lpetrich

On a table in my apartment is a computer that is connected to two monitors, a keyboard, and a mouse, among others. I've thought of an amusing thought experiment: what would this computer look like to people of past centuries?

Someone from some "primitive" tribe would consider it something odd, and might even become convinced that the writing on its keyboard is for the purpose of sorcery. The logo on the side of the CPU box would be especially puzzling -- a blue fruit with a bite taken out of it. Some sorcery for producing abundant pickings of fruit?

Even the friendly neighborhood shaman / witch doctor / medicine man/woman would be unable to puzzle it out.

Advancing to ancient Greece, some literate person might guess that the keyboard has writing on it, and would find some of the letters familiar-looking, but would find it difficult to proceed beyond there. Someone in ancient Rome would find most of the letters familiar-looking, but would find the words untelligible.

Moving forward to modern times, some gentleman scientist of early modern times might guess that the keyboard has a function similar to a musical-instrument keyboard (organ, harpsichord, piano), and an English-speaking one would be able to understand the words but would be puzzled over what they refer to: "print screen", "scroll lock", "page up", "page down", "enter", "return", "delete", "shift", "option", "control", "tab", "caps lock", "clear", ...

As typewriters became common in the late 19th century, the keyboard would quickly be identified as being typewriterlike, but without rollers for the paper, key hammers to hit it with, or a place for the ink ribbon.

And as electrical appliances became common in the 20th century, the cables and sockets would quickly suggest that the various parts are some odd electrical appliances, including a detachable keyboard for an electric typewriter -- but where is the rest of that typewriter?

As TV's became common in the 1950's, the monitors would easily be identified as TV's -- but without any channel-selector knobs!

Someone willing to look inside would guess that the CPU box was some electronic appliance -- but one without vacuum tubes and with several of its electronic components being in black boxes with labels on them and many connectors coming out of them.

But someone in the late 1950's, when transistors were becoming better-known might guess that the makers of this appliance had been able to squeeze lots of transistors into these little black boxes.

And even as computers became better-known and more common in the 1960's and 1970's, someone familiar with computers might mistake my setup for a fancy terminal setup for communicating with some mainframe somewhere, as was common back then and into the 1980's.

But someone familar with minicomputers like DEC's in the 1960's and 1970's, and workstations like Sun's in the 1980's would guess correctly that that box is a computer, and someone familiar with late-1970's microcomputers would guess that Apple is still in business, though with a somewhat different corporate personality, and that I have an Apple V or X or XX or whatever. And only someone familiar with microcomputers or workstations would likely be able to guess what the mouse is for.

And as to the subject of recognizing what to do when one starts it, only people with computer experience over the last decade and a half are likely to have any clue as to what to do; this dating is from when Apple introduced its line of Macintosh all-GUI computers (yes, I know about Xerox, but that company fumbled away its computer future). Before then, command lines were essentially universal (have any of you ever used a command-line text editor? I have). And a user of these would find it perplexing that it does not produce any scrolling startup messages or a command prompt -- just some pictures and some text labels.

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

phaedrus

Your point being that when human beings encounter technology from the future (without the benefit of incremental learning of the past years), they are unlikely to figure out how it works?

Now that is out-of-the-box thinking alright

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: phaedrus ]</p>

elwoodblues

If you want to understate things to an incredible degree, sure. But it's a lot more than that.

They wouldn't be able to distinguish it from magic. I think Heinlein said something to that effect.

phaedrus

Am just in one of my sarcy moods...my point being whats the point in pointing out the obvious?

Btw, future/alien technology has been used as an argument in naturalism debates....The main question being - what do you define as "natural" and "magic" ?

Marduk

"They wouldn't be able to distinguish it from magic. I think Heinlein said something to that effect."

It was Author C. Clarke of 2001 fame.

"When a less advanced species encounters a more advanced one, the tecnology of the latter will always seem like magic to the former" or something to that effect.


Why does the term 'flaming chariot' come to mind? hmmmm

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: marduck ]</p>

ohwilleke

Suppose our ancient human observes modern human use the computer for five or ten minutes, however. I think that any human familiar with writing could get a pretty good clue about what this machine does. This situation is present in Kate Elliot's book "Law of Becoming" where the main character Tess, has smuggled secret computing technology onto a world of primative humans (among them her husband). Her adoptive sister discovers her using a computer and quickly masters the concept.

Morat

I'm not so sure that's entirely true anymore. If a scientist saw something he couldn't explain, he'd start digging. He wouldn't assume magic.

If we found an alien artifact that could float in midair, you'd have a host of scientists aiming everything they could find in it's general direction.

Sooner or later, they'd try to open it. But regardless, they'd assumed "advanced technology" and not "magic".

Of course, it's quite possible (and probably very likely) that we'd never work out why it worked, or even the full range of what it did. Or perhaps any of it's functions.

Veil of Fire

The ironic thing is, in 2000 years or so, the hyper-advanced civilization that follows us will look at this device, with its strange lettering and odd symbolism. They'll probably determine it was a device from which our quaint sorcery superstitions revolved around.

Thus, full circle.

wordsmyth

What will computers look like in 2000 years. Will they simply be microchips implanted into the human brain? Will we even have a need for computers in 2000 years?

If you consider how much we have advanced technologically in the last 50 years alone, the technology of the distant future(2000 years) would seem almost magical. Almost.

fando

And he backpedaled in 3001 by saying that far future technology (1000 years from now) won't be as mysterious to us as technology now would be mysterious to ancient peoples (1000 years ago).
His point being that our tech might seem like magic to an Ancient Egyptian, but the inertial drives of the future won't puzzle a present day Physicist, provided there's some communication to explain stuff.