As per Keith's comments I think the debate has potentially world altering consequences but whether these consequences will develop is still a very open question. M
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lawrence de Bivort Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 11:38 AM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: People questioning the intelligence of theglobal communication network Interesting debate! I am going to guess that its resolution will lie entirely in the domain of linguistics and definition. Or maybe this is too simple? While it is intellectually interesting, is it a debate with practical consequence? Cheers, Lawry On Aug 16, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: >From another list... (albeit of deep techno-enthusiasts... M -----Original Message----- Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 7:53 AM Subject: Re: People questioning the intelligence of the global communication network Thanks, , I'd like to reiterate a point I made earlier on the list and make a small update to the list in regards to smartphones. The point was, roughly, that should a global brain or accelerating artificial intelligence be clearly visible and provable, or most dramatically able to communicate with us, the stage is set for religious feelings, the formation of churches, and other very significant worship behavior of the new life form(s). Notably, the original article by Jaron Lanier is titled the First Church of Robotics and the discussion you highlighted below revolves around proving Global Brain ideas. Lanier is a vocal critic of these ideas and I disagree with the attention he receives as a kind of new-world dreadlocked mystic of technology. In this article, he writes (in regards to the behavior of reposting content on Twitter): " That is, people perform machine-like activity, copying and relaying information; the Internet, as a whole, is claimed to perform the creative thinking, the problem solving, the connection making. This is a devaluation of human thought." Basically, Lanier is a hardcore humanist who is in love with technology. No matter that millions of humans around the world discover fascinating things as a result of following other human activity on Twitter, largely from reposting behavior. According to Lanier, Twitter is not intelligent and the internet is soulless and possibly evil. I have to say, it kind of creeps me out to hear someone stating that we should " keep our religious ideas out of (the work of scientists and engineers)" and at the same time profess a deep unshakable belief in the human soul, obviously a thing never to be surpassed or obtained by a machine. What this article is about is the two sides that are apparent in Global Brain and AI research today. One side believes that only humans can have souls and computers can never be truly aware; the other believes that it's not clear if souls exist or have a specific humanistic definition and that perhaps intelligence/awareness is bigger than humans. Or you could say those who believe that intelligence requires soul and those who don't. Nonetheless, should a "new mind" awaken in some measurable form, look out! Will Lanier and his anthropocentric ilk call for it's summary execution as an abomination and try to pull the plug? Will Kuzweil and his followers raise it on high and try to plug in? UPDATE ON SMARTPHONES: The smartphone explosion is significant. "On the ground" as a consultant, I have helped many fellow citizens upgrade from small form factor devices and less touchscreen-oriented machines like Blackberries into the rapidly expanding world of Androids and iPhones. People who obtain these new smartphones immediately wonder, "what do I do with it now?" and start searching for applications and asking me what applications they should be installing. And, I believe, a new kind of emotional connection is born. Very recently, there has been quite a passionate drama played out in the world of smartphone owners. People are realizing they can "jailbreak" their iPhones and emerge from the Jobsian cleanroom to enter the free world of the internet and install whatever they want. People are realizing that some new Android phones (already a lot more liberated in regards to applications) come with a special chip that prevents complete "root" control of their device, but within two weeks of it's entrance into the world, a very real digital hero emerged on forums and blogs who had conquered the chip and granted Power to the People to be who they want to be - and the primary force driving root control was the ability to turn the Android device into an open WiFi hotspot, which the mobile network providers want to stop. These are no longer phones, they are extension of ourselves, our desires, our "souls" if you will. Lanier fears " we think of people more and more as computers, just as we think of computers as people." I believe our new small computer smartphone technologies are more than trusted friends or separate simulacrums, they are part of us. Do you believe they are draining or expanding our souls? If you believe in such a thing as a soul... if not, perhaps replace "soul" with "intelligence." _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
