AI Re: In Which Jung prewrites AtD's epigraph

[Paul Mackin]

On 3/17/2012 12:03 PM, Mark Kohut wrote:
> Yes, that line is...but I saw that quoted part as sarcastic (or ironic
> as we lit critters should say)....
> and one essayist-scholar recently circulated here played it differently.
> Maybe others do too?..

Me.

P
>
> *From:* Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
> *To:* P-list List <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 17, 2012 11:23 AM
> *Subject:* Re: AI Re: In Which Jung prewrites AtD's epigraph
>
>
> On Mar 17, 2012, at 8:32 AM, Mark Kohut wrote:
>
>  > I think he is seeing a convergence that is horribly Frankensteinian
> and against which he thinks we should start a revolution.
> That was my first reaction/impression and I tend to read it that way,
> but there is the line "it is certainly something for all good Luddites
> to look forward to , which is a bit confusing.
>  >
>  > From: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net <mailto:brook7 at sover.net>>
>  > To: P-list List <pynchon-l at waste.org <mailto:pynchon-l at waste.org>>
>  > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 7:59 PM
>  > 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? 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 <mailto:jude at bloomradio.com>>
>  > > To: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net <mailto:brook7 at sover.net>>
>  > > Cc: P-list List <pynchon-l at waste.org <mailto: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
> <mailto: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.
>  > > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
>
>