AI Re: In Which Jung prewrites AtD's epigraph

[bandwraith at aol.com]

I think "smashing" might be too strong,
but the danger is very real. The objective
inventory of the biological basis of con-
sciousness is preceding apace."Singu-
larity" might be somewhat of a fantasy,
but new methods of control are looming
(no pun intended).

The phenonmenon of "Identity" is under
duress. Thomas Metzinger even claims
that "the self" is a figment.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2XWXfmDYTRIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA41&dq=thomas+metzinger&ots=Y8lTpTW_mH&sig=1ZLQwkmWn5AcXiRovUO8nAv2bcA#v=onepage&q=thomas%20metzinger&f=false

The attack on "identity" might not be all
bad, though, and may have some unin-
tended consequences of benefit to the
smurfs. The Law of Identity is the logical
"parent" of The Law of the Excluded
Middle. Any effort to topple TLEM has to
begin by undermining TLI.

A bio-logic, and the bio-calculus it implies,
can be formulated by not recognizing
TLI.  After all, in bio-logic, A does not
equal A. A equals B, its complement.

A can only get back to "itself" through the
"other." The logical consequences of
this can, if handled correctly, lead to a
re-definitiion of reality based on sybiosis
rather than exclusion. Quantum logic is
also open to transcending the shambles
of TLI/TLEM.



-----Original Message-----
From: Kai Frederik Lorentzen <lorentzen at hotmail.de>
To: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>; pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Sat, Mar 17, 2012 9:03 am
Subject: Re: AI Re: In Which Jung prewrites AtD's epigraph




> I actually don't know what Pynchon is seeing here in this convergence 
or even if it tickles or appalls him?

Maybe --- Bioinformatics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioinformatics


> Does he mean" look forward to" as in smashing this new technology 
like good Luddites?

Very good question! I never really understood that, too.

A-and while we're at it: Did the New York Times Book Review know what 
time (1984!) it is and what exactly it was publishing there?


On 17.03.2012 00:59, Joseph Tracy wrote:


I actually don't know what Pynchon is seeing here in this convergence 
or even if it tickles or appalls him? Computers do offer a 
democratizing possibility that perhaps he sees amplified in a dramatic 
way by this convegence. I am skeptical because of the degree to which 
bio -engineering and robotics are concentrating power in fewer hands 
and computers are part of a growing surveillance state.. I wonder what 
he would say today on such a topic. Does he mean" look forward to" as 
in smashing this new technology like good Luddites? Any thoughts?

	"If our world survives, the next great challenge to watch out for will 
come -- you heard it here first -- when the curves of research and 
development in artificial intelligence, molecular biology and robotics 
all converge. Oboy. It will be amazing and unpredictable, and even the 
biggest of brass, let us devoutly hope, are going to be caught 
flat-footed. It is certainly something for all good Luddites to look 
forward to if, God willing, we should live so long. Meantime, as 
Americans, we can take comfort, however minimal and cold, from Lord 
Byron's mischievously improvised song, in which he, like other 
observers of the time, saw clear identification between the first 
Luddites and our own revolutionary origins. It begins:

As the Liberty lads o'er the sea
Bought their freedom, and cheaply, with blood,
So we, boys, we
Will die fighting, or live free,
And down with all kings but King Ludd!"



On Mar 16, 2012, at 6:29 PM, Matthew Cissell wrote:


I am not a machine. Mechanistic metaphors to describe our species do 
not make our species a machine. Machines are not sentient (not yet).

	I'm no expert on AI, but it seems like people like Dreyfuss and Searle 
(JS is no dualist) had a point about the importance of the concept of 
mind that was behind AI back then. Now Dan Zahavi has added something 
new to the subject by drawing on Merleau-Ponty's idea of embodiment to 
talk about embodied consciousness.
	And a question: to what extent is the idea of singularity just a 
technophile version of some apocalyptic passage toward a utopian world 
that eliminates all the dichotomies and binaries that afflict us 
(echoes of Donna Haraway). No more problems of race or gender or 
identity with the Singularity!
	" 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?" The 
question is, what humans are we talking about? Somehow I have trouble 
imagining the majority of people in Africa (for example) worrying about 
this situation. I mean they have trouble getting AIDS medication.

	I suspect I'll die without seeing the Singularity. Oh darn.

Ciao
MC Otis


	

From: Jude Bloom <jude at bloomradio.com>
To: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
Cc: P-list List <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: In Which Jung prewrites AtD's epigraph

Why do we suppose that humans and machines will be different entities? 
Don't all the arrows seem to be pointing to a convergence?

Unless you're a kind of dualist, there are already sentient machines, 
that is, us.  ??


On Mar 16, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:


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.