...Consolidate all but the sense of Smell... ;)
Stanislaw Lem, "Golem XIV"
When man wants to learn about himself, he must move circuitously, he must explore himself and penetrate from the outside, with instruments and hypotheses, for your genuinely immediate world is the outside world. A discipline which you have never created (a fact that at one time rather surprised me), the philosophy of the body, ought to have been asking as early as preanatomical times why that body of yours, which to some extent obeys you, says nothing and lies to you ￢ﾀﾔwhy it hides and defends itself against you, alert to the environment with every sense and yet opaque and mistrustful toward its owner. With a finger you can feel every grain of sand, and with your vision you can clearly distinguish the branchings of distant trees, but the arterial branchings of your own heart you are totally unable to feel, although life depends on them. You must content yourselves with information from the shell of your body, which is efficient as long as it is not sensate in its innards, whose every injury reaches you as a vague rumor through the affliction of obscure pain, since you cannot distinguish, from it, between a trifling indisposition and the precursor of destruction.
This ignorance, a rule of the unconsciously efficient body, has been established by Evolution according to a design that does not provide for assistance given, in the body's interior, by its possessor, an assistance in the form of intelligent support in the enduring of pain.
...or in support of creating an 'identity" of one from many. A singular consciousness out of a "collective" outcry from a multiplicity of communications from billions of living cells.
66 comments:
Do you know some neurology? You should know, still there are in news.
Experiments on live humans brains not allowed, naturally.
But it's reality and it's happen anyway -- when in this or that accident brain becaome damaged, in this or that part of it.
That is basicly that way we achived knowledge like that there is zones responsible for hearing and seeing in our brain. And other.
But there is more pecular and specific cases.
Like people who remember ALL.
Or people who lost feeling of "self".
And many-many other.
Do you know some neurology? You should know, still there are in news.
Experiments on live humans brains not allowed, naturally.
But it's reality and it's happen anyway -- when in this or that accident brain becaome damaged, in this or that part of it.
That is basicly that way we achived knowledge like that there is zones responsible for hearing and seeing in our brain. And other.
But there is more pecular and specific cases.
Like people who remember ALL.
Or people who lost feeling of "self".
And many-many other.
Yes, Like I said previously, I've read Patricia Churchland's "Neurophilosophy" and many of Rhawn Joseph's case studies. They have overlapping descriptions which allow amateurs like myself to consider the brain's many organizations and functions.
And... that is a question -- HOW we can achieve level of intelligence... enough to comprehend how our own brains work? Improve em? Enchance em?
Isn't it DAMN intriguing idea. ;-)
Why would we want to, if it did not contribute to the "individual's" benefit? There is only one type of intelligence, and that is a "collective" intelligence. I, for one, am sick of the "Che Vuoi?" question.
Taking Lem at his word, what is the "function" of our Sun? I'd conclude... "It's fusion". H->He->Li->Be->B->C->N->O_>F->Ne->Na->Mg
Such is the "end" of its' "intelligence".
Are "larger" stars "greater" intelligences because they fuse more elements? Is a singularity a greater "intelligence" because it consume/absorbs these "intelligences".
My last post on the UV catastrophe... and the limits of "light" begs the question, can collective intelligence become "singular" only when "detached" from the collective? Or are we Borg?
Nietzsche, "Thus Spake Zarathustra"
Prologue
When Zarathustra was thirty years old, he left his home and the lake of his home, and went into the mountains. There he enjoyed his spirit and solitude, and for ten years did not weary of it. But at last his heart changed,—and rising one morning with the rosy dawn, he went before the sun, and spake thus unto it:
Thou great star! What would be thy happiness if thou hadst not those for whom thou shinest!
For ten years hast thou climbed hither unto my cave: thou wouldst have wearied of thy light and of the journey, had it not been for me, mine eagle, and my serpent.
But we awaited thee every morning, took from thee thine overflow and blessed thee for it.
Lo! I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that hath gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it.
I would fain bestow and distribute, until the wise have once more become joyous in their folly, and the poor happy in their riches.
Therefore must I descend into the deep: as thou doest in the evening, when thou goest behind the sea, and givest light also to the nether-world, thou exuberant star!
Like thee must I GO DOWN, as men say, to whom I shall descend.
Bless me, then, thou tranquil eye, that canst behold even the greatest happiness without envy!
Bless the cup that is about to overflow, that the water may flow golden out of it, and carry everywhere the reflection of thy bliss!
Lo! This cup is again going to empty itself, and Zarathustra is again going to be a man.
Thus began Zarathustra’s down-going.
\\Why would we want to, if it did not contribute to the "individual's" benefit?
Good point.
But why do you think that it not? ;-)
\\Taking Lem at his word, what is the "function" of our Sun?
Not sure.
In what part Lem was talking about "function"?
AFAIK he was staunchly anti-teleological... well, mostly.
\\Lacan put, at the end of the curve designating the question 'Che vuoi?'
You have read it yourself.
What did Lem/Golem said about that "dreams"?
That is just fata-morgana of our culture.
But if you look at it from perspective of technologies -- all that mirages, phantomes and specters... they vanishing. ;-)
\\Such is the "end" of its' "intelligence".
Who knows... that'll be freaking many billions of years AFTER.
But well, I, have such a "dream" to watch it with my own eyes, still. ;-)
And there is ONLY ONE way of achieving that -- get smarter.
There's a difference between "wisdom" and "intelligence". As a philospher, I'm a lover of wisdom, NOT intelligence. The "wisdom" of driving a quadriga (Plato, Phaedrus").
...and for point of clarification, Plato's "chariot" is not a quadriga.
\\Are "larger" stars "greater" intelligences because they fuse more elements? Is a singularity a greater "intelligence" because it consume/absorbs these "intelligences".
AFAIK and AFAIU... Lem's answer is -- go look into it (for) yourself. ;-)
\\Nietzsche, "Thus Spake Zarathustra"
This part I know well enough. As I tryed to read it several time. So beginning I do remember well. :-)
But.
What do you SEE there? I need to behold and comprehend?
Another word.
\\Lo! I am weary of my wisdom
So? And where is his wisdom?
I showed to you Golem. As you was able to see -- he do not try to hide his "wisdom". Or tell about it with some secretive language. Or point ti it indireclty. Or... just pretend that there is some wisdom that will be said... later... while he'd be collecting fees from attandants, for now.
\\There's a difference between "wisdom" and "intelligence". As a philospher, I'm a lover of wisdom, NOT intelligence. The "wisdom" of driving a quadriga (Plato, Phaedrus").
Yeah. I know the difference. Lem teached me.
That THAT "wisdon"... is in doing NOTHING... while claiming that you "know all" and "see all possibilities" before hand. So, what need one have to not slack it over.
\\Are "larger" stars "greater" intelligences because they fuse more elements? Is a singularity a greater "intelligence" because it consume/absorbs these "intelligences".
AFAIK and AFAIU... Lem's answer is -- go look into it (for) yourself. ;-)
Not willing to share your ard won "intelligence"? ;)
\\Nietzsche, "Thus Spake Zarathustra"
This part I know well enough. As I tryed to read it several time. So beginning I do remember well. :-)
But.
What do you SEE there? I need to behold and comprehend?
Again that wisdom is a form of "intelligence" used to persuade and control "others".
Another word.
\\Lo! I am weary of my wisdom
So? And where is his wisdom?
In his command of his eagle and serpent. (like Odin's ravens).
I showed to you Golem. As you was able to see -- he do not try to hide his "wisdom". Or tell about it with some secretive language. Or point ti it indireclty. Or... just pretend that there is some wisdom that will be said... later... while he'd be collecting fees from attandants, for now.
Golem "wisdom's" was reserved for Creve and Popp, the only one's with "esoteric" knowledge of Golem's final discourse.
\\There's a difference between "wisdom" and "intelligence". As a philospher, I'm a lover of wisdom, NOT intelligence. The "wisdom" of driving a quadriga (Plato, Phaedrus").
Yeah. I know the difference. Lem teached me.
That THAT "wisdon"... is in doing NOTHING... while claiming that you "know all" and "see all possibilities" before hand. So, what need one have to not slack it over.
Wisdom is indeed the "opposed virtue" to "justice".... where as "courage" opposes "temperance" ... and the need to "not slack it over". ;)
btw - Do you know what "laughter" is (at least as far as Freud was concerned)? It was the release of a surplus of "psychic energy" gained by not having to think too hard to gain the meaning of something (like a joke).
Why do kings visit oracles? Why do children attend universities? Why do mental patients seek "analysts"? For they are the "persons supposed to know" the answers to the mystery, "che vuoi?" Why the masochist is "perverted" (for like the analyst, he believes he "knows" the answer).
Are you familiar with the myth of Tantalus?
The philosopher is Aesop's fox. He ultimately adduces that the grapes are sour.
...and thereby retains his joy (jouissance)/ love (philo).
Meden again!
So the DOD build's Golem XIV, and "Honest Annie" the "object (as opposed to subject) supposed to know"... which much like the objet petit 'a, disappears before delivering the knowledge long and expensively sought. Apollo chases Daphne once again... before the metamorphosis.
\\Not willing to share your ard won "intelligence"? ;)
Lem?
Golem?
Or me? %-)))
\\Again that wisdom is a form of "intelligence" used to persuade and control "others".
And what's the point? While one cannot "persuafe and control" even oneself?
\\In his command of his eagle and serpent. (like Odin's ravens).
Sorry. Where exactly.
As from the book I saw that they are on its own.
Or that is a "wisdom" of self-fooling -- to persuade oneself that one controls... well, somthing. :-)
\\Golem "wisdom's" was reserved for Creve and Popp, the only one's with "esoteric" knowledge of Golem's final discourse.
Bull...Shit.
I already said it -- all what "Golem" said, Lem said way-way before... in his Summa Technologiae. (Golem XIV wrutten in 1984, while Summa in... 1964)
"Golem XIV" that is just later (and unsuccessful, it seems) try to proselite that earlier saud truth(es).
\\Why do kings visit oracles? Why do children attend universities? Why do mental patients seek "analysts"? For they are the "persons supposed to know" the answers to the mystery, "che vuoi?" Why the masochist is "perverted" (for like the analyst, he believes he "knows" the answer).
If that was NOT rethorical question. Mark it. :-)
When I seek knowledge, I prefer the oracle at Dodona to the one at M.I.T.
Athena's eagle/ nike and serpent
Zarathustras...
For ten years hast thou climbed hither unto my cave: thou wouldst have wearied of thy light and of the journey, had it not been for me, mine eagle, and my serpent.
\\The philosopher is Aesop's fox. He ultimately adduces that the grapes are sour.
Stupid phylosophers. Yes.
\\Are you familiar with the myth of Tantalus?
As I said. On the level of fairytales and anekdotes. (like that with Socrates and peas) I seems like know it.
Not mych more though. :-(
\\So the DOD build's Golem XIV, and "Honest Annie"
Hardly that is important.
Hard scifi, you know.
So Lem was forced to devise some plausible premises, was he not?
\\disappears before delivering the knowledge long and expensively sought.
If this exactly point makes you curious... you should read Douglas Adams. ;-P
He turned it up to ekleven.
And it even became a meme.
Nike for exploring the upper reaches (divided line by Plato analogy)... serpent for the lower regions of the Parthenon.
I love the Parthenon's "sacred geometry" almost as much as that of Amun Ra at Karnak.
Wisdom carved in stone and built to last thousands of years... in tribute to Lindy.
\\When I seek knowledge, I prefer the oracle at Dodona to the one at M.I.T.
Knowledge?
From Oracle?
Isn't that is reassurance. Don't you know method that "oracles" of the world work? Gipsy fortune tellers and Co. :-))))
Flipping of a coin... is way more cheaper. But essentially the same -- while coin still in the midair, while not settled, while you not looked at it... you can find what your true aspirations are. ;-)
\\For ten years hast thou climbed hither unto my cave: thou wouldst have wearied of thy light and of the journey, had it not been for me, mine eagle, and my serpent.
Yet again.
Where and how in the book it showed that relation are more than that of aquitances?
\\Wisdom carved in stone and built to last thousands of years... in tribute to Lindy.
Yap, Pharaoh Tut the Great was wise... well, wait, oh shit. ;-P
\\I love the Parthenon's "sacred geometry" almost as much as that of Amun Ra at Karnak.
Aha... especially how they workarounded it... to not move The Sacred Tree. ;-P
If you wish to learn what "higher" knowledge really is, I suggest you read Plato's Parmenides. It's a dialectic of absolutes. It's conclusion, "If One is not, then nothing is."
It took centuries to construct Karnak, much as with the "temple complex" atop and on the sides of the Acropolis. Have you "read" their messages, yet?
Are you familiar with the "Masons"? They are the 'modern' embodiement of this ancient practice.
:P
:)
Capitalism's Engine: Infinitely Post-Postponed Enjoyment
Golem XIV was the Pentagon's "fortune teller" gypsy. And in the end, he rode off into the sunset with their money...
At Luxor's Karnak complex, what is the "function" of the Kamutef complex that appears "like a shuttlecock" along the Avenue of Sphinxes between the rectangular pool of the temple of Amun Ra and naturally shaped pool at Mut?
Can you suspend your sphinxian curiosity, or are you inclined to pursue it? Will you untangle the Gordian know, or slice through it to the quick?
As Isaiah Berlin once said, "the Fox knows many things, but the hedgehog only one."
Speaking of sphinxes, do you know what an Oedipus complex is?
\\Golem XIV was the Pentagon's "fortune teller" gypsy. And in the end, he rode off into the sunset with their money...
Hardly.
Most practical would be to suggest -- that Golem's mind was too bright for them... to find any problem hard for him to solve.
Well, about it (communication of merely human with higher mind) is his other texts where he explore different possibilities.
But all of them are unsettling on the part of meager minds. ;-P
\\If you wish to learn what "higher" knowledge really is, I suggest you read Plato's Parmenides. It's a dialectic of absolutes. It's conclusion, "If One is not, then nothing is."
I prefer Turing's and Gedel's "absolutes". ;-P
Well, they not that absolute either.
What that Absolute even mean, are you able to percieve or imagine Actual Infinity? ;-P
\\Will you untangle the Gordian know, or slice through it to the quick?
Remember? "Tasks... and methods to solve em". ;-)
\\It took centuries to construct Karnak, much as with the "temple complex" atop and on the sides of the Acropolis. Have you "read" their messages, yet?
Did you see that recent documentary?
Where they use modern methods to scan historical objects.
And then reconstruct their digital copyes? ;-)
See... everything is a tech.
Even your "secret knowledge" and "esotheric". ;-P
As Lem showed in his Summa. ;-)
Only some tech's were made to last, and other's, not so much. Welcome to the age of "product obsolescence".
So what?
Lem teachs to think in terms of ALL techs, not concentrate on some of them. ;-)
Or. "No silver bullet", as engineers say.
You know, as vigorous as our discussions is... they do not seems to converge.
What do you think about it?
I think you're missing the difference between anti-fragile and adaptable "bio" based systems and the extremely fragile and un-adaptable "mechanical" ones.
Yes, humans can implant artificial hearts, pacemakers, etc. but they don't last very long and require interventions to replace/ repair.
The only way around that would be a mechanical conglomeration like the internet itself, but then the problem of "goal setting" for the AI emerges, and how does the higher level AI intelligence reward goal achievement for the lower level attached hardware/ systems.
There needs to be a "nesting structures" for the different levels of machine intelligences with the higher levels of intelligence rewarding the lower levels for goal achievement/ performance.
Either that, or the higher level AI needs to be able to hack and communicate/control every lower level system attached to the network.
Automate the Peter Principle?
\\I think you're missing the difference between anti-fragile and adaptable "bio" based systems and the extremely fragile and un-adaptable "mechanical" ones.
That is too much beyond obvious idea for my. So, I do not talk about it. Much. And that can create such a feeling that I ignore it. Yes.
\\The only way around that would be a mechanical conglomeration like the internet itself, but then the problem of "goal setting" for the AI emerges, and how does the higher level AI intelligence reward goal achievement for the lower level attached hardware/ systems.
EXACTLY!!!
\\There needs to be a "nesting structures" for the different levels of machine intelligences with the higher levels of intelligence rewarding the lower levels for goal achievement/ performance.
Well... everything is little bit more complex than that...
But, Yep. That is the MAIN hurdle. AFAIP.
\\Either that, or the higher level AI needs to be able to hack and communicate/control every lower level system attached to the network.
Yep.
That is what we humans do with our techs.
There always need of a clever mechanic to "hack"... or literally to hack, that Gordian knot of a problems at hand.
But... hardly that is productive way to do things. Anymore.
There need to be theory. Or even better -- technology. For doing that.
Do you know about one? ;-)
\\Anonymous (((TC))) said...
Automate the Peter Principle?
:-))))))))))))))))))))))
You are no end of fun, Nigero.
With your merrily nilly-vanilly tryes to coment on thing you do not comprehend even meaning of words used in it.
That is so... childish.
I do remember watching NASA video's for SWARM, but I can't find any. I think it was spun off.
If there is any such tech, it's probably buried in the IC. You'd have to go through all the WikiLeaks materials to find it.
Swarming? That is way to make only dumb AI. ;-P
What you envision is what you get, so to say. :-)))
Depends upon what you're trying to do and how much redundancy of functions is required.
Something smart, I presume. Why we need AI otherwise? ;-)
Do you know Baron Munchausen? His famous "bootstraping" treak I mean. ;-)
That "fubctions" again. Why you think it is important to talk about functions?
Because the members of the "swarm" can be different and serve different specialized functions, just as in real life there are "soldier ants, worker ants, and a queen". One queen, a thousand soldiers, and tens of thousands of workers (some exploring, gathering food, tending to eggs, etc.). For NASA, this might mean a single drone for long distance high data volume communications with either lasercomm or C-band comms for relay to Earth, some low volume s-band comms for drones, a drone for C3I, and worker drones with different sensor and scientific data collection packages some might land on surface to collect samples, others rovers, others flyers, some IR, some UV, some chemical analyzers, etc. A Hi-Lo mix of instruments/sensors.... each autonomous for its' function.
:P
That's it. Dumb AI.
And that is after we have talked so long about Golem XIV.
Well, please, understand me the right way here. I do not try to deminish NASA, or this approach, or your input. Or you.
That is... just too obvious idea for me. It is all important and all. But there much more complex and interesting visions lurking behind it.
For very least, so I would not be empty-babbler as TC.
Robotic tech(s?) that "works" as eco-system.
Well, again from Lem's books.
Don't know other author who'd write about it too...
Sorry, but in real life, budgets are an issue. We don't start at "most expensive solution" and then work our way down from there. Else we'd be doing manned space instead of robotics.
btw - Why would you want to invent an AI that would put 8 billion humans out of work? What would you have those 8 billion doing, serving as batteries for the machine society?
Want to know my opinion of auomation? It represents a surplus/ excess of capital.
It's a poor proxy for social relations.
Have you watched HBO's "West World"?
\\Sorry, but in real life, budgets are an issue. We don't start at "most expensive solution" and then work our way down from there. Else we'd be doing manned space instead of robotics.
It all question of comparative advantage. ;-)
And comparative advantage stems from envisioning other posibilities.
\\btw - Why would you want to invent an AI that would put 8 billion humans out of work? What would you have those 8 billion doing, serving as batteries for the machine society?
Huh. There lots of works already destroyed.
Do you want to return em? Through destroying of all modern equipment?
Like chainsaws. So people would cut trees Old Good way. With axes.
Made of stone. ;-P
Just IMAGINE what immense increase in demand for such Old Good professions will be!
\\Have you watched HBO's "West World"?
No.
Only old predecessor of it. ;-)
Yul Brynner as Lone Gunman... priceless.
\\Sorry, but in real life, budgets are an issue. We don't start at "most expensive solution" and then work our way down from there. Else we'd be doing manned space instead of robotics.
It all question of comparative advantage. ;-)
And comparative advantage stems from envisioning other posibilities.
Indeed it does.
\\btw - Why would you want to invent an AI that would put 8 billion humans out of work? What would you have those 8 billion doing, serving as batteries for the machine society?
Huh. There lots of works already destroyed.
Do you want to return em? Through destroying of all modern equipment?
Like chainsaws. So people would cut trees Old Good way. With axes.
Made of stone. ;-P
Just IMAGINE what immense increase in demand for such Old Good professions will be!
I'm just saying that instead of inventing/buying a million dollar machine that assembles pizzas, let an unskilled human do it for a minimum wage.
\\Have you watched HBO's "West World"?
No.
Only old predecessor of it. ;-)
Yul Brynner as Lone Gunman... priceless.
I remember the original, too. I only watched the first season of the HBO series, but it presents some very interesting issues with AI.
\\I'm just saying that instead of inventing/buying a million dollar machine that assembles pizzas, let an unskilled human do it for a minimum wage.
Yep.
Only one little problem here -- Invisible Hand do not want it. ;-P
And only Socialism can make it happen. ;-P
\\but it presents some very interesting issues with AI.
I doubt it.
But, wjo knws. You may list a couple, which was most inteesting for you.
\\\\Have you watched HBO's "West World"?
No.
Only old predecessor of it. ;-)
Yul Brynner as Lone Gunman... priceless.
\\I remember the original, too.
Only first part? But a sequel too? ;-)
It was funny for me to find that there was continuation, on which that HBO series was based AFAIU... but in a hindsight, your Hollywood ability to squize out any theme till the last drop of viability...
...and even beyond. :-)
"turn it to eleven", so to say.
:P
Post a Comment