Re: Infinitely Unlikely Coincidences [WAS Re: [singularity] AI critique by Jaron Lanier]
Quoting Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Feb 20, 2008 6:13 AM, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The possibility of mind uploading to computers strictly depends on functionalism being true; if it isn't then you may as well shoot yourself in the head as undergo a destructive upload. Functionalism (invented, and later repudiated, by Hilary Putnam) is philosophy of mind if anything is philosophy of mind, and the majority of cognitive scientists are functionalists. Are you still happy asserting that it's all bunk? Philosophy is in most cases very inefficient, hence wasteful. It puts very much into building its theoretical constructions, few of which are useful for understainding reality. It might be fun for those who like this kind of thing, but it is a bad tool. I would beg to differ. Philosophy, science and society dance together. Philosophy contributes to understanding reality or whatever reality might be. Gudrun -- Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=96140713-a54b2b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [singularity] Multi-Multi-....-Multiverse
WTF (I can only assume what that stands for) are you such an angry person. Or is linear thinking the only possible solution for your VotW (guess what that stands for)? Never heard of rhizome (theory). Sometimes stupid monkey things for stupid monkeys like all of us and you are not that bad at all. Talking about AGI (or strong AI or whatever it is called), there are many roads to Rome. There is enough space for AGI (and not all people think the same about it) on this thread, or so I would hope. Don't forget that many ideas, possibly singularity too, have their roots in Science Fiction. A bit of fantasizing should be allowed!! Gudrun On 2 Feb 2008, at 08:54, Samantha Atkins wrote: WTF does this have to do with AGI or Singularity? I hope the AGI gets here soon. We Stupid Monkeys get damn tiresome. - samantha On Jan 29, 2008, at 7:06 AM, gifting wrote: On 29 Jan 2008, at 14:13, Vladimir Nesov wrote: On Jan 29, 2008 11:49 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, but why can't they all be dumped in a single 'normal' multiverse? If traveling between them is accommodated by 'decisions', there is a finite number of them for any given time, so it shouldn't pose structural problems. The whacko, speculative SF hypothesis is that lateral movement btw Yverses is conducted according to ordinary laws of physics, whereas vertical movement btw Yverses is conducted via extraphysical psychic actions ;-)' What differentiates psychic actions from non-psychic so that they can't be considered ordinary? If I can do both, why aren't they both equally ordinary to me (and everyone else)?.. Is a psychic action telepathy, for example? If I am a schizophrenic and hear voices, is this a psychic experience? What is a psychic action FOR YOU, or in your set of definitions? Do you propose that you are able of psychic actions within a set frame of definitions or do you experience psychic actions and redefine your environment because of this? Or is it all in the mind? Isn't it only ordinary, if experienced repetitively . Gudrun -- Vladimir Nesov mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?-3ffb4f - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; d09758 - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=92987600-02e3ac
Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?
On 29 Jan 2008, at 00:38, Thomas McCabe wrote: Check out Ramachandran: Without a doubt it is one of the most important discoveries ever made about the brain, Mirror neurons will do for psychology what DNA did for biology. They will provide a unifying framework and help explain a host of mental abilities that have hitherto remained mysterious... Mirror neurons *do* seem like an important discovery in cognitive science, but they're specific to humans (and other animals with complex nervous systems), not to intelligences in general. The general principle (look at another system and copy its behavior) can be applied just as easily to purely electronic systems as physical ones. Remember COPYCAT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_%28software%29)? Sorry I was under the impression that an electronic system is sort of physical, too. Perhaps, the question is what kind of physical system becomes relevant. Electronic particles ... blabla Read Sandra Blakeslee - The Body has a Mind of its Own - also just out. [She did Jeff Hawkins before]. The author is a professional writer, not a scientist, and has no published papers that I can find. To quote from the front page of the book's website (http://www.thebodyhasamindofitsown.com): Your body has a mind of its own. You know it's true. You can feel it, you can sense it, even though it may be hard to articulate. You know your body is more than just a meat-vehicle for your mind to cruise around in, but how deeply are mind, brain and body truly interwoven? This is clearly 'pop sci' writing, probably with little technical content. Ha, technical content. Now we're touching an interesting area. What is this technical content, please. Science does not equal technic(al). Non science ditto. If Blakeslees's text is non-technical as contrary to the definition of technical below, then it could be quite a good reading for a scientist, it might be interesting, because this scients might want to either disprove something or look into the content of this book and find something interesting without dismissing it as not peer-reviewed or that the person has not published enough. By the way, we all have to start from somewhere. Silly me, I thought that good scientists do not dismiss everything that does not immediately fit into ones research (or is not found on a hit list of super publishers) Thought this definition from OED (Oxford English Dictionary) is helpful: 3. a. Belonging or relating to an art or arts; appropriate or peculiar to, or characteristic of, a particular art, science, profession, or occupation; also, of or pertaining to the mechanical arts and applied sciences generally, as in technical education, or technical college, school, university. Gudrun - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - Tom - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; fbefc6 - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=91105823-402db5
Re: [singularity] Multi-Multi-....-Multiverse
On 29 Jan 2008, at 14:13, Vladimir Nesov wrote: On Jan 29, 2008 11:49 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, but why can't they all be dumped in a single 'normal' multiverse? If traveling between them is accommodated by 'decisions', there is a finite number of them for any given time, so it shouldn't pose structural problems. The whacko, speculative SF hypothesis is that lateral movement btw Yverses is conducted according to ordinary laws of physics, whereas vertical movement btw Yverses is conducted via extraphysical psychic actions ;-)' What differentiates psychic actions from non-psychic so that they can't be considered ordinary? If I can do both, why aren't they both equally ordinary to me (and everyone else)?.. Is a psychic action telepathy, for example? If I am a schizophrenic and hear voices, is this a psychic experience? What is a psychic action FOR YOU, or in your set of definitions? Do you propose that you are able of psychic actions within a set frame of definitions or do you experience psychic actions and redefine your environment because of this? Or is it all in the mind? Isn't it only ordinary, if experienced repetitively . Gudrun -- Vladimir Nesovmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; -3ffb4f - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=91059575-25896c
Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?
Quoting Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gudrun: I think this is not about intelligence, but it is about our mind being inter-dependent (also via evolution) with senses and body. Sorry, I've lost a subsequent post in which you went on to say that the very terms mind and body in this context were splitting up something that can't be split up. Would you (or anyone else) like to discurse - riff - on that? However casually... I said in so many words Though, even this is kind of wrong, because we behave like there is a split between senses, body and mind. They are more interconnected or however you would like to phrase it. Problem of dualist thinking. The background for me is this: there is a great, untrumpeted revolution going on, which is called Embodied Cognitive Science. See Wiki. That is all founded on the idea of the embodied mind. Cognitive science is based on the idea that thought is a program - which can in principle be instantiated on any computational machine - and is a science founded on AI/ computers. Embodied cog sci is Cog Sci Stage 2 and is based on the idea that thought is a brain-and-body affair - and cannot take place without both - and is a science founded on robotics. But the whole terminology of this new science - embodied mind - is still lopsided, still unduly deferential - and needs to be replaced. So I'm interested in any thoughts related to this, however rough. Mike Embodied Cog sci - is the idea that there is no thought without sensation, emotion and movement . (no mentation without re-presentation..? hmm... still an idea in progress) We need to find ways of reconnecting the pieces that language has dissected. Hey, you're an artist.. do me a photo or model :). - I do videos and installations, perhaps films. I write texts. I invent, too. I think one would have to do what AI people to, invent an embodied AGI, something that has a form of consciousness, senses, movement, body and is really humorous, for a change. Stathis: Are you simply arguing that an embodied AI that can interact with the real world will find it easier to learn and develop, or are you arguing that there is a fundamental reason why an AI can't develop in a purely virtual environment? Mike The latter. I'm arguing that a disembodied AGI has as much chance of getting to know, understand and be intelligent about the world as Tommy - a deaf, dumb and blind and generally sense-less kid, that's totally autistic, can't play any physical game let alone a mean pin ball, and has a seriously impaired sense of self , (what's the name for that condition?) - and all that is even if the AGI *has* sensors. Think of a disembodied AGI as very severely mentally and physically disabled from birth - you wouldn't do that to a child, why do it to a computer? It might be able to spout an encyclopaedia, show you a zillion photographs, and calculate a storm but it wouldn't understand, or be able to imagine/ reimagine, anything. As I indicated, a proper, formal argument for this needs to be made - and I and many others are thinking about it - and shouldn't be long in forthcoming, backed with solid scientific evidence. There is already a lot of evidence via mirror neurons that you do think with your body, and it just keeps mounting. While doing my research, | got the impression that disembodied might be equal or similar to spirit (holy spirit). this comes from religions and religious ideologies and terminology. A disembodied, extracted mind (spirit) also refers to purity. Extract, pure or purified, or a mind in a mind like a voice in one's head. The voice from the aether, radio television signals, all form of disembodied stuff. (Okay embodied via radiowaves and caught in boxes like radios, I am a bit ironic here). I am not sure, if this is about the idea of an extract of purity, something that moves (??) in a purely disembodied world, an idea of an afterlife (again religion), a pure spirit or mind interconnected with whatever is left (I am thinking about what Moravec said, I have to look into my thesis to find his quote). I like it as science fiction, but it also scares me. It seems to me that this disembodied AGI is the product of people who are tired of the burden body, their own bodies. They are tired of a body that screams mortality, while a pure mind might promise immortality. Just some thoughts. I think an analogy to alchemists might not be to far fetched. Gudrun - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=90635570-4ef122
Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Jan 28, 2008 7:56 AM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: X:Of course this is a variation on the grounding problem in AI. But do you think some sort of **absolute** grounding is relevant to effective interaction between individual agents (assuming you think any such ultimate grounding could even perform a function within a limited system), or might it be that systems interact effectively to the extent their dynamics are based on **relevant** models, regardless of even proximate grounding in any functional sense? Er.. my body couldn't make any sense of this :). Could you be clearer giving examples of the agents/systems and what you mean by absolute/ proximate grounding? I see that you're talking about interaction between systems considered to be minds, and highlighting the question of what is necessary to form a shared basis for **relevant** interaction. I agree that a mind without an environment of interaction is meaningless, in the same way that any statement (or pattern of bits) without context is meaningless. However, I would argue that just as context is never absolute, nor is there ever any need for it to be absolute, indeed for practical (functional) reasons it can never be absolute, embodiment need not be absolute, complete, or ultimately grounded. I use the term system to refer as clearly as possible to any distinct configuration of inter-related objects, with the implication that the system must be physically realizable, therefore it models neither infinities or infinitesimals, nor could it model a Cartesian singularity of Self. I use the term agent to refer as clearly as possible to a system exhibiting agency, i.e. behavior recognized as intentional, i.e. operating on behalf of an entity. It may be useful here to point out that recognition of agency inheres in the observer (including the case of the observer being the agent-system itself), rather than agency being somehow an objectively measurable property of the system itself. Further, the entity which is the principal behind any agency is entirely abstract (independent of any physical instantiation.) [Understanding this is key to various paradoxes of personal identity.] I distinguish between absolute and proximate grounding in regard to the functional (and information-theoretic) impossibility of a system modeling it's entire chain of connections to ultimate reality, while in actuality any system interacts only with its proximate environment, just as to know an object is not to know what it is but to know its interface. To presume to know more would be to presume some privileged mode of knowledge. So in short, I agree with you that embodiment is essential to meaningful interaction, thus for there to be agency, thus for there to be a Self for the mind to know. But I extend this and emphasize that it's not necessary that such embodiment be physical, nor that it be logically grounded in ultimate reality, but rather, that interaction is relevant and meaningful to the extent that some (necessarily partial and arbitrarily distant from reality) context is shared. Vow, this is well worded, structured in a really nice set of feedback loops. What is a non physical embodiment. I would like to know more about this. If we have a form of embodied AGI (with all the definitions and descriptions above, even a non physical one not being grounded in an ultimate reality), and there is space for movement/motion (see other posts and definitions for movement), has anybody thought about DESIRE. How could desire come into this. What kind of mind is desirable? - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=90638550-c0e5be
Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
Quoting Samantha Atkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Jan 26, 2008, at 11:13 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Natasha Vita-More [EMAIL PROTECTED]: At 03:04 PM 1/24/2008, Gudrun wrote: and N. Vita-More This is confusing. Fine that extropians want to self-improve. That ALL humanity should improve, is quite questionable. Does all humanity want to improve (immortality, happy pills, ...)? Good point. Thank you for catching this and questioning it. You are correct that not ALL humanity should improve if they do not want to improve. That is why I support human rights to augment. I have written and lectured on this quite a bit. Since we are both located within the arts (you find art and me technology design) we ought to discuss this openly and review each other's papers. Then of course you run smack into that not only do a great number of humans not want to self improve or live indefinitely long healthy lifespans. They actually and somewhat understandably see anyone being able to do this as a very great threat to their own well being. Therefore their right to choose not to do these things gets transmuted in their mind to a right to prohibit others doing these things as they see that as a threat to all who choose to not enhance. Certainly the cognitively unenhanced would not be competitive at tasks requiring much cognitive ability. So what is the answer? Enclaves where different choice sets were allowed/common and an ability to choose differently? Gudrun: Do you mean ghettos, or fenced off communities, or a new form of ivory towers? Repeat of history! The Great AGI to split off avatars/angels/still,small voices to persuade each one that they do one these things? I suppose the AGI could upload everyone to a world/situation of their choice and let them work out their own karma in a series of virtual reincarnations. GB Great. .. How does the baptism work? Brainwashing, force-feeding, consumer promise, gentle persuasion, religiously inspired promises? Now you are being either silly or snide and that does not further discussion. Gudrun B. Honestly, not silly (what a judgement) or snide, just a bit playful. Should be allowed. Do not forget, Natasha, that somebody could hijack extropian ideas or ideologies and become some really brutal super-dictator who wants to impose an extropian world view. Well, what is and isn't imposition could make for an interesting discussion. Yes, couldn't it. A bit like the healthy eating or smoking or what is proper social adaption discussion. Think about communism that had failed and had to fail. Marx's ideas were good, nevertheless. Stalin was not that great, was he. Personalities and ideas, they clash, ideas are vehicles, they are currency. Unfortunately Marx's understanding of economics and of human nature were inadequate. G: As, I fear, is most people's understanding of human nature. I do not believe there is ONE human nature. There is a lot of social engineering, though. Projections, more or less rigid corsets, moral implications, ethical concepts, ideal scenarios, animal behaviour patterns .. and SO MANY INTERPRETATIONS and wish-fulfillment. Every ideology is created by and 'transmitted' via its members, via people with ideas, lust for power and 'world domination'. It usually goes like: 1. I have some fine great vision for how things could be MUCH better. 2. It can only be fully realized and bestow its benefits if (at least locally) universal. 3. Not everyone understands through lack of intelligence, bad programming, malfeasance, greed or whatever. 4. To maximize the benefits everyone must be made to comply. There are more democratic and more authoritarian variants galore. And thus the road to hell is [re]paved. AGREE gudrun - samantha - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=90334146-2e8d89
Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Quoting Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gudrun: I am an artist who is interested in science, in utopia and seemi ngly impossible projects. I also came across a lot of artists with OC traits. ... The OCAP, actually the obsessive compulsive 'arctificial' project .. These new OCA entities ... are afraid, and bound to rituals and unwant ed thoughts (and actions). Some odd thoughts: I'd wondered whether you might be interested in the reality rather than the science-fiction - of the connection between OCD and real scientists and technologists. Ben's article arguably raises interesting questions about their psychology generally and not just that of Extropians, (and has the elements, if not the story, for a good movie). I think there is a connection (and I| am not a scientist, as you know) between OCD and art(ists), too. Would be interesting studying this in more detail . Because I am an artist, I somehow utilise the reality and science fiction o f OCD. I am going to this talk at the ICA London about OCD in some weeks time and intend to talk to some of the experts there. (BTW after his highlighting of one Extropian sucide, up comes an article on two suicides closer to AI home - those of Singh McKinstry (both Minsky-related!): There are many suicides in the art world, too http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-02/ff_aimystery?currentP age=all with a note that: MIT has attracted headlines for its high suicide rate in the past, ) The connection between the scientific, systemising personality and autis m - the ultimate in an obsessive need to control and also in a rejection of humanity - has obviously been expounded by Sacha Baron-Cohen : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4661402.stm G : I have met Sacha Baron-Cohen, who is really interesting, and I agree with what he has to say about this. There seems to be a certain detachment in some people (artists and scientis ts alike), many male, in rationalising and re-inventing the world, in utilisin g everything . I am very much interested in this obsessive need for control. I am not sure if this is rejection of humanity. It is fear of losi ng control of oneself that might create this need of controlling the environme nt. I have studied some literature by Talis, de Silva and Rachman. I give you a taster from my Mphil work, a short statement about Obsessive Compulsive 'Arctificial' Life (that certainly could be applied to OC personalities) Quote from Gudrun Bielz: The OCAL, excerpt of thesis, copy-right 2006, Lond on 1.3.11 Paradox: In and out of the control rollercoaster An obsession is an unwanted, intrusive, recurrent, and persistent thought, image, or impulse. ( ) An obsession is a passive experience: it happens t o the person. (de Silva, Rachman 3). Who wants to be out of control, who wants to have its circuit blown? My circuit blows. Is this an obsessional thought? I blow my circuit. Is this a compulsive action? I have to kill my creators is definitely obsessio nal thinking. This is OUT OF CONTROL. A compulsion is a repetitive and seemingly purposeful behaviour that is performed according to certain rules or in a stereotyped fashion. The behaviour is not an end in itself, but is usually intended to prevent some event or situation. (de Silva, Rachman 3). I wash my hands again and again, I rub them until my electronic or biolo gical system is uncovered, I wash them because I DO NOT want to be contaminated. This is as sign of being IN CONTROL. An OCAL unit that washes its brain out of fear of contamination by th e human virus is IN CONTROL, because genetically modified OCAL perceives humans as dangerous viruses. Humans are dangerous viruses is OUT OF CONTR OL. It is an obsessional thought. GB c 2006, London, UK And you don't say, but aren't artists - whatever their philosophical position - fundamentally opposed to science's current worldview? Science still sees human beings as automata in an automatic process - fundamenta lly totally controlled, - (and v. few AI-ers disagree) - while the arts se e us, in the shape of a million or so dramatic works, as heroes in a heroi c drama - fundamentally unpredictable and suspenseful. (Even robots in th e arts tend to be more or less heroic). I do not think that there has to be this opposition. I fear there is some opposition to a certain reductionist world view by some scientists. I am actually more interested in physics and ideas like nano or attoworld, quant um mechanics (I am an amateur) and interconnectivity of systems. The idea of automaton does not appeal to me, in the sense of a controlled a nd controllable entity. I like your projection of the arts seeing us as heroes in a heroic drama. I t could actually be quite an anti-heroe or even very banal event. Unpredictability is a very interesting point. Every AI-er should be interes ted in the aspect of unpredictability and out of control (not necessarily
Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?
Quoting Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Tom:A computer is not disembodied any more than you are. Silicon, as a substrate, is fully equivalent to biological neurons in terms of theoretical problem-solving ability. You've been fooled by the puppet. It doesn't work without the puppeteer. And contrary to Eliezer: A transhuman is a transhuman mind; anything else is a side issue. the evidence of billions of years of evolution says that the mind doesn't work without the body. No body, no mind. No physics, no psychology, no AI. If it can't move, it can't think. (And I think, thanks in part to mirrror neurons, that we are now on the verge of finally pinning down why. But that's another post). I quite agree. Don't people like Brooks (MIT), and now Minsky favour embodied AI, contrary to something like this grey nebulous soup of common disembodied AI stuff that has been propagated by Moravec et al. Gudrun - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=90338136-72f44b
Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?
Quoting Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 27/01/2008, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the evidence of billions of years of evolution says that the mind doesn't work without the body. No body, no mind. No physics, no psychology, no AI. If it can't move, it can't think. (And I think, thanks in part to mirrror neurons, that we are now on the verge of finally pinning down why. But that's another post). So should paralysis or amputation make someone less intelligent? |I do not think that this is the question, though. If one is born paralysed (I have taken care of a cerebral palsy kid when I was young) - there is no knowledge and no possibility of learning co-ordinbated movements (limbs and thoughts). I| am sure this depends on the severity of the non able bodied person. If one has the memory, it is different. My partner has lost an arm, it is still existent in his mind, he feels pain in it occasionally and he forgets sometimes that he hasn't got it anymore. I think this is not about intelligence, but it is about our mind being inter-dependent (also via evolution) with senses and body. Gudrun -- Stathis Papaioannou - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=90339202-4c6eb3
Re: [singularity] Wrong focus?
On 27 Jan 2008, at 16:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 27/01/2008, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the evidence of billions of years of evolution says that the mind doesn't work without the body. No body, no mind. No physics, no psychology, no AI. If it can't move, it can't think. (And I think, thanks in part to mirrror neurons, that we are now on the verge of finally pinning down why. But that's another post). So should paralysis or amputation make someone less intelligent? |I do not think that this is the question, though. If one is born paralysed (I have taken care of a cerebral palsy kid when I was young) - there is no knowledge and no possibility of learning co-ordinbated movements (limbs and thoughts). I| am sure this depends on the severity of the non able bodied person's problem If one has the memory, it is different. My partner has lost an arm, it is still existent in his mind, he feels pain in it occasionally and he forgets sometimes that he hasn't got it anymore. I think this is not about intelligence, but it is about our mind being inter-dependent (also via evolution) with senses and body. Though, even this is kind of wrong, because it behaves there is a split between senses, body and mind. They are more interconnected or whatever you would like to say. Problem of dualist thinking. Gudrun -- Stathis Papaioannou - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?; ca2ce5 - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=90341333-a8ccba
Fwd: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
Hi Mike, Correction in text, Simon Baron Cohen, not Sacha Baron Cohen. Gudrun Begin forwarded message: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 27 January 2008 15:32:14 GMT To: singularity@v2.listbox.com Cc: singularity@v2.listbox.com, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben Reply-To: singularity@v2.listbox.com Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Quoting Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gudrun: I am an artist who is interested in science, in utopia and seemi ngly impossible projects. I also came across a lot of artists with OC traits. ... The OCAP, actually the obsessive compulsive 'arctificial' project .. These new OCA entities ... are afraid, and bound to rituals and unwant ed thoughts (and actions). Some odd thoughts: I'd wondered whether you might be interested in the reality rather than the science-fiction - of the connection between OCD and real scientists and technologists. Ben's article arguably raises interesting questions about their psychology generally and not just that of Extropians, (and has the elements, if not the story, for a good movie). I think there is a connection (and I| am not a scientist, as you know) between OCD and art(ists), too. Would be interesting studying this in more detail . Because I am an artist, I somehow utilise the reality and science fiction o f OCD. I am going to this talk at the ICA London about OCD in some weeks time and intend to talk to some of the experts there. (BTW after his highlighting of one Extropian sucide, up comes an article on two suicides closer to AI home - those of Singh McKinstry (both Minsky-related!): There are many suicides in the art world, too http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-02/ff_aimystery? currentP age=all with a note that: MIT has attracted headlines for its high suicide rate in the past, ) The connection between the scientific, systemising personality and autis m - the ultimate in an obsessive need to control and also in a rejection of humanity - has obviously been expounded by Sacha Baron-Cohen : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4661402.stm Hi MIKE and everyone, it is actually Simon. Sacha is the funny guy who did the film about K. Simon is the Cambdridge Guy who researches autism. G. G : I have met Sacha Baron-Cohen, who is really interesting, and I agree with what he has to say about this. There seems to be a certain detachment in some people (artists and scientis ts alike), many male, in rationalising and re-inventing the world, in utilisin g everything . I am very much interested in this obsessive need for control. I am not sure if this is rejection of humanity. It is fear of losi ng control of oneself that might create this need of controlling the environme nt. I have studied some literature by Talis, de Silva and Rachman. I give you a taster from my Mphil work, a short statement about Obsessive Compulsive 'Arctificial' Life (that certainly could be applied to OC personalities) Quote from Gudrun Bielz: The OCAL, excerpt of thesis, copy-right 2006, Lond on 1.3.11 Paradox: In and out of the control rollercoaster An obsession is an unwanted, intrusive, recurrent, and persistent thought, image, or impulse. (…) An obsession is a passive experience: it happens t o the person. (de Silva, Rachman 3). Who wants to be out of control, who wants to have its circuit blown? “My circuit blows”. Is this an obsessional thought? “I blow my circuit”. Is this a compulsive action? “I have to kill my creators” is definitely obsessio nal thinking. This is OUT OF CONTROL. A compulsion is a repetitive and seemingly purposeful behaviour that is performed according to certain rules or in a stereotyped fashion. The behaviour is not an end in itself, but is usually intended to prevent some event or situation. (de Silva, Rachman 3). “I wash my hands again and again, I rub them until my electronic or biolo gical system is uncovered, I wash them because I DO NOT want to be contaminated. ” This is as sign of being IN CONTROL. An OCAL unit that washes its “brain” out of fear of contamination by th e human virus is IN CONTROL, because genetically modified OCAL perceives humans as dangerous ‘viruses’. “Humans are dangerous viruses” is OUT OF CONTR OL. It is an obsessional thought. GB c 2006, London, UK And you don't say, but aren't artists - whatever their philosophical position - fundamentally opposed to science's current worldview? Science still sees human beings as automata in an automatic process - fundamenta lly totally controlled, - (and v. few AI-ers disagree) - while the arts se e us, in the shape of a million or so dramatic works, as heroes in a heroi c drama - fundamentally unpredictable and suspenseful. (Even robots in th e arts tend to be more or less heroic). I do not think that there has to be this opposition. I fear there is some opposition to a certain
Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
Quoting Natasha Vita-More [EMAIL PROTECTED]: At 01:53 PM 1/25/2008, you wrote: On Jan 25, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote and Samantha Atkins wrote The idea of useless technology is developed in wearables more than in bioart. Steve's perspective is more political than artistic in regards to uselessness, don't you think? My paper which includes an interview with him is published in Technoetics (2007). But that probably explains some of your thinking because the fine arts is pretty much turned off to transhumanism and infers an elitism stemming from the ideas of people who support argumentation and indefinite lifespans. Gudrun Bielz: Not quite sure if this 'useless technology' paragraph refers to my posting about my project. I know about Kurtz's political art and philosophy. I am interested in useless as not commercially viable, as useless in the sense of not being utilised or not being interesting enough to be utilised. I have appropriated Kurtz's term for my own project, interests and desire. That is almost amusing as the Fine Arts are not exactly known for absence of elitism. Has our intellectual environment universally succumbed to some PC reactionary meme set? It is a complex paradox. The group of bioartists under the influence of Critical Art Ensemble has a self-rightous attitude and political opposition to capitalism and consumerism. Most European artists would agree it seems. Gudrun Bielz: This is quite self-righteous, too. Nothing wrong with a political opposition to consumerism and TOTAL capitalism By the way, I am an European artist. CAE has taken a strong lead in the field of bioart because of their laboratory in Australia and some of their productions which, on one had criticize others for doing exactly what they are doing, and on the other hand use hyperbole to gain momentum and attention. Much of their productions which are dramatic are beautifully executed. Albeit, if one takes the time to read carefully it is easy to see that they are making rash assumptions based on fallacy. In the academic world this is totally unacceptable and they ought to be called on it. However, CAE claims to be working with tissue in unique ways but they are merely doing what medicine has been doing for years. Many other bioartists are aware of the situation within bioart and vying for attention and position because it is a new field/genre and gaining a lot of momentum, especially the artist who coined the term bioart (Joe Davis). Gudrun Bielz: One of the advantages of being an artist is that one does not have to comply to a scientific codex. Even if universities and art schools that have become part of universities would like artists rather to adopt a 'pseudo' scientific and therefore sort of measurable output, and not to invent or indulge or just fantasise. (I have worked in art and art education for 20 years and some of it in an Ivy league university) Most of my colleagues are professors in art institutions and we discuss this frequently and at length. In fact, I gave a lecture at the NABA in Milano last month and 80% of the student body said they wanted to live to 50 maximum. That is one of the saddest and most vile things I have heard in quite some time. Were the reasons why they said this explored? Another complex issue. First, the students are in the early 20s and at that age most of us though that anyone over 40 was old. Second, there is the issue of the students being catholic and harboring the idea that old die, go to heaven, and make way for the young. (We know this psychology all too well) But it would seem that artists in Italy would be educated, aware, and willing to explore the cyborg and the transhuman. Cyborg is known, of course, but transhuman requires more intellection and exploration. Gudrun Bielz: I agree with Natasha. They are young, end everybody beyond 30 is already too old for many young people. Some of the older role models, or should I say un-role models are stuck, more interested in positioning than experiencing or (re)searching. That might not help. There is also this strange romanticism, (James Dean) and a probably European idea of gaining immortality of ones ideas and art (and the artist) especially if the artist has died young. This certainly is romanticism and a form of 'perverted' idealism. But, yes, all in all it is quite sad and annoying that this field is so damn slow to catch on, and when it does -- it shouts elitism haves over have-nots capitalists and consumerism rather than actually THINKING - using the brain to explore, investigate and understand what is actually happening. Gudrun Bielz: Capitalism might be a rather successful system, but it is not the icing on the cake. Criticizing it is perfectly alright. the idea of choice, a Thatcherite and Blairite (here in the UK) illusion, is not quite possible for many people. Some psychoanalysts call some transhumans (also extropians like
Re: [singularity] The Extropian Creed by Ben
Hello all of you , I have read this correspondence with great interest. On 20 Jan 2008, at 14:17, Vladimir Nesov wrote: If one argues for personal moral freedom, it's not about enforcing freedom on others, it's about liberating oneself from influence of others. Vladimir Others will always influence ONE (YOU). Getting rid of influence by others (this includes parents, friends, enemies, etc) is like getting rid of one's personality. Influence of others and influencing others is part of our social existence. About extropians: and N. Vita-More Using the term Social-Darwinism is inaccurate because it poisons the well of your readership by implying that it is a desire for those who are more fit than others to dominate. This term makes a socio-economic/political inference, rather than explaining why extropians want to self-improve. One of the most important characteristics of extropians is the desire to see ALL humanity improve, NOT a select few who can afford it. This is confusing. Fine that extropians want to self-improve. That ALL humanity should improve, is quite questionable. Does all humanity want to improve (immortality, happy pills, ...)? Can all humanity afford this improvement? Isn't this a bit like many ideologies or religions that envisage a better world with their rules and discoveries? What place do humans have in this scenario who do not want to improve ? What are their rights? Will extropians become an elite who rules all the others who are not part of this enlightened scenario. Even if ruling is seen as an unwanted process. How does the baptism work? Brainwashing, force-feeding, consumer promise, gentle persuasion, religiously inspired promises? Immortality. Is immortality really so wonderful? I was thinking about Fosca in one of Simone de Beauvoir's novels. He is immortal and lonely. He is one of few, if not the only one. Could there be something like the BURDEN of immortality. If all can share immortality, then reproduction is not necessary or even unwanted (over-population).Or it is permitted for a few chosen ones. Or we multiply (in the biblical sense) and spread into outer space with all our immortality? What about people from other sects/ideologies/belief-systems who do not want to become immortal other if then within their religious concepts of immortality of souls, etc. Trans(post)humanism as materialised afterlife? Moravec is interesting because he seems to propose and predict the extinction of the human species. A form of 'extendec' suicide? A form of self-hatred? A form of omnipotent delusion? I also thought that Goertzel's texts were informative and good. Ciao, Gudrun Bielz PhD student in Fine Art University of Reading Title of thesis The OCAP_ The obsessive compulsive 'artcificial' project - This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604id_secret=89593107-34bca7
