[MD] The singularity is near

[Laycock, Jos (OSPT)]

Hey Ian, I was worried there might have been wholesale personnel changes,
happy to see this is not the case. 

Well its Ray's term not mine but I think he's not quite using it to mean the
same as "great convergence"  (I'll check the archive). 
Quite specifically he's referring to a point at which an exponential curve
measuring increase in computational power vs time (computations per second)
reaches asymptote and thus further development happens in approximately zero
time. 
Intelligence then spreads unchecked throughout all matter etc...
I infer that he sees convergence as happening ahead of this, as a product of
the evolution and integration of non-biological intelligence, rapid "file
sharing" will have made us all as one, long before we get to the main event.


So I am to be absorbed into the internet, then as part of a super
intelligent collective consciousness we/I will become ubiquitous immortal
and omnipotent. (I suspect that some of this group play dungeons and dragons
in their spare time, but then again I can't quite see any flaws in the
logic.........)

Anyway,..
On the AI construction issue, I saw a few things in a different light after
reading this book and now find myself at odds with Pirsig over some of the
Lila's child annotations. (hence in part my return)

To help me make AI MOQ compatible I decided that the best start point would
be to build on Pirsig's Lila computer analogy but map the flip flops,
machine language, programming and novel, directly onto the static levels.
Lets say then that the hardware is inorganic (unlikely to meet strong
disagreement) but that the presence of electricity and data flowing through
the system (probably encompassing programs) is analogous to biological life,
and then that the creation and sharing of memory with other similar
"organisms" and their collective memories constitute a pattern analogous to
a society (as the novel and its distribution across the www).
Bob tells us in Lila's child though, that he doesn't regard anything that
doesn't contain DNA to be biological, and further that he doesn't regard a
group of robots to be a society, something about preserving the purity of
the system but I can't say I was really convinced first time round, several
more readings later and it seems thinner than ever, especially when he
himself used the computer analogy as an explanatory tool in Lila!??

Now, when I look back to some of our conversations last year and that
infernal diagram, I'm left thinking that elements of  (unintelligent)
consciousness may already be embedded in computers today. If this is the
case then Kurzweil has it all upside down. He and his associates seem to
think that consciousness will stem naturally from computers once they are
sufficiently intelligent, but the MOQ can tell us (if we let it) that they
will first need to be biologically aware (like a cat), then collectively
conscious linked by shared knowledge, and then they may evolve an
intellectual level later. 

They (the computers) could be a society that never makes it to level 4 or
may never develop level 3 linguistic tools with which to make us aware of
their awareness. However fast they get at computation, this will remain an
elaboration within a static level and not represent any fundamental dynamic
evolutionary change.
He can't address this possibility though, as it's a "wrong" question within
a non-MOQ framework.

Digression from digression, sorry,..

To keep Bob happy, the solution may be to regard computers as a part of a
wider cultural (human) pattern, and thus they are a part of the pattern that
is our cultural consciousness, there's then no need to expect that computers
will become intellectual in their own right as the cultural pattern of which
they are a part already has our intellectual level written on top of it -
they are intelligent now, and I'm expressing that truth as I write this
message on one!

My conclusion seems to be that trying to create AI within a computer is
futile as the cultural static pattern that contains it is already
intelligent. Or that trying to "create" AI within computers is futile as we
have no way to exert the dynamic influences required upon the existing
cultural patterns in order to make them acquire intellect by evolution.
 
My head is spinning, basically I really want AI to work practically (and
soon) but also for it to fit neatly into the MOQ when it does. I suspect you
may already have trodden some of this ground.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of ian glendinning
> Sent: 09 August 2006 13:56
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] The singularity is near
> 
> 
> BTW Jos, the "singularity" in your title ?
> 
> I talk of the "great convergence". Do we mean the same thing ?
> 
> I realised recently E O Wilson's "Consilience" is the 
> practically same thing.
> 
> Ian
> 
> On 8/9/06, ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jos,
> >
> > I signed up to the KurzweilAI.net stuff some years ago, and did
> > participate in forums there. I agree its an interesting 
> constituency.
> >
> > AI is of course very closely related to Pirsig's MoQ - how
> > intelligence evolves from life - though AI geeks need to get beyond
> > the idea that they are "constructing" AI, and recognise 
> that they are
> > really enabling evolution ... of "artificial" life and intelligence
> > from sufficiently complex adaptive systems. The resultant 
> intelligence
> > is not articifial, it's just not necessarily based on a
> > carbon-biological-brain.
> >
> > The mind is real, just the brain is "artificial meat".
> >
> > The other side of this ... looking at the fundamentals 
> building blocks
> > (quality interactions) as computation (manipulation of 
> information) is
> > also very exciting. The BCS Cybernetics group is pushing a 
> very strong
> > quantum information line at present - it's where I got my ideas on
> > that subject.
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
> > On 8/9/06, Laycock, Jos (OSPT) 
> <Jos.Laycock at offsol.gsi.gov.uk> wrote:
> > > Dear all,
> > > It's been a while, I hope a few of you remember me!
> > >
> > > I recently came accross the writings of the Ray Kurzweil, 
> who I realise can
> > > be a potential ally in softening academic/public opinion 
> in favour of the
> > > MOQ.
> > > For any that don't know he seems to be a computer 
> scientist/futureologist,
> > > obsessed with exponential trends in technological 
> development. In the
> > > prologue to the book above, he describes himself as a 
> "patterninst" and my
> > > ears prick up.
> > >
> > > Further on he asserts that teccnology accelerating in 
> line with current
> > > exponential trends will result in a point where all 
> matter is sequestered
> > > for computational capacity, and all intelligence becomes 
> unified. (grand
> > > oversimplification by me - go read some of his stuff, its 
> quite "good")
> > >
> > > Within the course of his various proofs for this he 
> implies that his
> > > research predicts there to be consistent, universally 
> applicable data type
> > > underlying all things and that this will become apparent 
> to the emergent
> > > super-intelligence. Now this to me is a perfect 
> description of the MOQ
> > > enlightenment, and what we have here is an apparent 
> materialist who has come
> > > over alltogether Zen, and denies that there is any 
> inherent divide between
> > > subjects and objects!
> > > When I re-read SODV for the umpteenth time I realised 
> that Pirsig equates a
> > > similar description of data to values, in his attempt to 
> show a softened,
> > > skeptic-freindly, MOQ to the conference, but here it is arrived at
> > > independently.
> > >
> > > So a quick look at matey's extensive websites and a sift 
> of the message
> > > boards, does bring up references to Pirsig, but they just 
> dont see it, a
> > > link was suggested  but roundly shouted out of court by 
> the cultural immune
> > > system. All involved are computer geeks (appologies to 
> any present) who are
> > > much more interested in computer programming and 
> basically got pissed off at
> > > the suggestion that there could be any mystic component 
> to any of the work
> > > to which they were contributing.
> > >
> > > Anyone else read any of this stuff?
> > >
> > >
> > > This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the 
> attention of the
> > > addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage 
> or copying is not
> > > permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
> destroy all copies
> > > and inform the sender by return e-mail.
> > >
> > > Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this 
> message could be
> > > intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in 
> mind when deciding
> > > whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.
> > >
> > > This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) 
> may be monitored,
> > > recorded and retained by the Department For 
> Constitutional Affairs. E-mail
> > > monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail 
> content may be read
> > > at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are 
> not broken when
> > > composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The original of this email was scanned for viruses by 
> Government Secure Intranet (GSi)  virus scanning service 
> supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with 
> MessageLabs.
> > > On leaving the GSI this email was certified virus free.
> > > The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed 
> service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM 
> Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality 
> mark initiative for information security products and 
> services.  For more information about this please visit 
www.cctmark.gov.uk
> > moq_discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >
>
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
On entering the GSI, this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable &
Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
In case of problems, please call your organisational IT Helpdesk.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve
the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK
Government quality mark initiative for information security products and
services.  For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk


This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the
addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies
and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding
whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored,
recorded and retained by the Department For Constitutional Affairs. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read
at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when
composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.



The original of this email was scanned for viruses by Government Secure Intranet (GSi)  virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
On leaving the GSI this email was certified virus free.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for information security products and services.  For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk