[MD] The Singularity is near

[Laycock, Jos (OSPT)]

Hi Case, Hi Ham 

There was a bit here that's really similar to something I quite often
espouse, but I'm no materialist, so if all who say it obviously are, and I
say it but obviously aren't then there's something wrong with the
definition. 

Ham says:
"All objectivists (1?) like to pretend (2?) that consciousness is a
behaviour pattern (3?) exhibited by (4?) biological organisms (5)." 

1) Are you also implying that all who take this view are objectivists? 
2) Are you implying that these materialists are actually aware of some other
truth but deny themselves sight of it? Why would they do that?
3) How do you see that it isn't? Behaviours describe how all manner of
"things" behave, (including patterns). Consciousness is a pattern
(every"thing" is). Therefore there's nothing wrong with calling
consciousness the behaviour of a pattern cos that encompasses everything.
(really its the same as a *pattern of patterns*).
4) I take this to mean "a part of" as opposed to "written upon"?
5) Just to clarify, do you mean all organisms, or can we materialists be
allowed to specify some but not others? Evidently there are *patterns of
patterns* written in amongst my biological, social and intellectual patterns
that you will hopefully agree make me conscious?

If I understand you correctly then, (assuming answers to my 5 above):

Revised Ham actually says:
"Objectivists are liars who will state that the patterns of patterns
commonly described as consciousness are linked in some way to some living
things"

Then next Ham links this stunning insight to: (sorry I'm getting carried
away here, but the delete key isn't in my nature)
"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".

I would see Psychic awareness as a behavioural pattern (see above) as much
as plain old "objective" consciousness. 
I wouldn't describe either one as remotely objective though, if you're going
to draw a line then ok they're both subjective, but I think Pirsig only
draws a line in the MOQ for explanatory convenience to lead people into MOQ
from the world their more familiar with. In my view we dont have to say that
the biological and inorganic levels are exclusively objective. Is for
example an action potential objective? - It's a wave of an absence of
positive charge for goodness sake, ok we scientists made up some sneaky ways
to make empirical looking equipment go blip,(alright it wasn't me, but it
could have been!) but "this is all an analogy" after all. I haven't actually
detected life any more than I can make you an electronic device that goes
blip when a camera sees a picture of a face that looks sad and say that I've
detected an emotion. Likewise I can make a device that measures new blogs
posted to the internet but how is this the same as empirically detecting
ideas?


(It is still about the singularity I promise)





> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of Ham Priday
> Sent: 11 August 2006 22:08
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Singularity is near
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 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