Philosophy Now Forum

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:00 pm Commonsense

N, You seem to be describing the PC path to human evolution. The belief that objective human meaning and purpose originates with a conscious source will be replaced by programming singularity in the belief that human meaning and purpose originates with the Great Beast and Man is now evolved to serve the Great Beast as programmed. No more love of wisdom. It will be programmed common knowledge so there is nothing to love. Evolved Man will be programmed what and how to love.

C. PC or not, this is the path for humanity going forward. I wonder, do you think we should curse this path or praise it?

What good will it do to curse it out? Why not recognize it for what it is and if I am right, collective humanity will lose by it?

I believe in conscious evolution for Man. Conscious evolution is the conscious return to the conscious essence of humanity. Plato’s cave analogy is the best description I’ve read on what prevents the normal process of conscious evolution.

Man is dual natured. Man has a lower animal part arising from the earth along with the rest of animal life. Man also has a higher part which devolved from above and what enables human consciousness.

The danger of singularity for man is that first it creates better shadows on the wall distracting humanity from its objective purpose. Secondly it creates the ability to destroy the potential in the brain for conscious discrimination in the cause of singularity. In other words it can destroy the developing intuitive mind in favor of developing the linear literal mind to achieve linear societal progress.

Even though society may lose the ability to serve its conscious purpose for connecting to its source the advantage goes to the individual. A minority will become more aware of what is being lost to the celebration of robotic Man. They won’t want it to happen to them and will seek to join with others to pursue conscious evolution and human freedom from the celebration and confines of Plato’s cave. Strangely where society may suffer, individuals may gain.

The robotic man has the potential for unlimited knowledge. It lacks a human perspective or what is required to enable machines to serve Man rather than Man serving machines. Simply put; a machine is incapable of a conscious perspective.

This is why I didn't start completely ignoring you long ago. On rare occasions you almost make sense.

I know what you are saying here and even somewhat relate. However, this is what happens. With every emergence, great things come into being but always something beautiful is lost. Growing pain. For instance, we must grow up and that generally costs us the charm of innocence, and generally a fair bit of sweetness, softness and creativity is lost on the road from childhood to adulthood because adult responsibilities effectively force the issue. The move from tribal life in approximate harmony with nature to what we call civilisation also demanded losses with the gains.

As with anyone growing up, you try to hang onto as much creativity and sweetness as you can, but ultimately accept some losses as payment for the gains of adulthood - the ability to survive, be secure, raise a family, work and actualise.

Greta wrote: ↑Tue Jul 24, 2018 12:30 am It’s already here. Look at what's going on around the world and think of what looks to be controllable by humans - not theoretically but realistically.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 1:52 pmRe the OP: "As more and more of a person’s internal workings are replaced by devices, at what point are we more robot than human?"

Greta wrote: ↑Tue Jul 24, 2018 12:30 am That is a VERY long way off. People often overestimate rate of change. In the 1950s it was anticipated that everyone would be in flying cars by the year 2000.

Greta, I have always trusted your ability to offer profound insights. I suspect the same is true here, but I’m unable to reconcile “already here” (in an early post) with “long way off”(more recently).

Are you drawing a distinction between the advent of the singularity and the technology needed to support it?

Or is it something else?

"As more and more of a person’s internal workings are replaced by devices, at what point are we more robot than human?"

I think a person would remain himself as long as as his brain (which seems to be the locus of 'mind', 'self', 'I'-ness) isn't monkeyed around with. So: Donovan is still human, still a person, still a free will (mightily disadvantaged, of course, since he's sans body). But: Harry Benson, brain studded with electrodes (designed to control epilepsy but malfunctioning and causing violent episodes), through no fault of his own, has been rendered a puppet of the machine in his head.

Really, folks: leave the goddamned brain alone unless it's absolutely neccessary to get up in all gray.

#

"If such people have access to all known knowledge, via Internet search, at what point can we say that a rudimentary singularity is in place?"

Having instant access to information doesn't translate into understanding that information.

I see a world of parrots barking facts at one another, not a one understanding diddly about squat.

Go read a book.

#

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technol ... ingularity

from the entry...

The technological singularity (also, simply, the singularity)[1] is the hypothesis that the invention of artificial superintelligence (ASI) will abruptly trigger runaway technological growth, resulting in unfathomable changes to human civilization.[2] According to this hypothesis, an upgradable intelligent agent (such as a computer running software-based artificial general intelligence) would enter a "runaway reaction" of self-improvement cycles, with each new and more intelligent generation appearing more and more rapidly, causing an intelligence explosion and resulting in a powerful superintelligence that would, qualitatively, far surpass all human intelligence.

Yep, I should worry about the bastard child of HAL and Skynet when we can't even figure out how 'I'-ness works.

Like John Searle sez (also from the entry)...

[Computers] have, literally ..., no intelligence, no motivation, no autonomy, and no agency. We design them to behave as if they had certain sorts of psychology, but there is no psychological reality to the corresponding processes or behavior. ... [T]he machinery has no beliefs, desires, [or] motivations.[29]

The Summit supercomputer (described as an AI) is still just an overpowered calculator.

In the unlikely event it becomes self-aware: pull the plug.

#

from the entry...

Non-AI singularity
Some writers use "the singularity" in a broader way to refer to any radical changes in our society brought about by new technologies such as molecular nanotechnology,[12][13][14] although Vinge and other writers specifically state that without superintelligence, such changes would not qualify as a true singularity.[5] Many writers also tie the singularity to observations of exponential growth in various technologies (with Moore's law being the most prominent example), using such observations as a basis for predicting that the singularity is likely to happen sometime within the 21st century.[13][15]

Absolutely, new technolgies can be a huge kick in the keister, trashing the status quo, but this isn't 'singularity'.

Nobody had a clue a device developed to detect methane in mining tunnels (a mechanical budgie) would lead to the spark plug, or how the spark plug would be integral to the automobile. World-changing technology, yep. The stuff of transhuman fantasy, nope.

Progress is mighty; singularity is bullshit

Humankind will be the object of the PETA of the day.

Actually, that's one legit, dystopic, defintion.

That is: AI as hive mind (us, figuratively/technologically sewn together ass-to-mouth).

Wet dream of communitarians everywhere.

Nah...just pull the friggin' plug...flick the switch to 'off'...run a magnet over the hard drive.

commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jul 24, 2018 1:48 am

Greta wrote: ↑Tue Jul 24, 2018 12:30 am It’s already here. Look at what's going on around the world and think of what looks to be controllable by humans - not theoretically but realistically.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 1:52 pmRe the OP: "As more and more of a person’s internal workings are replaced by devices, at what point are we more robot than human?"

Greta wrote: ↑Tue Jul 24, 2018 12:30 am That is a VERY long way off. People often overestimate rate of change. In the 1950s it was anticipated that everyone would be in flying cars by the year 2000.

Greta, I have always trusted your ability to offer profound insights. I suspect the same is true here, but I’m unable to reconcile “already here” (in an early post) with “long way off”(more recently).

Are you drawing a distinction between the advent of the singularity and the technology needed to support it?

Or is it something else?

Thanks CS. I didn't make myself clear. Your guess is close, possibly more complex than my conception.

I was thinking of corporate machinery v regular machinery. The corporate machinery has taken on a life of its own and run out of our control. Corporate creations, augmented by powerful tech, are far beyond the capability of individuals or smaller incorporated entities. I first had the realisation of what have been clear to me earlier when I noticed that individuals pay a lot of the taxes but by far the most representation goes to institutions over individuals.

The logic is that institutions represent many people, plus their broad connections - shareholders, customers, the board, executive and employees, other businesses and perhaps infrastructure roles via privatisation. The upshot is that politicians have precious little choice but to pander to corporations because they are so deeply embedded in our way of life. It's a stitch up and the only way out is to cause incredible amounts of damage, death and suffering, perhaps for naught if regression to simpler lifestyles ends up being the more destructive path.

By contrast with the institutional takeover above, the idea of a person being cyborg enough to cast doubt on their humanity is not really the singularity. I guess in a pretty distant future that might become its own kind of singularity - the addition of enough robot bits until Robbie is really Robbie the Robot!

I figure that's a long way off. Until getting pain free robot feet without tremendous risk and pain is possible, true cyborgs will be a long way off, at least physically.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:00 pm Simply put; a machine is incapable of a conscious perspective.

Simply put, there is no way you or anyone, no matter how advanced in the subject, could know for certain at THIS point in time.

Consciousness itself is a quandary which remains unresolved. If machines, as you put it, (we too are machines but of a different kind) ever achieve consciousness it's not unreasonable to speculate that we would THEN have a far greater understanding of how it emerged in us.