[Ham] I am not making nothingness "something". Like the diameter we describe in a circle, it is the "divider" which separates and delineates existential entities.
[Case] So if it is a "divider" then it is something. [Ham] Ultimate reality is not so divided; its sensibility is absolute and undifferentiated. What makes it possible for existence to become aware is Difference, starting with the division of sensibility from otherness and leading to the proprietray intellectualization of relative value as differentiated objects. [Case] You attach a great deal to this "Ultimate" reality. Could you share a bit about your taxonomy of realities? Are there sub-ultimate realities? [Ham] Your use of the term "intelligences" is deceptive. Machine "intelligence" is factual data programmed into an inanimate object so as to produce results that conform to the human concept on which these facts are based. Machines have no cognizant awareness. [Case] There are already computers that program themselves based on input from the environment. These are artificial neural networks. Their mode of operation is inherently more like the ones we have in our heads. Magnus raised the issue of quantum computers whose operational parameters are obscure to me but are not like the silicon machines we use now. One of the problems with the cognitive sciences and comparison of human thought with machine intelligence has been that humans may explain themselves in terms of algorithms but it is unlikely that we process information this way. I suggested the Internet as having the potential for self awareness because it is a neural network; the most complex such devise by man to date. [Ham] They can only reflect what man inputs to them. [Case] Just as people can only process what gets input to them. [Ham] I prefer your word "prosthetic" in the context of artifical intelligence. At best, computer-assisted microchip implants may be a 'cerebral prosthesis' to supplant man's intellectual handicap. [Case] I was referring to the fidelity and speed of machine memory and how it augments human intelligence. It is this extension and expansion of human rationality that to me, at least, already represents an advance in human consciousness on a par with the invention of writing and the printing press. But you are correct to some extent in that at present when we talk about artificial intelligence, the machine part is artificial and we are the intelligence. But I would say that to the extent that we like to be smug about this our days are numbered. [Ham] One can only hope they are not intended to replace human beings altogether, as "exciting" as this prospect seems to be for the Wilberians. [Case] Wilber would have us regress into meditative states that suppress rationality and higher consciousness and call those regressive states "higher". I hope that you are not even inadvertently suggesting that I am in any sense a Wilberian. moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
