[MD] MOQ would seem to imply that above human intelligencecomputers

[Ham Priday]

On Friday, April 16, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Tudor Boloni <savetherich at gmail.com> 
wrote:

> Humans are very much on tract to build Artificial General Intelligence
> systems within 15 years (one (http://ccrg.cs.memphis.edu/tutorial/) has
> already replaced 300 workers at a naval base in their main work capacity
> (with the displaced workers (they were job consultant for sailors) making
> comments like "that's just the way i would do it too")... so for the sake 
> or
> argument lets assume this is coming (there is too much money behind it not
> be coming) in 15 yrs. lets also assume its value system is calculated 
> using
> symbolic conceptual logic along MoQ lines, it seems to me that the
> machines would find it MORAL to eliminate the growth of new humans
> once they believe:
>
> a) computers are more effective at generating Intellectual Patterns than
>     humans, and
> b) humans are removing too many resources from the needs of future
>     computing power requirements
>
> We will be like the bacteria doctors hit with antibiotics, screaming to 
> each
> other that its not moral to limit our growth... but the computer would 
> test
> our claims and find us too resource needy and/or too dumb.

At first I thought this fellow, who calls himself Boloni, was playing a 
belated April Fools joke on us, and I'm still not sure.  However, Horse, 
Bodvar, Platt, and the gang seem to be taking him seriously.
If nothing else, Boloni's posts are unearthing some of the pitfalls of MOQ 
reasoning.  (And, they have nothing to do with "right-wing" politics or 
"anti-intellectualism".)

For example, Bo (who apparently "just noticed" Tudor's arrival), immediately 
sought to defend the Intellectual Level.  But his rebuttal only made the AI 
argument sound even more plausible.

[Bo]:
 > I don't think Horse says that an artificial intelligence system has
> INTELLECTUAL patterns, nor do we humans "have intellect", the
> intellectual level resides on top of the social level and it was the
> biological species Homo Sapiens that DQ "rode" to the social level,
> only in THAT capacity are humans the biology under society and
> intellect. OK, a bit uncalled for, but it must be pointed out.

And Platt's quote from Lila that ""It was this intellectual level that was 
screwing everything up" is a true statement, but not because it makes hay 
out of intellectualism.

You see, folks, Artificial Intelligence=Consciousness is one of the 
fallacies that belief in an intellectual level fosters.  In fact, it is that 
very dogma that has screwed up Bo's thinking.  At the risk of committing 
heresy, I strongly object to his assertion that humans do not "have 
intellect".  Intellect is part and parcel of human intelligence.  It cannot 
simply be relegated to some extracorporeal realm that an electro-mechanical 
device can access for its "own purposes".

Furthermore, to confound a newcomer with such tangled rhetoric as "resides 
on top of the social level", "that DQ 'rode' to the social level", and "in 
THAT capacity are humans the biology [??] under society and intellect" is 
doing the MoQ a disservice.  It's just as silly to claim that man has no 
intellect as to equate artificial intelligence with consciousness.  Mr. 
Boloni is getting some real baloney thown at him, in my opinion.

Although RMP doesn't specifically say so, I don't think he would deny that 
existence is an anthropocentric system.  The universe is designed for MAN's 
value sensibility and intellectual apprehension.   It is MAN who realizes 
Value and brings it into being as a multiform reality.  It is MAN by and for 
whom Pirsig wrote about values.  It is MAN who is the locus of existence and 
who, on completing the life-cycle, reclaims the Value lost in becoming, 
thereby restoring the absolute integrity of the Source.

It is the nature of man to be a thinking-feeling-intellectual being.  But 
man cannot synthesize or build "sensible awareness" from digital chips and 
diode networks..  A computer or processing system designed by man to 
duplicate his experience and produce "intelligent" data is just that--a 
machine.  No matter how closely its actions resemble human behavior, a 
machine will never be a conscious entity.

So, if you are "for real", Tudor Bolini, you will spare yourself a lot of 
anguish by directing your AI speculations to Ray Kurzweil, Hans Moravec, or 
some other cybernaut who espouses the coming of a Singularity that will put 
machines in charge of mankind.

Essentially speaking,
Ham