Glen -
Thanks for the continued engagement. We may not be converging on any
agreement but we might be approaching a common language. Here is an
outline of the issues in our discussion as I see them:
1. Is concept space discrete or continuous (Axiom of Choice vs Landscape)?
2. What is the relationship between humanity and technology?
3. What are the implications of co-mmunication within a system on this
discussion?
4. What is the extent of self-will/identity/choice in this context?
1. Is concept space discrete or continuous (Axiom of Choice vs Landscape)?
While you refer to ideas as fitting in discrete bins (Axiom of
Choice), you also use the metaphors of potential fields (gravity
well) and dynamical systems (basins of attraction). I think we can
possibly safely (between the two of us anyway) slip from one
abstraction to the other to make our points. I may also want to
add a bit of "quantum tunneling" into the potential field but I'll
try not to go too far with that ;)
2. What is the relationship between humanity and technology?
We both agree to the abstraction of humans having our phenotype
extended via technology. You might say that we *are* this extended
phenotype, I'm softer on that idea than you are I think, but not
unsympathetic (see 4 below). I think of technology in the same
terms as a metabolic network. I claim that since Habilis, we have
co-evolved with an ever growing, evolving network of artifacts and
blueprints for said artifacts which we call "technology"
collectively. "technology" has not yet become "life itself" but as
a network with near autocatalytic subnetworks within it, it has
enough features of life that I will suggest that humans and
"technology" are symbiotes.
Singularians seem to believe that technology already has or very
soon will become fully "alive" and run off and leave us (except for
Ray Kurzwiel and an astute other few who might manage to hitch a
ride on it's tail like fleas on a runaway dog).
My understanding of our contemporary situation is that the complex
network we are co-evolving with called "technology" has been growing
qualitatively and quantitatively in a super-linear (not necessarily
geometric or exponential as postulated by singularians) since it
emerged. This is problematic for us as a self-determining species
and as self-determining individuals.
If the first human immigrants to north america brought their modern
lithic weapons and hunting techniques and managed to exterminate
many species of megafauna not prepared for this virile of a
predator, then this might be an early example. Surely there was a
population boom followed by a bust? The technology of agriculture
that allowed humans to become sedentary and citified also caused us
to have a diet and daily exercise regime much less diverse than we
were evolved for. Similarly, the technologies of urban living
allowed us to experience population densities contraindicated in
avoiding epidemics and internecine violence.
3. What are the implications of co-mmunication within a system (e.g.
biome, animal group, human population) on this discussion?
From hymenoptera to homo, individuals of various species aggregate
through multi-channel feedback loops of communication. Hives,
swarms, flocks, schools, herds, pods, packs, tribes all extend the
individual's survival through extended perceptions, buffering of
resources, specialization, etc. Yet within this spectrum there are
often examples of rogue individuals or family subgroups who manage
to exist outside this complex milieu, at least for brief periods of
time.
I am in strong agreement with your sentiment that our population
densities and the logical proximity created (aggravated?) by modern
communication and transportation technology is a threat to us. In
fact, I have argued that these factors are leading us from our
organizational instincts inspired by our tribal primate anscestors,
our packing familiars (canines) and our herding familiars
(ungulates) toward organizational patterns of hives in particular.
I hope it is not racist to observe that the solutions to crowding
in Japan have lead them as a culture closer to this than say, the
herdsmen of the stans and the steppes in central eurasia. Our own
(USA) urban dwellers, especially at densities such as Manhattan or
San Francisco or Chicago are at the same risk, despite being coupled
to a slightly different monoculture spread across Urban, suburban
and rural coupled by the common grid of popular mass media (formerly
newspaper, radio, tv).
4. What is the extent of self-will/identity/choice in this context?
Nick and others have reminded us how much our choice and
self-determinism may be an illusion. I don't like it, but I accept
that there is a strong element of this even in my own life, and in
the implications of arguments such as those I am trying to make here.
The various feedback loops and resonances of our groups and the
landscapes of our popular culture(s) and the memes that inhabit them
further constrain as well as inform us.
Following the implications of my co-evolution-with-technology story,
we are also constrained and informed by our toolsets. This ranges
from physical artifacts to linguistic artifacts.
You mentioned *age* and alluded to something like *wisdom*. As I
age (I am now 55, father, grandfather and on something like a 3rd
career) I find myself experiencing two phenomena that roughly
balance eachother. Experience is a function of time and diversity
of context, and therefore with age. Perspective is a function of
Experience and something like introspection. Wisdom is more elusive
to me, but I think it also is a function of Perspective and
Experience, but is more likely a step function. There is a
Buddhist staying that the only difference between before and after
enlightenment is that after enlightenment, one realizes that you
have always been enlightened.
Wisdom might be a corollary to enlightenment... I recognize only the
barest hints of it in myself. In others, I find wisdom equally
rare/elusive and the only measure I have for it is "I know it when I
see it". In the rare moments when I feel I have a bit of wisdom, I
feel as if what has just been revealed to me is completely
self-evident, I've always known it, and my only surprise is that I
didn't realize I knew it before. This could also be mini-strokes I
suppose.
Within my own experience, I struggle to avoid the "bins" of your
axioms of choice or the bottoms of the potential wells, or the
basins of attraction. I prefer to remain on the ridges, find orbits
near the tops of the basins, or complexly circumnavigating several.
I prefer to keep in view disparate points of view. Many call me a
fence-sitter, uncommitted, or a dilletante, and I can see how from
their perspective I might be all those things.
I have a few techniques that I use to allow myself to get intimate
enough with an idea to consider it somewhat honestly without
necessarily being trapped by it's gravity well. One is to "try
things on for size"... branch off a copy of my "self" to consider
something for a bit, but leave a copy of myself up on the fence,
ready to pull the other one out of the abyss. This is a pretty
ad-hoc thing and not really all that powerful, but it allows me, for
example, to consider the ideas of the Singularians long enough to
convince you that I am one and perhaps to understand the emotional
pulls that make people want to go there.
At age 8 or so, I spent a week at "Bible School" to give my mom a
break... we were not churchy... though she might have taken us to
the same church on christmas or easter a few times. During that
week, I got totally enthralled by the "magical" stories from the
bible. To me it was as good a Jules Verne or Jack London... and I
let myself imagine what it would be like to be in the presence of
divine revelation via a burning bush, or relieved of starvation by
bread and fish multiplying or falling from heaven, or watch the seas
part for the "good" and then crash in on the "evil", or even (ew!
watch wine and bread transmute into blood and body. ew!). I didn't
know what I was doing at the time, but I distinctly remember that I
simultaneously believed (for the sake of belief?) and disbelieved
(for the sake of objectivity) in these stories, if only for a few
minutes or hours. What broke the spell (and maybe saved me from a
lifetime as a proselytizing Christer) was that the teacher got
irritated by my eager questions, thought I was making fun of her,
and essentially admitted through her behaviour that she didn't
believe her own stories!
Since then I have tried to dip my toes into the vortices of other's
belief systems enough to get a strong feel of the currents without
being swept away. For example, I am sympathetic with many of the
right's principles (logical, rational thinking) despite my total
lack of identity with their wing-nutty mean-spirited side. But I am
more sympathetic with many of the left's issues (social progress)
and those of the Libertarians (personal liberties). Most of my
righty friends are sure I am a bleeding heart, my lefty friends
imagine I am a closet Limbaugh fan, and my Libertarian friends want
to claim me as one of their own despite my constant chiding them for
their arrogant self-centeredness. All this to say I resist your
Axiom of Choice and seek to ride the ridges, swooping through the
valleys with enough momentum to crest the next saddle or climb the
next peak. As I get older, I have less energy for this, but feel I
have more skill at it. Perhaps I will transcend into Nirvanic
Wisdom when I can quantum tunnel between these basins at will...
wallowing at the bottom of one well and then magically popping out
near the bottom of another nearby but separate one.
I applaud your attempt to expand out to the forest layer! But I still
think you're being overly specific about our disagreement. My summary
about dissimilarity as the common cause for the communication illusion
and tool abuse failed to capture the core disagreement, I suppose.
So, I'll try again, as brief as I'm capable of: Inter-individual
variation causes everything we've talked about in this thread.
Your acceptance of the singularity rhetoric places you in one bin (axiom
of choice) whereas I'm in another bin. The same is true of gun control,
3D printers, and the eschatological thinking behind our fear of climate
change (on the "left") and the New World Order (in the whackjob bin).
The same variation causes varying bins surrounding free will and which
tools/traits each of us expresses.
It all boils down to the history dependent, context controlled ontogeny
of each individual. That's how it's been for the history of life on the
planet and won't change any time soon.
But what has changed is our density. We are flat out more likely to
have most of our context controlled by others with the same physiology
and morphology as our self. And that implies that we (all of us) are
much much more alike today than we have ever been in our entire history.
Our inter-individual variation is disappearing at an ever increasing
rate. That means we're all much more likely to fall into some
(illusory) gravity well, nearby in "thought space". No matter how
skeptical you might think you are, it's inevitable. You'll succumb to
some cult-like group think.
As I age, I like to think that old people, with longer hysterical
processes, can better resist their local gravity wells. But the more
one's _self_ is defined by thought and culture, the more likely they are
to cross the event horizon and stop being capable of thinking
differently. Only the lone wolves hiding in the forests have a chance
of preserving our biological diversity.
Steve Smith wrote at 01/16/2013 10:16 PM:
Glen -
I'll save you and the rest of the list my long-winded point by point
response (written but ready for delete) and try to summarize instead:
I understand now your connection between communication and tool (mis)use.
I think we disagree on a couple of things but I am sympathetic with what
I think you are reacting to here. I react to it with others myself:
I honestly don't agree that we *are* our extended phenotype, but accept
that you do. It is an important difference and may explain much of our
other disagreements.
I accept that we *might not* have as much choice as I suggest about the
development and use of our tools, but I think our choice is maximized by
seeking to exercise it, even if it is limited.
We do disagree about the relative rates of change. Biological evolution
(scaled at thousands of years) of humans may have kept pace with
technological evolution right up to the neolithic. Sociological
evolution (scaled at tens or hundreds of years) might have kept pace
with technological evolution until the industrial or perhaps the
computer revolution. I honestly believe that significant technological
change is happening on the scale of years or less.
I agree that our perception of both technological change and it's
effects is *amplified* by how the very same technology has shrunk the
world (through communication and transportation).
I agree that we have fetishised tool acquisition and possession and that
this does not equal facility much less mastery with the tools. But I
claim this aggravates the situation, not alleviates it.
I am sympathetic with the feeling that there are many Chicken Little's
about shrieking the end of the world with the thinnest of evidence
sometimes. I may sound like that to you. I'm trying to pitch my voice
an octave below that, but I may be failing.
I honestly believe that we have reached a scale of technology that risks
self-extermination and that this is exacerbated by the introduction of
new technology faster than we can come to sociological grips with it
(much less biological adaptation). The stakes are high enough that I
would prefer to err on the conservative side. I accept that you do not
agree with me on this general point.
I share your experience that many people who _think_ they are competent
at handling dangerous things (such as guns) are not. Fixing that
(acknowledging the incompetence and acting on it by forgoing the
privilege or by becoming competent) is the only answer. Attempts at gun
control seem to aggravate the problem. I believe Australia's success
in this matter might be a reflection of their readiness as a culture to
embrace the first solution. We seem to be some distance from that.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
