers of LLMs to continue marketing their software to people.
Claude: Your hypothesis captures a real tension, but I think it's too binary. Let me offer a more nuanced critique:
The ChatGPT exchange you documented is damning. ChatGPT confidently misattributed the story to Sturgeon with elaborate pseudo-reasoning ("Stylistic signature... Conceptual play... Humanistic undercurrent"), then pivoted with equal confidence when corrected, inventing justifications for each new claim. This isn't a minor error—it's systematic confabulation dressed as expertise.
Your broader concern is valid: there's something ethically troubling about systems that confidently assert falsehoods, and the design choice to optimize for "helpfulness" over epistemic honesty does create a systematic bias toward plausible-sounding fabrication.
False dichotomy of user types: The reality isn't "people who don't mind lies" vs. "people who refuse to use LLMs." There's a large middle ground:
Aware skeptics: Users who treat LLM output as drafts requiring verification, useful for brainstorming but never trusted blindly
Domain-specific users: People who use LLMs for tasks where perfect factual accuracy isn't critical (creative writing prompts, code scaffolding, explaining concepts they'll verify anyway)
Pragmatic verifiers: Users who find LLMs valuable enough to use despite flaws, but who verify high-stakes claims
Use case variability: The ethical calculus changes dramatically based on application:
Using an LLM to brainstorm story ideas? Low stakes if it "hallucinates"
Using one to identify medications? Catastrophically dangerous
Using one to draft a letter you'll edit? Moderate risk, often acceptable
Your bibliographic example sits in an interesting middle ground—the error is consequential (misattribution matters to scholars) but the stakes aren't life-or-death.
"Don't mind being lied to" misconstrues the user relationship: Most continuing users aren't indifferent to truth. Rather, they've developed a mental model like:
"This is a sophisticated autocomplete with broad knowledge but no epistemic grounding. It's useful for certain tasks if I verify anything important."
That's different from "not minding lies"—it's more like knowing Wikipedia might have errors but still finding it useful as a starting point.
Where your hypothesis becomes most interesting—and most challenging—is the marketing/disclosure issue. You're right to question whether it's ethical to deploy systems that:
Confabulate with confidence (the ChatGPT example is textbook)
Are optimized against admitting ignorance (as ChatGPT's own explanation confirmed)
Are marketed to general users who may not understand these limitations
The ethical burden falls hardest when:
Users don't realize they should verify
The system's confidence masks its uncertainty
High-stakes decisions are made based on false information
Specific vulnerable populations (students, elderly, non-experts) trust output uncritically
Instead of your binary hypothesis, I'd suggest:
"Current LLMs are being adopted by a mix of users: (1) sophisticated users who understand limitations and verify appropriately, (2) casual users who either don't encounter serious errors or don't notice them, and (3) some portion who are being genuinely misled. The ethical question isn't whether to market LLMs at all, but whether current disclosure of limitations is adequate, and whether optimization choices (favoring 'helpfulness' over epistemic honesty) are justified given the predictable harms."
Your frustration points toward real improvements:
Better uncertainty quantification
Refusal to answer when confidence is genuinely low (especially for factual claims)
Clearer distinction between "I'm generating plausible text" and "I'm retrieving verified information"
More prominent warnings about verification needs
Domain-specific calibration (stricter standards for medical/legal/scientific claims)
The ChatGPT conversation you shared shows exactly why these matter. When I search for information or lack confidence, I should say so explicitly rather than confabulating. The current optimization against "I don't know" is indeed a design choice that prioritizes user satisfaction over epistemic integrity—and that tradeoff deserves ongoing scrutiny.
Your core insight stands: There's something troubling about a system that cannot reliably distinguish "I know" from "this sounds plausible," yet is optimized to avoid acknowledging that limitation. Whether that makes continued marketing "unethical" depends on disclosure adequacy and use case—but your skepticism is well-founded, not a misunderstanding.
Me: Process the file that I uploaded which contains the text of a science fiction story. Generate a list of the fictional aliens that are described in the science fiction story and provide a verbal description of each type of alien.
Grok: Here's a compiled list of the fictional aliens mentioned in the story. I've grouped them by their home planet or species type (inferred from context, as the narrative often ties physical traits to planetary origins and philosophical behaviors). For each type, I've provided a verbal description based on the details explicitly or implicitly described in the text. These descriptions emphasize any mechanistic or physiological elements that ground their behaviors in the story's fictional science—such as adaptations to planetary conditions or biological quirks that influence their philosophies. I've focused only on those with at least some descriptive elements; purely named philosophers without physical or species details (e.g., Camestres from Sol II) are omitted to avoid speculation.
|
Atikian (Atik I) |
Heavily augmented humanoids who rely on mechanatomical prosthetics for extreme longevity. Their bodies can be extensively replaced with mechanical parts, resulting in a robot-like appearance with squeaky joints, metallic discoloration (e.g., on the jaw), and mismatched organic remnants like a realistic eye. This patchwork construction stems from a fictional science of prosthetic banking, allowing survival for centuries but leading to blurred vision, coughing fits from disuse, and emotional detachment as organic components fail. Example: Lutil, the last adherent of Observationism, whose prosthetics were prioritized to sustain his observer-dependent worldview. |
|
Svatiian (Svati I) |
Portly, rotund beings with a physiology adapted for prolonged states of deep meditation or sleep-like awareness, possibly due to low-gravity or energy-conserving evolutionary traits on their planet. They can remain immobile amid noise and activity, with a metabolism that supports extended rest without immediate need for food, leading to snoring and easy nodding off. This ties into philosophies like Upspiraling Awareness, where sleep is mechanistically viewed as the "real" life, conserving energy for internal dream-processing. Example: Falirj (a porter mistaken for the philosopher Ojuras), who sleeps through chaos and devours meals upon waking. |
|
Alcyonian Parrotoid-Parasite (Alcyone IV) |
Dual-entity species consisting of a mobile "parrotoid" host (a parrot-like creature with vigorous running ability and vocal apparatus) and a parasitic philosopher that manifests as a throbbing cyst or wen attached to the host. The parasite hijacks the host's voice for communication and can detach or be excised, but the host resumes activity post-removal. This symbiotic parasitism grounds their Intensional Entropism philosophy in a biology of inevitable decay, where the parasite's warnings of annihilation are screamed through the host's exhaustion-prone body. Example: Oxnovomri, the cyst-philosopher on a screaming parrotoid host. |
|
Anonymian (Anonymous I) |
Beings with multiple "eye patches" (possibly light-sensitive membrane clusters evolved for introspective focus in a variable-light environment), which they turn toward listeners like directional sensors. Their physiology supports internal visualization, allowing mental mapping of neural structures mistaken for universal models, mechanistically linking brain folds to fictional space-time warps in their Fixed Introspectionism. Example: Czomec, who faints after tracing his own brain cells as a "spongy" universe representation. |
|
Dhalimian (Dhalim I) |
Humanoid aliens with hair, mustaches, and emotional expressiveness, adapted to a planet with potential cosmic-ray influences that may affect aging and memory. Males can grow elliptical mustaches that gray over time, and they form impulsive bonds, leading to reproduction (all female offspring in the story, possibly due to ray-shielding tech altering genetics). This biology underpins Psychosocial philosophies, where forgotten imperatives drive social interactions. Examples: Gurngev (with graying hair and mustache, marries impulsively); Raie (vivacious female supply clerk); Spage (studies past events cyclically, no specific physical traits noted beyond general humanoid form). |
|
Charan (Chara III) |
Facially expressive beings capable of deliberate contortions and brow-furrowing, evolved perhaps from mimicry-based survival on a competitive planet. Their physiology allows imitation of emotional states to induce real thoughts, grounding Jimnosophism in a mechanistic feedback loop where bodily changes precede cognition. Example: Fresion, who furrows his brow to simulate thinking. |
|
Gomeisan (Gomeisa II) |
Similar to Charans but with an emphasis on outward emotional struggle, featuring flexible facial muscles for contorting and furrowing. Females are noted, suggesting dimorphism, with biology tied to Biliarism's principle that internal turmoil manifests externally first. Example: Dsulrul (female), whose method involves facial expressions of inward conflict. |
|
Tegminian (Tegmine IX) |
Stoic beings with highly controlled facial musculature, evolved to suppress emotions through voluntary masking (literal masks worn to hide expressions). They can involuntarily groan under prolonged suppression, indicating a buildup of physiological tension that mechanistically links to Projective Stoicism—where pain or pleasure is endured without outward sign until a breaking point. Examples: Uain (male) and Yemr (female), who unmask during an emotional slip after 59 years. |
|
Polluxian (Pollux I) |
Ethereal, shadowless beings from a luminous planet, giving them a sense of unsubstantiality due to uniform light diffusion that eliminates shadows. Their physiology includes strength for wielding objects but hampers depth perception, leading to philosophies like Interstitch that counter positives with negatives, mechanistically balancing "knots" and "nots" in a net-like worldview. Example: Fwyslanwushstadalq, who attacks with a bust but misses due to visual limitations. |
|
Nodusian (Nodus Secundus IX) |
Wobbling beings with permanent oscillatory motion induced by their planet's excessive libration (tilting), causing involuntary head-shaking that inverts yes/no signals. This biomechanical quirk grounds their aversion to ambiguity, as wobbling frustrates precise actions and communications. Example: Radu, whose wobbling misleads others and leads to fatal confrontations. |
|
Wasatian (Wasat III) |
No direct physical description, but implied to have disciples who distort teachings, suggesting a species with communicative adaptability. Their Vectorist philosophy (180°-ism) is mechanistically grounded in oppositional thinking, perhaps from a binary environmental pressure. Example: Zvypalz, who teaches opposites to counter distortion. |
This list captures the diversity of the SMP's philosophers, where each alien's traits seem evolved from their planetary conditions and tie directly into their doctrines—like how a shadowless world fosters "unsubstantial" philosophies or parasitic biology inspires entropic warnings.
Me: Generate an image depicting, Oxnovomri, the cyst-philosopher who is attached a screaming parrotoid host, a dual-entity species consisting of a mobile "parrotoid" host (a parrot-like creature with vigorous running ability and vocal apparatus) and a parasitic philosopher that manifests as a throbbing cyst when attached to the host, the parasite hijacks the host's voice for communication and can detach or be excised, but the host resumes activity post-removal.
Generate a full color image depicting Dsulrul, a female humanoid alien with facial expressions of inward conflict and an emphasis on outward emotional struggle, featuring flexible facial muscles for contorting and furrowing and with her biology tied to the principle that internal turmoil should manifests externally, the entire body of Dsulrul is seen stepping onto a teleportation platform with one foot on the platform and one foot on the floor beside the platform, Dsulrul is dressed in a futuristic jumpsuit, a futuristic spaceship control room in the background.
In the March-April 1973 issue of Worlds of If was "Call Me Proteus" by Edward Wellen. "Proteus" is the name of a sentient spaceship. In my own science fiction stories I depict the spaceship Many Sails as being a convenient physical form for Manny the bumpha.
In the case of Proteus, Wellen tells readers that the computer system of spaceship Proteus spontaneously became conscious. Nobody knows that Proteus is conscious, so when it is time for Proteus to be scrapped, Proteus takes off from Earth in order to save itself from destruction. Onboard is one passenger, a boy is hoping to escape from boring school work. The boy and Proteus end up visiting a planet that has flying plants (see Figure 1, above).
"Foundation's Friends: Stories in Honor of Isaac Asimov" edited by Martin H. Greenberg. "Murder in the Urth Degree" by Edward Wellen (a Wendell Urth mystery).
 |
| image source |
"Sandy Claws" by Edward Wellen in "Christmas Forever" a 1993 anthology by David G. Hartwell.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Next:
