Coincidentally, I have just in the last few weeks put up a webpage explaining my thoughts about autism as the trait list of a potential new species. Homo solus, solitary man.
The human variant that I think is nearly ready for consideration as a new species is still too diverse, but the generalizations that can be made about them are highly suggestive. On average, in gross over-generalization, this group...
has a larger skull size than the typical form;
achieves its maximum skull size a full decade before the typical human skull does;
differs not just in skull size but also in brain organization, showing changes in several brain structures;
responds differently (usually over-sensitive) to all manner of physical stimuli: sound, texture, light, odor, taste;
adheres to unusual dietary standards, sometimes with profound alteration in diet necessary to accomodate healthy digestion;
shows an unusual social instinct, actively avoiding crowds and seeking isolated or sequestered environments;
rarely displays command of deceptive behavior, instead the individuals often use a single standard for all social engagements (frequently ignoring protocols of social strata or personal boundary);
sometimes displays assortative mating, with parents possessing less-exaggerated qualities producing children of more pronounced qualities;
possesses epigentic differences spanning many chromosomes and sites; and
possesses genetic differences spanning many chromosomes and sites.
If we were talking about some animal other than humans, wouldn't all of these changes (the behavioral and skeletal and biological all taken together) suggest a new species? So when we talk about humans, why suddenly change standards? I think it's time to stop talking of autism as defect but instead as prospective evolutionary path.
A change in fitness criteria does, however, fit into my theory that autism is an "old" evolutionary experiment returned for a new trial run. A physically crowded, memetically crowded human environment might benefit in the long term from an autistic mind. Traits might be useful in that environment that were not so well valued in a sparsely populated, low-technology environment. So what if it takes even longer to produce a well-functioning adult? Humans already officially claim an 18-to-21-year delay in producing adults already, longer than any other animal I know of, at any physical size or social temperament. Perhaps additional complexity requires additional development time, "postpartum". http://home.earthlink.net/~mellowtigger/evolution.html
I, for one, do see evolution in action. Assortative mating can account for a lot, especially in a world where individuals have opportunity to mate with people in far-removed geographic regions. No, I don't mean silly things like "Gentlemen prefer blondes" or various affinities for certain skin colors. I mean issues of personality, temperament, and intellectual interest. Social reality today is enormously different from what it was just 3000 years ago.
Don't discount chemical changes in the environment either. We've certainly changed it a lot in the last few millenia.
Yes. Yes, I am proud of my code, even some of the awful stuff when I consider the circumstances in which it was written.
I think that part of the problem these days (rather than part of the solution that it is touted to be) is analysis. Some of the best work I've ever done had minimal analysis. It was the result of hand-drawn scribbles from a customer (internal, Billing Department honcho) discussed during an informal talk about the project. Data/timing issues and customer must-haves were thought out (and scribbled by me on my own notepad). "Unprofessional", by most any standard. But it was a very reliable system for years, and it was internally documented to perfection. Customer kept their own copy of the descriptions they created (and understood), and programmer (me) kept his own copy of the descriptions in the code commentary itself. Meshing the two interpretations was the responsibility of the PEOPLE involved, not the documentation PROCESS. Any last-minute show-stoppers were avoided by occasionally showcasing the test environment to the customer prior to final q/a exams.
<soapbox> After nearly two decades in the tech business, I still do NOT understand why "documentation" (the usual kind) is considered a helpful tool. That stuff is written in legalese that is not the first language of EITHER the programmer OR the customer. How could it benefit anyone to write/read specifications in a foreign language? It would be like insisting that customers write out their specs in COBOL (more English-like than most doc formats I've seen). It makes no sense to me.
I'm of the opinion that customers should be responsible for writing out the test scenarios that they want to use for verifying the product. They do their own quality assurance, in other words. It's up to the programmer to create a system that fits those tests. Customers write out their test scenarios In Their Own Language that they're comfortable with. Programmers are smart folk, by and large. What they can't understand immediately, they're inquisitive enough to ask someone to explain it to them. Everyone knows up front that if something doesn't work, it's the programmer's fault. For not asking the right questions, for not examining the right interfaces, for not doing proper module testing, for all of it. (Well, short of actually writing the final test scenarios, which is the responsibility of the people knowledgeable about the process being automated. That's not the programmer.)
It was a great system that worked wonderfully for both me and my customers. It produced what I still think is good code.
On the other hand, when that same environment went ISO certified, it all came screeching to a halt. Massive delays, useless finger-pointing over documentation errors, people involved who had no understanding of either programming or the process being automated. In essence, legalization of the creative process... introducing mandatory opposition where there had previously been cooperation. Just like a legal court, the PROCESS is designed so that BLAME (codeword: "responsibility") can be determined with certainty. No creative process should have to endure such insult. </soapbox>
No, wait...
<soapbox> It's incredible that anyone would think documentation could answer the question, "How long will it take you to do something that you've never done before." Yet the entire industry still seems bent on producing these estimates that are, as a rule, wrong. </soapbox>
What is PDF (as an ISO standard) supposed to accomplish? Wasn't HTML created specifically as a document sharing protocol? I think it's pretty good stuff. Why not use HTML? The fact that PDF is read-only annoys me to no end. There are always clips of documents that I want to save/remember. I can quickly edit a saved HTML file to remove images or pages that I don't want on my hard drive taking up space. And this new standard... does it allow the new ads in PDF that I've been hearing about? *shudder*
Most helium in the crust has escaped to space. Are you sure? Could you point me to a source that can elaborate on this idea? According to my calculations (which could very easily be wrong), http://home.earthlink.net/~mellowtigger/atmosphere.html, only atomic and molecular Hydrogen reach sufficient speed to escape the planet. Of course, there's always the oddball collision to boost "over the top" an occasional atom of anything, but I would think that much of the Helium created by decay would still be roaming our atmosphere. Yes, please, sources of more information for my education (and entertainment) would be nice.
Where'd you hear that nonsense? Much ado has been made recently over realizations that these "rights" you mention are indeed quite alienable. Our president has removed quite a few of these "rights" from human beings. There's nothing special about human "birthright" after all, it turns out.
Now, I don't know the specifics of the I35 bridge, but I do know that for years I drove over a much smaller bridge that had chunks of concrete falling out all over the place (the side of the road was littered with rubble) and the exposed rebar was all rusted out. Many times while driving over it, I wondered what the experience would be like if the bridge just gave out while I was on it. Shortly before I moved to a different part of the metro area, engineers completely tore down the bridge and built a new one.
There are lots of bridges with similar problems, I'm sure. This one case was caught before it collapsed on its own, but it was no surprise to me at all to hear about the I35 bridge. I would suspect that the large amounts of salt used up here to clear the roads of ice during the long winter is part of the reason for the poor structural conditions.
(I was talking about the East Bush Lake Road bridge over 494, for other locals that are curious.)
I think that causality will be preserved, even if the effect occurs prior to the cause.
Consider: Researcher prepares to activate device, but researcher views results first. He already plans to perform an action (activate or not activate) in a way designed to contradict the results. He views the results, then takes the appropriate contradictory action. He succeeds in contradicting the theory. What does he prove? Not much, I think. How do you prove that the experiment was successful in sending an appropriate signal rather than it showing some false signal based upon noise or some other failure? In other words, how do you backtrack (forward-track?) the results to determine that the point of failure was actually the researcher's decision rather than some other mechanical issue?
Far more interesting would be an experiment in which a random number generator is in control of the device activation. Perform a long series of tests. Review the results afterwards. Does the activation always match with the pre-recorded results? Now that would be interesting. It still seems impossible to "backtrack" and prove no mechanical errors, but it would be possible to compile statistically important results this way.
"Fact: Humans produce CO2 by burning fossil fuels (and exhaling)"
(quibble) Inhaling O2 (and ingesting C from food) into our bodies then exhaling CO2 does not mean "produce" exactly. All three molecules are in constant "play" on the thin film of biologically active surface for our planet. Life happens, and the ratio of these molecules shifts back and forth in something that seems like equilibrium for timeframes relevant to, say, the recorded history of humans.
Injecting O2 (and extracting C from sources buried over geologic timescales) into engines then expelling CO2 means introducing new material that had long been removed from the equation. That process is more akin to "produce" in the sense that I normally get from that word.
"Your not one of those people that think 911 is just a convient way to help you for any ol' thing, are you? I hope not, I hate those people."
Actually, you are supposed to dial 911 for lots of non-emergency issues. I didn't know that either, so I'll related to you the story that taught me this bit of information.
About 1 month ago there was an injured duck in the road just a few blocks from where I work. The duck was very much alive, with 2 broken feet, flapping wildly trying to move. I called the local animal shelter, but they said to call the police. I called the police, but they said to call 911 so that a dispatch could be made.
*big ignorant shrug* I called 911 and reported the duck. I felt like an idiot while doing it, but it's what the police told me to do.
"would the artist/director/musician have any incentive to pour his time and money into a project?"
I've seen this kind of question many times. It seems to me that it assumes two premises: 1) that it would be impossible to financially reward innovation without these legal barriers to copying, and 2) that all innovation would immediate stop without financial reward.
I know enough about creative people to state without hesitation that they will continue creating without regard to profit. (It's a very wonderful thing to simultaneously have a talent and a desire to use it.)
I am hopeful that electronic networking can now replace business infrastructure for getting "idea" people in touch with "implementation" people. I don't know enough about economics to know if it is a sustainable system over long duration. I think we're heading that direction anyway, so I'm willing to try it with all the creative insight we can muster.
I notice from biology that 1) innovation (genetic speciation) occurs because new iterations are created continuously and they are all variations on a previous working blueprint, and 2) if the rate of mutation is too high then the species is unlikely to retain a stable core definition. Biological evolution found some kind of successful compromise between these two opposing forces (variation is necessary, but stability is good too). I don't know what the economic equivalent would be.
I suppose it's good that the rest of you will get to benefit from this technology. It really sounds impressive. Meanwhile, my 28-workhours-per-week technical-support body will just have to cope with herbal therapies when my cells start going haywire.
You site irrelevant documents. Don't you remember this president's first year of office? He has a knack for simply dismissing old warfare treaties that don't suit his interest.
If physics, chemistry, etc. still all work as expected, how is origin so critical?
Continuity. A valid theory should be able to predict both the future and the past. If any observation contradicts the theorized condition (future or past), then the theory must be reconsidered. Even if entropy leads to an ill-defined "end point" in the continuous activity, there is often a well-defined "start point" in the past. So the origin is a time of interest in the long continuity of predicted events.
WoW gives all characters of a certain class the same general capabilities, whereas Diablo 2 characters have no starting skills. For example, every WoW mage learns pretty much the same (with minor exceptions) damage spells. In contrast, every D2 sorceress starts with a blank slate, so exploring in one element talent tree meant sacrificing maximum skill in another talent tree.
Was this an intentional simplification to help ease the process of balancing classes? What do you think of the results?
As a former player (60 Frost Mage), I disliked the generic character that resulted from this "common base" method. Do you have any plans to enhance role development options in WoW?
"Assault someone because they're wearing yellow or very nearly any other stupid reason in the world, and it's assault."
I agree. The victim had the misfortune to wear the clothing (which can be avoided) or be at the location (which can be avoided) or carry the money (which can be avoided) that made them temporarily a target of a criminal.
Contrast that situation with one in which the "fault" of the victim is that of simply existing... and having the wrong gender, or the wrong faith, or the wrong sexual orientation, or the wrong skin color. These features are not avoidable. A criminal who targets someone based on these inherent qualities induces a fear (I hesitate to call it terroristic) in the subject because of the certainty that the attack can never be avoided by "doing the right things". A person can do nothing to avoid being "victim" to someone who attacks based on these motives.
Attacks based on motives of type-hatred are different from attacks based on motives of greed or other kinds of territoriality. Different motives require different names ("hate crime") and different deterrants. The motive is an essential piece in understanding any crime. Motive can make the difference between murder and manslaughter. It also distinguishes hate crimes.
Having the thought is no crime. Using the thought to perpetrate harm is a crime... and it is different from causing harm based on other motives. We should ask a victim if it's different. (Theft-attack versus hatecrime-attack.) Do you think the difference in motivation has no effect on the target?
A reasonable interpretation, but I still think it is your preconception guiding it. "Fruit departing" is not "being born". (You seem to be arguing that it is, but I remain unconvinced.) The King James Translation that I reference has clear language for "being born". The language in these verses is different. The only difference I can think of is an aborted pregnancy versus a live birth.
Back then, the man was thought to be the 100% donor of life matter "seed" that needed to be planted in the fertile field of the mother's body in order to develop into "fruit". (Hence the rules about not masturbating and wasting life material by spilling it on the ground instead of where it could grow to become a person. Incidentally, although a crime, it is once again not murder even though it was loss of a potential person.) Not having terminology like gamete, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus means that we're stuck with archaic terms like "seed" and "fruit" instead. Since that "fruit" would be leaving her body anyway, can forcing it out be considered harming her the same way as forcing her to lose some other part of herself? Remember again, this is about a pregnant woman being injured while two men are fighting so that two different kinds of injury to her are possible. This situation is unlike what happens if any other person were to be the third-party who is injured. Unlike everyone else, she can lose parts of her body in an accident yet remain "whole" in herself.
Hence the two-pronged solution in these verses. Causing her to abort the baby (but no further damage to the mother) is considered a property damage to her, claimable by her husband. If, in contrast, she loses parts of her body that she needs for her own survival (tooth, eye, limb, life), then other penalties apply.
These verses make the distinction between parts of the woman's body that are necessary for herself and parts of her that are not. (echoes of the "parasite" discussion also taking place in these threads).
As for knowing someone, knowing them means that they are alive, not that they are a person. I know my cat better than I know most people. Her "knowability" does not make her a person, just like it does not make a fetus into a person. (I accept that it does, poetically, do exactly that. If it grants legal personhood, however, then I expect you to argue that some animals have these rights just like a fetus does.) Back to topic, though, I still think that these Exodus verses support that distinction between simply being alive versus being "a person" with legal rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Yay! Another amazing medical treatment that I can't ever afford.
A change in fitness criteria does, however, fit into my theory that autism is an "old" evolutionary experiment returned for a new trial run. A physically crowded, memetically crowded human environment might benefit in the long term from an autistic mind. Traits might be useful in that environment that were not so well valued in a sparsely populated, low-technology environment. So what if it takes even longer to produce a well-functioning adult? Humans already officially claim an 18-to-21-year delay in producing adults already, longer than any other animal I know of, at any physical size or social temperament. Perhaps additional complexity requires additional development time, "postpartum".
http://home.earthlink.net/~mellowtigger/evolution.html
Yeah, I've noticed that American government cares a lot about "legal" these days.
Where are the mice with UV-emitting noses?
I, for one, do see evolution in action. Assortative mating can account for a lot, especially in a world where individuals have opportunity to mate with people in far-removed geographic regions. No, I don't mean silly things like "Gentlemen prefer blondes" or various affinities for certain skin colors. I mean issues of personality, temperament, and intellectual interest. Social reality today is enormously different from what it was just 3000 years ago.
Don't discount chemical changes in the environment either. We've certainly changed it a lot in the last few millenia.
If you enjoy reading quack theories for their amusement value, I posted my own thoughts about autism and evolution earlier today.
http://home.earthlink.net/~mellowtigger/evolution.html
Yes. Yes, I am proud of my code, even some of the awful stuff when I consider the circumstances in which it was written.
I think that part of the problem these days (rather than part of the solution that it is touted to be) is analysis. Some of the best work I've ever done had minimal analysis. It was the result of hand-drawn scribbles from a customer (internal, Billing Department honcho) discussed during an informal talk about the project. Data/timing issues and customer must-haves were thought out (and scribbled by me on my own notepad). "Unprofessional", by most any standard. But it was a very reliable system for years, and it was internally documented to perfection. Customer kept their own copy of the descriptions they created (and understood), and programmer (me) kept his own copy of the descriptions in the code commentary itself. Meshing the two interpretations was the responsibility of the PEOPLE involved, not the documentation PROCESS. Any last-minute show-stoppers were avoided by occasionally showcasing the test environment to the customer prior to final q/a exams.
<soapbox>
After nearly two decades in the tech business, I still do NOT understand why "documentation" (the usual kind) is considered a helpful tool. That stuff is written in legalese that is not the first language of EITHER the programmer OR the customer. How could it benefit anyone to write/read specifications in a foreign language? It would be like insisting that customers write out their specs in COBOL (more English-like than most doc formats I've seen). It makes no sense to me.
I'm of the opinion that customers should be responsible for writing out the test scenarios that they want to use for verifying the product. They do their own quality assurance, in other words. It's up to the programmer to create a system that fits those tests. Customers write out their test scenarios In Their Own Language that they're comfortable with. Programmers are smart folk, by and large. What they can't understand immediately, they're inquisitive enough to ask someone to explain it to them. Everyone knows up front that if something doesn't work, it's the programmer's fault. For not asking the right questions, for not examining the right interfaces, for not doing proper module testing, for all of it. (Well, short of actually writing the final test scenarios, which is the responsibility of the people knowledgeable about the process being automated. That's not the programmer.)
It was a great system that worked wonderfully for both me and my customers. It produced what I still think is good code.
On the other hand, when that same environment went ISO certified, it all came screeching to a halt. Massive delays, useless finger-pointing over documentation errors, people involved who had no understanding of either programming or the process being automated. In essence, legalization of the creative process... introducing mandatory opposition where there had previously been cooperation. Just like a legal court, the PROCESS is designed so that BLAME (codeword: "responsibility") can be determined with certainty. No creative process should have to endure such insult.
</soapbox>
No, wait...
<soapbox>
It's incredible that anyone would think documentation could answer the question, "How long will it take you to do something that you've never done before." Yet the entire industry still seems bent on producing these estimates that are, as a rule, wrong.
</soapbox>
What is PDF (as an ISO standard) supposed to accomplish? Wasn't HTML created specifically as a document sharing protocol? I think it's pretty good stuff. Why not use HTML? The fact that PDF is read-only annoys me to no end. There are always clips of documents that I want to save/remember. I can quickly edit a saved HTML file to remove images or pages that I don't want on my hard drive taking up space. And this new standard... does it allow the new ads in PDF that I've been hearing about? *shudder*
Where'd you hear that nonsense? Much ado has been made recently over realizations that these "rights" you mention are indeed quite alienable. Our president has removed quite a few of these "rights" from human beings. There's nothing special about human "birthright" after all, it turns out.
Now, I don't know the specifics of the I35 bridge, but I do know that for years I drove over a much smaller bridge that had chunks of concrete falling out all over the place (the side of the road was littered with rubble) and the exposed rebar was all rusted out. Many times while driving over it, I wondered what the experience would be like if the bridge just gave out while I was on it. Shortly before I moved to a different part of the metro area, engineers completely tore down the bridge and built a new one.
There are lots of bridges with similar problems, I'm sure. This one case was caught before it collapsed on its own, but it was no surprise to me at all to hear about the I35 bridge. I would suspect that the large amounts of salt used up here to clear the roads of ice during the long winter is part of the reason for the poor structural conditions.
(I was talking about the East Bush Lake Road bridge over 494, for other locals that are curious.)
I think that causality will be preserved, even if the effect occurs prior to the cause.
Consider: Researcher prepares to activate device, but researcher views results first. He already plans to perform an action (activate or not activate) in a way designed to contradict the results. He views the results, then takes the appropriate contradictory action. He succeeds in contradicting the theory. What does he prove? Not much, I think. How do you prove that the experiment was successful in sending an appropriate signal rather than it showing some false signal based upon noise or some other failure? In other words, how do you backtrack (forward-track?) the results to determine that the point of failure was actually the researcher's decision rather than some other mechanical issue?
Far more interesting would be an experiment in which a random number generator is in control of the device activation. Perform a long series of tests. Review the results afterwards. Does the activation always match with the pre-recorded results? Now that would be interesting. It still seems impossible to "backtrack" and prove no mechanical errors, but it would be possible to compile statistically important results this way.
I contributed to that database, as did many other players. Where's our cut of the profit for the sale of our game data?
"Fact: Humans produce CO2 by burning fossil fuels (and exhaling)"
(quibble)
Inhaling O2 (and ingesting C from food) into our bodies then exhaling CO2 does not mean "produce" exactly. All three molecules are in constant "play" on the thin film of biologically active surface for our planet. Life happens, and the ratio of these molecules shifts back and forth in something that seems like equilibrium for timeframes relevant to, say, the recorded history of humans.
Injecting O2 (and extracting C from sources buried over geologic timescales) into engines then expelling CO2 means introducing new material that had long been removed from the equation. That process is more akin to "produce" in the sense that I normally get from that word.
"Your not one of those people that think 911 is just a convient way to help you for any ol' thing, are you? I hope not, I hate those people."
Actually, you are supposed to dial 911 for lots of non-emergency issues. I didn't know that either, so I'll related to you the story that taught me this bit of information.
About 1 month ago there was an injured duck in the road just a few blocks from where I work. The duck was very much alive, with 2 broken feet, flapping wildly trying to move. I called the local animal shelter, but they said to call the police. I called the police, but they said to call 911 so that a dispatch could be made.
*big ignorant shrug* I called 911 and reported the duck. I felt like an idiot while doing it, but it's what the police told me to do.
"would the artist/director/musician have any incentive to pour his time and money into a project?"
I've seen this kind of question many times. It seems to me that it assumes two premises: 1) that it would be impossible to financially reward innovation without these legal barriers to copying, and 2) that all innovation would immediate stop without financial reward.
I know enough about creative people to state without hesitation that they will continue creating without regard to profit. (It's a very wonderful thing to simultaneously have a talent and a desire to use it.)
I am hopeful that electronic networking can now replace business infrastructure for getting "idea" people in touch with "implementation" people. I don't know enough about economics to know if it is a sustainable system over long duration. I think we're heading that direction anyway, so I'm willing to try it with all the creative insight we can muster.
I notice from biology that 1) innovation (genetic speciation) occurs because new iterations are created continuously and they are all variations on a previous working blueprint, and 2) if the rate of mutation is too high then the species is unlikely to retain a stable core definition. Biological evolution found some kind of successful compromise between these two opposing forces (variation is necessary, but stability is good too). I don't know what the economic equivalent would be.
ZDnet uses url redirection in the links in its story. You know... the story that mentions url redirection as an unsafe practice.
I suppose it's good that the rest of you will get to benefit from this technology. It really sounds impressive. Meanwhile, my 28-workhours-per-week technical-support body will just have to cope with herbal therapies when my cells start going haywire.
oops. site=cite. my bad.
You site irrelevant documents. Don't you remember this president's first year of office? He has a knack for simply dismissing old warfare treaties that don't suit his interest.
If physics, chemistry, etc. still all work as expected, how is origin so critical?
Continuity. A valid theory should be able to predict both the future and the past. If any observation contradicts the theorized condition (future or past), then the theory must be reconsidered. Even if entropy leads to an ill-defined "end point" in the continuous activity, there is often a well-defined "start point" in the past. So the origin is a time of interest in the long continuity of predicted events.
WoW gives all characters of a certain class the same general capabilities, whereas Diablo 2 characters have no starting skills. For example, every WoW mage learns pretty much the same (with minor exceptions) damage spells. In contrast, every D2 sorceress starts with a blank slate, so exploring in one element talent tree meant sacrificing maximum skill in another talent tree. Was this an intentional simplification to help ease the process of balancing classes? What do you think of the results? As a former player (60 Frost Mage), I disliked the generic character that resulted from this "common base" method. Do you have any plans to enhance role development options in WoW?
"Assault someone because they're wearing yellow or very nearly any other stupid reason in the world, and it's assault."
I agree. The victim had the misfortune to wear the clothing (which can be avoided) or be at the location (which can be avoided) or carry the money (which can be avoided) that made them temporarily a target of a criminal.
Contrast that situation with one in which the "fault" of the victim is that of simply existing... and having the wrong gender, or the wrong faith, or the wrong sexual orientation, or the wrong skin color. These features are not avoidable. A criminal who targets someone based on these inherent qualities induces a fear (I hesitate to call it terroristic) in the subject because of the certainty that the attack can never be avoided by "doing the right things". A person can do nothing to avoid being "victim" to someone who attacks based on these motives.
Attacks based on motives of type-hatred are different from attacks based on motives of greed or other kinds of territoriality. Different motives require different names ("hate crime") and different deterrants. The motive is an essential piece in understanding any crime. Motive can make the difference between murder and manslaughter. It also distinguishes hate crimes.
Having the thought is no crime. Using the thought to perpetrate harm is a crime... and it is different from causing harm based on other motives. We should ask a victim if it's different. (Theft-attack versus hatecrime-attack.) Do you think the difference in motivation has no effect on the target?
Wrong planet. Europa orbits Jupiter. We're talking about Saturn and its moon Titan. Keep up.
A reasonable interpretation, but I still think it is your preconception guiding it. "Fruit departing" is not "being born". (You seem to be arguing that it is, but I remain unconvinced.) The King James Translation that I reference has clear language for "being born". The language in these verses is different. The only difference I can think of is an aborted pregnancy versus a live birth.
Back then, the man was thought to be the 100% donor of life matter "seed" that needed to be planted in the fertile field of the mother's body in order to develop into "fruit". (Hence the rules about not masturbating and wasting life material by spilling it on the ground instead of where it could grow to become a person. Incidentally, although a crime, it is once again not murder even though it was loss of a potential person.) Not having terminology like gamete, blastocyst, embryo, and fetus means that we're stuck with archaic terms like "seed" and "fruit" instead. Since that "fruit" would be leaving her body anyway, can forcing it out be considered harming her the same way as forcing her to lose some other part of herself? Remember again, this is about a pregnant woman being injured while two men are fighting so that two different kinds of injury to her are possible. This situation is unlike what happens if any other person were to be the third-party who is injured. Unlike everyone else, she can lose parts of her body in an accident yet remain "whole" in herself.
Hence the two-pronged solution in these verses. Causing her to abort the baby (but no further damage to the mother) is considered a property damage to her, claimable by her husband. If, in contrast, she loses parts of her body that she needs for her own survival (tooth, eye, limb, life), then other penalties apply.
These verses make the distinction between parts of the woman's body that are necessary for herself and parts of her that are not. (echoes of the "parasite" discussion also taking place in these threads).
As for knowing someone, knowing them means that they are alive, not that they are a person. I know my cat better than I know most people. Her "knowability" does not make her a person, just like it does not make a fetus into a person. (I accept that it does, poetically, do exactly that. If it grants legal personhood, however, then I expect you to argue that some animals have these rights just like a fetus does.) Back to topic, though, I still think that these Exodus verses support that distinction between simply being alive versus being "a person" with legal rights.