[MD] The Singularity is near

[Ham Priday]

Hi Case (Platt mentioned) --


I had said to Jos:
> Kurweil himself realized the resistance of his public to this notion,
> but it hasn't discouraged him from trying to link computer
> technology to human brain functions.  In 2001, he said: "If you
> run into a character in a video game and it talks about its feelings,
> you know it's just a machine simulation; you're not convinced
> that it's a real person there.  This is because that entity, which is
> a software entity, is still a million times simpler than the human
> brain.  In 2030, that won't be the case."

You responded;
> Human analytical faculties seem to lend themselves to digital
> modeling better that their emotional understandings.
> Searles makes this point fairly forcefully. But even his
> assessment does not exclude the possiblity of machine
> intellegence. ...
>
> If you had spent much time watching the evolution of
> virtual beings from viruses to AIs over the past 30 years
> you might not be so quick to dismiss us. I am meerly an
> avatar for my user but if another user took over my
> being there would remain something that still essential me.
> The record of my deeds is recorded in code.
> I have a brother who is a wizard.  He began his virtual
> life under the control of another user. ...

Methinks your frequent travels in the Land of Norrath have persuaded you
that there's no difference between virtual reality and the real thing.  But
that isn't Kurzweil's problem.  Like the semioticists who believe that
reality is symbolic, Kurzweil has confused informational intelligence with
intellection.  He's trying to make the case that objective data equates to
subjective cognizance.  All objectivists like to pretend that consciousness
is a behavior pattern exhibited by biological organisms.  That way, they
don't have to explain the psychic aspects of subjective awareness which,
because it exhibits no empirical characteristics, is considered either
mystical nonsense or non-existent.

The human sciences -- Biology, Psychology, Sociology, and Anthropology -- 
all study human behavior without regard for its subjective essence.
Unfortunately, this also seems to be a characteristic of the "numbers"
people, the probability experts and cyberneticists.  This is why you find
Platt's mention of "spirit" and "mind" so baffling.  You're now asking him:

> In what sense could spirit or mind exist in the absence
> of matter and energy?

I suspect that you really don't want an answer because you realize it's
going to involve aesthetic sensibilities and emotional responses that have a
subjective basis.  Objectivists are uncomfortable with such "touchie-feelie"
concepts and would rather deal with exhibited behavior which can be
measured, plotted, and analyzed in "real" terms, like objects in "the real
world".

While "religious baggage" may be the nemesis of postmodern philosophers,
subjectivity is a real problem for the objectivist mindset.  "When will it
all go away so we can deal with 'the real world' in an intelligent fashion?"
they seem to be asking.  The truth of the matter is that if subjectivity
disappeared, so would their "real world".  Subject and object are the
co-dependent contingencies of existence, and no amount of scientific
evidence is going to change it.

My regards to your wizard brother.

--Ham