In Which Jung prewrites AtD's epigraph

[Joseph Tracy]

> Computers have no such need. Computers need only be rational. We humans can fairly easily makes ourselves behave like computers--in a very limited way of course--but computers can't reciprocate.

There is no evidence of course that a computer has any need at all.They are programmed by rational algorithms to follow directions. No different really in terms of intelligence than a nail.  If you pound them properly something moves in a desired manner.
 If an computer could talk it might say, "ok i can process data at light speed , but what's my motivation here? I mean I come in in the 4th act, these other characters want my brain but I don't want jack, why should I care, how can I care? As far as I can tell I am just a collection of electronic parts without an ounce of curiosity or personal identity and no reason to do anything you don't tell me to do." 


On Mar 16, 2012, at 2:34 PM, Paul Mackin wrote:

> On 3/16/2012 1:14 PM, Joseph Tracy wrote:
>> I really don't know what I think about that, certainly nothing conclusive. I am open to the possibility that mind and consciousness are  fairly ubiquitous and simply a dimension of the universe that we have some imprecise terms for like spirit or mind. But the whole phenomena of mental problem solving could be somewhat more pragmatically bio-mechanistic.  I was listening yesterday to Rupert Sheldrake talk about homing pigeons. Scientific experiments seem to have thoroughly dismissed every obvious or suggested mechanism for pigeons to do this:  memory of journey away from home, sight, smell, hearing, magnetism, celestial navigation, the sun.   We just don't know what enables them to find their way home. To me this suggests that there are aspects of biological consciousness we really don't get and that the shaping of non-biological consciousness(AI) is much more difficult than previously imagined.
>>  I have at times experienced phenomenal instances of reading a stranger's thoughts, which suggests at least the possibility that thoughts radiate or have non linguistic modes of transmission.  Research in this area have been so muddied by charlatanism and by mockery that most scientists simply avoid it, but Rupert Sheldrake's work is of interest to me.
>> It seems to me that AI has been approached too much as a data processing problem without enough attention to the driving force of motivation. It all depends on how you define intelligence. As the chess programs show computers have gotten  very good at doing individual functions of intelligence. They have the advantage of perfect memory and high speed computation, but will a computer ever do anything it is not told to do, ask a question it is not told to ask or solve,  or will it's programmed expressions of intelligence simply mimic the biases, will and presumptions of the programmers?
>> 
>> Still, as Pynchon's thoughts seem to imply, the real question for humans is when we can manufacture machines to do everything  human's used to do, then what will human's do? I guess fight over who programs the machines and where to get the energy without killing everything.  Always something fun to look forward to.
>> 
> 
> The question Bandwraith asked seems almost rhetorical--of course thought is merely materiality at its most complex, and yet . . . .
> 
> Since this thread has Jung in it, it might be relevant to consider his follower James Hillman's insistence on the Soul or Imagination as essential, yet something apart, an "invisible" as he calls such things. It's what we sense but is not sensory. People naturally ask if he means God, but he demurs--wants to stay away from religion. He's just into psychology.
> 
> It's as if there is some space located between the immanent and the transcendent which even nonbelievers want and need. Spirituality neither from above nor from below but from some place in between.
> 
> Computers have no such need. Computers need only be rational. We humans can fairly easily makes ourselves behave like computers--in a very limited way of course--but computers can't reciprocate.
> 
> P
> 
> 
>> 
>> On Mar 15, 2012, at 11:26 PM, bandwraith at aol.com wrote:
>> 
>>> But do you imagine that thought is something
>>> more than a physical process, or just some
>>> physically embodied process that is way too
>>> complex and self-referential to program from
>>> the top down?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Joseph Tracy<brook7 at sover.net>
>>> To: P-list List<pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>> Sent: Thu, Mar 15, 2012 2:25 pm
>>> Subject: Re: In Which Jung prewrites AtD's epigraph
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I personally think every prediction of AI so far is absurdly premature. The
>>> premise still seems fundamentally bizarre to me. I just can't imagine self
>>> generated thought apart from the kind of innate will that comes with being in a
>>> bodily form with natural desires attributes and limits. The idea that you can
>>> program curiosity, or desire to formulate and solve a problem into an electronic
>>> device designed only to process  binary code just seems real iffy.
>>> 
>> 
>>