Brad, Do you not think it is possible for us to 'use' the computer and the information it can provide as a tool for 'human' purposes?
I know that it can be strongly argued that, for the most part, technology has ruled over human reason in ways that may make us think that it is impossible for humans to use techological tools for 'human' ends. I do not believe computers, not matter how sophisticated, can ever have 'human' consciousness of the kind that produces philosophical thinking, or art or any number of other things that make us human in ways we may not even be able to describe. But I would like to believe that we can 'use' these tools to enhance the human capabilities that the tools cannot possibly have. This may very well be a pipe-dream; it may very well be totally and completely unrealistic, but the alternative is that the tools will rule us and/or be used in destructive ways. If we only expect the negative and destructive use of these things, there is no possiblity that we can ever get anything else. The only possiblity that they might be used to enhance human life in human ways is if we think that is a possiblity and try to work toward that end. Selma ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Michael Gurstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 9:12 PM Subject: Re: Privatizing the Public: Whose agenda? At What Cost? > hMichael Gurstein wrote: > > > > I haven't been tracking it very closely, but there is an emerging field of > > Information Systems studies which is looking at what is being called > > Artificial Life. In this there is the designing of artificial organisms > > which live only within computers. They have a variety of the > > characteristics of real organisms including the capacity to reproduce and so > > on. It seems that the most recent development in the field is that the > > organisms are given some of the social characteristics of humans and they > > are left to see how they organize themselves into communities/societies. > > > > (Think Tamagouchi and the Sims as primitive examples)... > [snip] > > Given enough processing power, a digital computing system > can mimic the appearances of any phenomena to any desired > level of approximation. The best computer enhanced > astronomical images from the Hubble Telescope are > far more "believable" than the images produced > by a $80 digital camera. > > For those who believe that living human experience is > a specific type of empirically observable object, > there can be no doubt that eventually (and sooner rather > than later), a machine will pass the Turing test, i.e., > present appearances which nobody can tell are not > "the real thing", and, therefore, computers > will *be* persons. But, as various other persons have said, > the map is not the territory, etc. > > I always believe in trying to grant people's most cherished > beliefs are true and then seeing what the conseqauences are. > If DNA can produce consciousness, why not silicon? Alan > Turing's mother reported her son said that if ever we > do make a computer that really thinks, > > "We shan't understand how it does it." > > So the only result of successfully producing > conscious beings via computer programming > would to have 2 instead of 1 incomprehensible > ways of producing consciousness (the other is via the > chemical processes of sperms and eggs). > > But the people who are fascinated by computer > consciousness and such have othe fantasies: > to either be God, i.e., to make living beings out > of clay, or to be Boss, i.e., to be able to control > other persons' behavior. Or maybe they just have > such high I.Q.s and are > so massively schooled that solving crossword > puzzles is no longer enough to keep them interested. > > -- > > Where are the computer scientists who study Husserl? > Or who study Habermas? Or who study Susanne Langer? > Or Arnold Gehlen? .... More to the point, where are > the computer science *professors* who study such > works, so as to enable their students [tomorrow's > professors as well as tomorrow's technicians...] > to appreciate these things in a social world > which is some combination of oblivious and > dismissive of them? > > \brad mccormick > > -- > Let your light so shine before men, > that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16) > > Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) > > <![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
