[MD] The Singularity is near

[Ham Priday]

Hi Jos(?) --

> firstly:
> "If something sounds bloody stupid it probably is"
> (ancient wise-man sayeth)

I don't know about the blood but, regrettably, the measure of stupidity also
appears to be subjective.  For example, for me the claim that 9/11 was
instigated by the Bush administration or that Americans never landed on the
moon is stupid.  On the other hand, the idea that Oswald was not alone in
the assassination of JFK has some merit to me, which you might call stupid.

> Now cognizance, I like the use of this word, implies to me,
> a consciousness of deliberate choice laden with judgement,
> which clears up a lot of ambiguity.  I think it's the same as
> what I would describe as the intellectual part of my
> consciousness, as opposed to the emotional (I say cultural)
> part, as opposed to the awareness inherent in an animal,
> as opposed to the "experience" of interacting inorganic
> particles.  (I recall that you weren't very keen on this interpretation).

I'm also not keen on parsing what falls into the areas of cognizance.  You
say it's "the intellectual part", as if the sensible part (i.e., "feelings")
belongs to something else.  Why single out "intelligence"?  Are you not
cognizant of your emotional state?  Isn't how you feel proprietary to your
awareness?  Can anyone else directly sense your feelings?  If not, despite
whatever objective component is involved in your experience, the awareness
of your experience is yours alone.  I know you folks don't like the word,
but "subjective" or proprietary awareness seems to me the best way to
describe experience.

> Not that I can claim to speak for anyone else,
> but as a quasi-follower, this collective strata business
> doesn't accurately reflect my beliefs, so I reckon Bob
> didn't really mean it either. (BTW didn't you mean SQ?,
> seems simpler to see intellect as a static level like any
> other, but that DQ acts on it more often/profoundly
> than the lower levels??)

The use of Static Level for evolutionary processes and Dynamic Level for the
immutable source has always confused me.   I maintain that existence is an
apparent subject/object dichotomy; it's the "appearance of a differentiated
reality" derived from a non-differentiated source.  (However, I allow for
the fact that this may seem stupid to you.)

> Just so we're clear, I dont believe that I share my
> consciousness (at any level) with anyone else so
> neither can I share my intelligence, true I tap into a
> shared history and cultural value system continually
> in order to think, but this is a backward probing
> extension by "me" rather than my being a floating
> subset of a collective stratum.

Let's eschew "tapping into"; it makes me feel that I have to attach my brain
to a power outlet in order to think.  We're all independent creatures in our
ability to cogitate.  I'd prefer to say that we use "collected data" (such
as historical facts) as the objective material for our subjective thought
and judgments.

> Granted the intellectual patterns of me can be described
> as being of a particular level, but to me it doesn't
> necessitate them being linked in any way to other similar
> ones.  DQ doesn't come into it, the latched patterns
> interact on their own to produce my various levels of
> consciousness and "cognizance" sits at the top of this
> tree. If anything I see this to predict that intellect is
> convergent point becoming progressively less collective
> and more individual the more it evolves.  This only works
> by setting transcendent DQ awareness above intellect,
> which rather cuts the intellectual level down to size, some
> might say that intellectual patterns should be defined as
> the ones that perceive subjects as distinct from objects....

Since I'm not a patternist, I really don't see the distinctions you draw
here.  The fact that my experience is unique to me -- whether it's images or
patterns or ideas or feelings or desires -- is what distinguishes "me" from
"you" and all other objects of my reality.  I think this is what Descartes
meant by "I think, therefore I am".  You can't "collectivize" Intellect any
more than you can fuse my awareness or my experience with yours.  There are
only two existential levels: "proprietary awareness" and "objective
beingness".  Only Essence transcends these levels as the primary
undifferentiated source.

Thanks for the analysis.  May I suggest that, inasmuch as we're no longer
discussing Kurzweil's Singularity, that we assign another heading to this
thread?

Regards,
Ham