[MD] The Singularity is near

[Case]

Case
[Ham]
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.

[Case]
While my travels in Norrath are not to be confused with the fairly mundane
sojourn of my user, they do provide a glimpse into a set of possible worlds
that are evolving at a breath taking rate. My ramblings here and my deeds in
Norrath are written in the Lamb's Book of Life so to speak and have the
potential to out last him by millennia. But for now I am just an avatar. 

I really don't know much about Kurzwell other that I used to have one of his
synthesizers and have used some of his software. I would say the biggest
problem confronting the cognitivists is that organic systems are analog.
There may be some Quality to our analog nature that is difficult to
duplicate digitally. For now at least the shear processing power of, to use
Lilly's term, the human biocomputer, make the point moot. Silicon has some
catching up to do. Still the effort to analyze and model what is involved in
doing what we do is fascinating and the results even at this early stage,
astonishing.

[Ham]
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.  

[Case]
It would seem the practitioners of the disciplines you mention don't find
subjective essence relevant. It is not as though they have ignored it
without reason. Psychology in particular was primarily concerned with it
until the late 1800s when it finally became a freestanding field. Even then
Titchener as a disciple of Wundt advanced an aggressively introspectionist
program it yielded squat. Psychology only began to move forward when
psychologist began to look at what people did instead of what they thought. 

[Ham]
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".

[Case]
Platt and I have been having a civil discussion for once. I am genuinely
interested in what he thinks and why. You seem to think that I do not
understand the logic or emotional appeal of belief in a higher power or
benevolent cosmic forces whether mystical or theistic or whatever. I think I
do understand them and I am sympathetic to the vast majority of people who
just want to grab quick answers to 'life's persistent questions' and move
along.

I don't know who you mean by objectivists but personally I advocate
intersubjectivity. What is worth talking about is what can be communicated.
Wilbur for example claims that mystical experience is like this. Mystics say
if you do this or that, you too will experience mystical states of mind. I
have done a lot of that in one form or another and while I like to get my
feelie touchied as much has the next guy that stuff remains vague and
doesn't really yield much that is useful intersubjectively. Understanding
exists in inverse proportion to ambiguity.

[Ham]
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.  

[Case]
To the extent that I understand postmodernism, which ain't much, I think you
have it backward. Modernists were trying to dump subjectivity and religion
to produce the enlightenment. Post modernist are saying that subjectivity,
insight and revelation can not be removed from any human endeavor so deal
with it. But it could be the other way around...

[Ham]
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.

[Case]
If we disappeared the 'physical world' would get along just fine with out
us. It is what it is, regardless of what we think about it. I have been
having a discussion along these lines with Dan. Subject and object are only
co-dependent from a subject's point of view.

[Ham]
My regards to your wizard brother.

[Case]
I have thought about setting up a separate account for him so he could take
the occasional break from Norrath too. He tends to be even more arrogant
than I but he is a wizard and does have a more mystical side...