[MD] The Singularity is near

[Ham Priday]

Hi Jose, Case --


> 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.

I don't know what particular bit you espouse, but let's look at the
definitions I'm going by.  Objectivism: "Any theory stressing objective
reality, esp. as distinguished from subjective experience of appearance."
Materialism: "A theory that physical matter is the fundamental reality and
that all being, processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations
or results of matter."

While we're at it, let's add a third term which the postmodernists seem to
have forgotten but which is useful in characterizing their philosophy.
Existentialism: "A chiefly 20th century philosophy that is centered upon the
analysis of existence and of the way man finds himself existing in the
world, that regards human existence as not exhaustively understandable in
scientific terms, and that stresses the freedom and responsibility of the
individual."  (Definitions extracted from Websters New Collegiate
Dictionary.)

Now to your inquisition:

> 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?

I added the phrase "like to pretend" so that objectivism would not be
construed as a "view" so much as a philosophical position.  The implication
is that objectivists generally dismiss subjectivity in their investigations
and analyses of reality.  I think this is also true of the Pirsigians.

> 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?

Bingo!  I can only assume that the reason they do this is to be seen as
conforming to the positivist (objectivist) ontology.  I think this is born
out in their depricatory references to subjectivism as "religious baggage",
"mythos", "superstition", and "deism".

> 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*).

Behaviors describe objective activity or change.  When an iron filing jumps
to a magnet or I turn my head toward a pretty girl, it's a behavior pattern.
How things, or people, behave does not tell us anything about their
subjective state.  The iron filing doesn't have a subjective state.  I might
be turning my head because the girl is an acquaintance I wish to speak to.
One can make subjective inferences about my behavior, but they can't get
into my head to know what I'm feeling.

> 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"

If they are lying, they are lying to themselves.  If they believe on the
basis of what they see as behavior, their belief is unfounded because they
lack sufficient evidence to support their conclusions.

> 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?

You're starting to ramble like S.A., and I'm having difficulty getting the
point.  To say that psychic awareness -- or any awareness -- is a behavior
pattern refutes the very nature of proprietary awareness.  This is why I
don't like the pattern analysis; essentially it's a gimmick to make
sensibility appear to be objective, to make atoms and rocks and neurons the
equivalent of conscious thought and feelings.  Every cognizant self is its
own reality, hidden from the rest of the world.  We can talk objectively
about the behavior of an organism when we observe its movements, but we
can't analyze its subjective condition because subjectivity has no empirical
equivalent.

> (It is still about the singularity I promise)

Singularity: "A separate unit; the quality or state of being singular; a
point at which the derivative of a given function of a complex variable does
not exist but every neighborhood of which contains points for which the
derivative exists."
I'm not sure I understand the mathematical definition, but I would suggest
that Singularity might be a better term for subjective awareness or Creation
than for the technological explosion envisioned by Kurzweil.

Essentially yours,
Ham