Nice! You wax poetic in the latter part, which I'm incapable of paralleling. But I'll try to mimic the spirit.
Steve Smith wrote at 01/17/2013 12:40 PM: > 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? Excellent outline. > 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 ;) I agree that we can safely slip from discrete to continuous (including tunneling). But I disagree that they're abstractions (either of them). Instead, I think they're either two parts of a paradox or duals of one another. I prefer to consider them duals and I posit that discrete paradigm is otherwise known as things, objects, or states whereas the continuum paradigm is aka actions, behaviors, or processes. It's a classic Necker Cube type problem, nodes vs. edges, boxes vs. arrows. They're not different abstractions of the same thing. They _are_ the same thing. But because any time our attention focuses on some subset (things) or slice (processes), we have to choose which frame to assume. Are we speaking/thinking from the perspective that reality is a bunch of objects? Or are we speaking/thinking from the frame that reality is a smoothly dynamic goo? > 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. The problem I have with this is the extent to which you're using metaphor. Treat me as if I were autistically literal in my thinking. (I may actually be that way... I don't know and I'm not going to pay some pipe-smoking couch potato to tell me whether I am. ;-) I don't know whether you literally think our surrounding artifacts actually have inherent _properties_ of life, or whether we can merely focus our attention so that we perceive _attributes_ of life. I am fully in the latter bin, as much as I may play at liking the sci-fi stories where those artifacts come to life. I've spent too much time with the Rosenites. I believe that life defines itself through impredicativity and "technology" does not. So, if I take you literally, then you are not being metaphorical. You truly believe that there exists a way to _slice_ off technology and consider a technology-free organism. And similarly, you believe there exists a way to slice off life and consider a life-free technology. If so, I fundamentally disagree. My usual example is life in space. In order to send a human to space, we have to build a "closure" around the human. That closure is a kind of simulation harness where we plug functional equivalents into every orifice of the organism so that they can continue to "live" out there in the vacuum. We have to do that because there is no _actual_ separation between humans and their technology. There does not exist a way to separate them. Hence, co-evolution is an inaccurate or metaphorical term. > 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. Here in the discussion, I face a dilemma. I can either "tunnel" over to the perspective you framed (i.e. adopt that one can _actually_ separate organisms from their artifacts) or I can maintain my own. I usually maintain my own when discussing things over electronic media. That's lead one guy to call me a "digital autistic", because I never express any empathy or consideration of the other person's perspective, much less their feelings or humanity. >8^) Sorry about that. But sticking to my guns, I have to say that the only way machines could outpace us is to simply change the bias a slight bit. I.e. instead of humans driving the whole ecosystem as they did or do now, the machines would drive the ecosystem. In other words, even if the machines do "run away", they still need us as much as a neolithic man needed his spear. And if that's the case, some of us can be all buddhistic about it and remain happy in that state of slavery just as my smartphone might be very happy having me choose where we have lunch. > 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). I don't think we disagree at all about that part of this implication of commun-ication. (I prefer to cut the word there to emphasize "commonality" ... aka similarity.) But the other implication, which goes back to Marcus' original post, is that different technologies (guns, 3D printers) define different predicates, which define different sets of humans. This also occurs in communication in that the way we speak and the different thoughts that appeal (or don't) also serves to establish in- and out-group distinctions. My point is that our tools like language don't unify what was previously disparate. (E.g. guns combined with 3D printers do _not_ unify gun nuts with tech-dorks. It distinguishes the intersection of gun nuts with tech-dorks. The new tool, 3D printed clips, helps highlight those of us who are _already_ gun and 3D printer fans.) The diversity is in the biology and our tools don't bring us together. The tools allow for a more varied toolbox of ways to separate us. Now, to some extent, having a fine-grained toolbox of tools for discretizing the goo in different ways allows the craftsman more flexibility to detect coarser or finer patterns in the goo. And that can lead to a kind of unifying effect. The polymath is going to be more open-minded than the specialist. But it doesn't mean that the _tools_ themselves are unifying. The unifying power remains in the organism. > 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. Yes, I agree more fully with this. The deep point, here, is the extent to which the universe is open. I.e. given the constraints and opportunities reified by our surroundings, are those constraints and opportunities sensitive to whatever wiggle we do have control over? Or are they enslaving, robust to the full range of whatever effectors we can control? I've seen lots of modern public intellectuals argue for and against free will and the gist of their arguments boil down to this point: how open is the world around us? > You mentioned *age* and alluded to something like *wisdom*. As I > > [... great story structure snipped ...] > > 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. > > [...] > > 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 will briefly match your story with one of my own, then jump to a conclusion. I used to do more tunneling than I do now. All growing up I maintained (almost disjoint) sets of acquaintances. In high school they had names: heads, jocks, brains, etc. Somehow, I managed to float easily between them, controlling information flow so that any antipathy one group had for another didn't bleed into an antipathy toward me personally. In elementary school and college, there were fewer names but sharper incisions. In elementary school, they were very temporary. In college, they were very long-lasting. E.g. if you "collapsed" into a Republican or perhaps a fan of Ayn Rand, you stayed there until long after college had ended. I maintained my cross-group faculties until long after college. I think it's what allowed me to successfully transition to the SFI from Lockheed Martin. Nowadays, however, I have grown impatient with entertaining others' stories and ideas. When/if I deign to argue with someone, my rhetoric is (seemingly) full of non sequiturs because I want to skip to the end ... and having made a lifetime out of arguing, I believe myself to be capable of predicting where an argument will end up. That impatience has seriously damaged some of the relationships I've had with people who _thought_ they liked me. >8^) But, in the end, I remember the quote from FDR (I think): "I ask you to judge me by he enemies I have made." Anyway, because I am a professional simulant, I still have to maintain an ability to tunnel in and out of gravity wells. When I engage a new client and go through the requirements extraction process, my old facility with perspective hopping revives and I end up having fun. Conclusion of this silly missive: I'd like to be able to run some experiments like the following. Take all the guns from all the gun advocates and hand them to the gun controlists. Force them to use and abuse the guns for a significant amount of time. Then compare surveys taken before and after the experiment. A similar experiment with any given tool would be interesting. I know I'd like a few months to play with our army of drones in foreign countries, for example. -- glen ============================================================ 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
