Nathan,
I like your thought of 'synchronic/diachronic coordination.' I never
thought of this aspect of knowledge working. It's a bit like knowledge
working 'hyper-productivity.' Kind of cool! That said, I wanted to add a
few thoughts as I don't think I've gotten this concept across fully. I
apologize in advance if I'm being repetitive here.
Today, knowledge is being created every day, but only a very small fraction
of people (and/or machines) can identify the moment that it is created. So
then, knowledge creation, as it has been for at thousands of years, is at
present hidden from humans and seen as random, mysterious, and very
unpredictable.
As a society, since we don't see knowledge being formed, we really don't
manage it's evolution very specifically. As a result, in my opinion, it's
been somewhat the norm to assign knowledge itself with attributes of a
biological organism, e.g., a virus, and simlply accept the chaos of not
knowing where knowledge virus comes from OR where it is going--this chaos is
simply seen as an aspect of it's uncontrollable 'biological life.'
But imagine for a moment that we suddenly understand exactly where knowledge
comes from and how it is formed. We can also create it at will and observe
it being created. And we can also observe how this creation adds to the
logical structure of the whole of knowledge, which is one structure. Now,
we not only can control when we create it, we can manage the evolution of
the whole of this one structure of knowledge, with machine-like precision.
It doesn't look like a biological organism anymore, it's simply a
three-dimensionally logical structure. And this structure is created with
an equally logical and predictable process and using an equally logically
designed language. A logical process that can be executed by human or
machine to the limits of storage capacity.
Humans and machines now marshall around the whole of this structure with
specific roles in it's advance. There is no 'chance' knowledge working any
more...we now know where it comes from, so we know where it is going.
Knowledge is created, by human or machine, compiled into the whole of
knowledge storage, which can then be retrieved for learning or to contribute
to further knowledge creation. And I like the thought of all this being
executed with 'synchronic/diachronic coordination.'
As I see it, this is the future evolution of science and technology, which
*are* knowledge (knowledge of the physical universe, and rational
creations). Industry, the science of making things (not equal to business),
will continue to create 'products' based on these knowledge advances.
Products like 'strong AI and biological-to-nonbiological transformations.'
I definitely don't deny that these will exist, but see them as products of
science and technology and not being equal to the knowledge that created
them. These 'products' might become very similar to, or even exceed the
capabilities of humanity, or even be entwined with humanity in various ways,
but again, I don't believe the machine aspect will ever be able to
*originate* human intentionality.
Kind Regards,
Bruce LaDuke
Managing Director
Instant Innovation, LLC
Indianapolis, IN
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hyperadvance.com
----Original Message Follows----
From: "Nathan Barna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [singularity] Re: Intuitive limits of applied CogPsy
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006 22:09:25 -0500
Bruce,
I do, however, believe there is some overlap among these knowledge
workers, viz., some of their background knowledge. So I would take it
you mean that they're optimized in terms of niche, each worker having
something unique and valuable to offer at precisely the right moments,
without a single fraction of a joule wasted. That's exciting
synchronic/diachronic coordination. I only diverge somewhat in that I
think functionalist theory is more probable (which entails the
possibility of strong AI and biological-to-nonbiological
transformations), although I'd still stake that identity uniqueness,
however possibly divisible, is defined necessarily by spacetime points
(e.g., go ahead and duplicate me.1, but then it's not permissible to
kill either me.1 or me.2, at least not while either's awake!).
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
