[Larry]

I'm feeling a bit contrary this morning (blame it on the sinus infection relapse I'm having), but I just can't help but to see a problem with such things as the so-called Singularity, as well as with the current technological path.

Perhaps we're being a bit myopic in part in examining the trends/effects of these new trends. In a world where there's an ever-increasing polarization that's occuring between the elite and pleb cultures, a world in which more than hunger is a way of life for billions, how is such a thing as exponential technological growth going to affect such matters?

Perhaps I'm a bit too attached to some of Marx's ideas, but I can't help but think the disconnect is going to read such a level that the sociological disruptions are not only going to check the advance of these technological progressions, but that the potential is there for a reversal of some of tendencies toward individualistic consumptive patterns. Because after all, aren't industrialized societies a bit more brittle in their makeup when the emphasis shifts so much away from communalization toward this chimera of 'individualism'?

Just something to think about, even if I haven't put a lot of thought into the connections and the counterpoints to what I've said. But hey, I'm sick, exhausted, and I just want a revolution, baby! :p

[Dawnstorm]

Perhaps I'm a bit too attached to some of Marx's ideas, but I can't help but think the disconnect is going to read such a level that the sociological disruptions are not only going to check the advance of these technological progressions, but that the potential is there for a reversal of some of tendencies toward individualistic consumptive patterns. Because after all, aren't industrialized societies a bit more brittle in their makeup when the emphasis shifts so much away from communalization toward this chimera of 'individualism'?

So, current social control patterns will fail, because the communication lines within social "classes" will be stronger than those between them. While the rich are getting richer and poor a getting poorer, the rich will not understand the economic restrictions for "consumerism" the poor are faced with.

Like, when Hollywood blames "texting" for a decrease in movie sales, and suddenly "No cell phone signs" appear all over the cinemas throughout the country. This would work, because the "no cell phone signs" are compatible with a basic-politeness-norm to not disrupt a movie-experience with ringing cell phones. So, on the surface that would be effectively addressing the problem; but what they don't get is that - when prices rise - you're forced into a more crictical appraisal of movies, and quality becomes a factor. Because movie companies think only in terms of competition, and because they dismiss the "personhood" and "economic contexts" of their customers, they're missing a reality.

So, basically, because the people with the money only care about how to "manipulate" those that make them money, but ignore the material circumstances that allow them to be "controlled", and because the adverse influence of war etc. on stockmarkets will affect those with little resources first and force them to amend their ways more rapidly, a cultural lag will appear, having those in power applying out-dated mechanisms of social control. Which facilitates revolution.

In time, the economic restrictions will reach the "ruling classes", and then there's no telling what will happen. Though the question whether the people in charge would gimp their personal expanses in favour of the research budget of their firms, that might just not be all that hard to answer.

Is this a fair way of interpreting what you said?

[Hereford Eye]

So, current social control patterns will fail, because the communication lines within social "classes" will be stronger than those between them. While the rich are getting richer and poor a getting poorer, the rich will not understand the economic restrictions for "consumerism" the poor are faced with...
So, basically, because the people with the money only care about how to "manipulate" those that make them money, but ignore the material circumstances that allow them to be "controlled", and because the adverse influence of war etc. on stockmarkets will affect those with little resources first and force them to amend their ways more rapidly, a cultural lag will appear, having those in power applying out-dated mechanisms of social control. Which facilitates revolution.
I wrote a paper, once, back in my school days, on the application of Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs to a given society's action. My case study was South Korea in the early 60s. My conjecture was - and remains - that if an overwhelming majority of a society is operating at the survival level, niceties such as movies, popcorn, and democracy will go the way of the dodo bird. Things like international borders, immigration laws, and multiple police agencies will not be able to stop the flow of people. All the technological innovation in the world cannot resist a few thousand people a day much less 6 billion hungry people climbing the barricades because they want to believe there is food on the other side. Just won't work.

[Larry]

So, current social control patterns will fail, because the communication lines within social "classes" will be stronger than those between them. While the rich are getting richer and poor a getting poorer, the rich will not understand the economic restrictions for "consumerism" the poor are faced with.

Like, when Hollywood blames "texting" for a decrease in movie sales, and suddenly "No cell phone signs" appear all over the cinemas throughout the country. This would work, because the "no cell phone signs" are compatible with a basic-politeness-norm to not disrupt a movie-experience with ringing cell phones. So, on the surface that would be effectively addressing the problem; but what they don't get is that - when prices rise - you're forced into a more crictical appraisal of movies, and quality becomes a factor. Because movie companies think only in terms of competition, and because they dismiss the "personhood" and "economic contexts" of their customers, they're missing a reality.

So, basically, because the people with the money only care about how to "manipulate" those that make them money, but ignore the material circumstances that allow them to be "controlled", and because the adverse influence of war etc. on stockmarkets will affect those with little resources first and force them to amend their ways more rapidly, a cultural lag will appear, having those in power applying out-dated mechanisms of social control. Which facilitates revolution.

In time, the economic restrictions will reach the "ruling classes", and then there's no telling what will happen. Though the question whether the people in charge would gimp their personal expanses in favour of the research budget of their firms, that might just not be all that hard to answer.

Is this a fair way of interpreting what you said?


Yeah, but in addition, I tend to agree with Robert Kaplan (http://dieoff.org/page67.htm) in his famous 1994 Atlantic Monthly article, "The Coming Anarchy." There he talks about how the increased social polarization between the Haves and the Have Nots, when spread into a more global pattern, is threatening to tear apart the social fibers that connect all of us. The industralized nations are risking becoming little more than gated communities to the anarchy that is spreading around them.

In such a world, how long can these islands of inequality last? That is a concern to me much greater than even that which Scott talks about. I just cannot believe that the current climate is going to last much longer. It seems as though Louis XV's famous words are upon us now, "After me, the deluge."

[Scott Bakker]

I think we have good reason to fear certain macrosocial dilemma's, but things get very speculative when we start prognosticating the specifics of the breakdown. This isn't to say that such speculating isn't important or morbidly fun! :D One of the things I realized back when I was researching the apocalyptic mindset is that pretty much every generation believes itself picked out for some special doom. For me, the big thing is that we have no way of knowing just what kind of future we're hurtling into. We're stumbling in the dark, just as we always do; the difference is that we keep loading ourselves with more and more nitroglycerin.

[Radone]

Advertisers/Politicians, etc. treating all people as machines is disturbing, I suppose. But, those two professions are not unique in dealing with society in this way. There have been many posts on sffworld in which the common person is referred to as a 'lemming' or 'sheep'. The common denominator being that they are unthinking dupes. After thinking about, I have a hard time disbelieving that on a societal level, this isn't, in fact, how most people are.
To me, that isn't any different than treating people like a programmable machine. The question that I've always struggled with as a physician is this: with all that we have learned and are learning about the human body, it becomes abundantly clear that much of what makes up a personality is dependent on physical, measurable units that can be manipulated quite easily. I've always hoped/had faith that we are more than just physical, but we may soon hit the 'knee' where knowledge learned about what we are expands at truly astonishing rate (similar to computing power hitting a 'knee' and where once a multi-million dollar computer was needed to beat a grand champion, soon software on a laptop could do the same). When that 'knee' occurs is up to debate, but that we will probably reach it is not.
When that happens, I hope we don't learn that we are nothing more than biological machines. Even if we learn that, I'm not sure how I would integrate that with my faith that grace exists beyond this world.
It's terrifying and I don't think I'm a coward to say that truly thinking about such an implication is one that me and many others instinctively shy away from.

[Radone]

I love my wife and my children unconditionally. I hate to think that my love for them is nothing more than hormones, neurotransmitters, and neuronal connections. But, I have to admit the possibility that 'love' is nothing more than a physical set of connections.
Thinking about this can make a person long for relative ignorance.

[Dawnstorm]

When that happens, I hope we don't learn that we are nothing more than biological machines. Even if we learn that, I'm not sure how I would integrate that with my faith that grace exists beyond this world.
It's terrifying and I don't think I'm a coward to say that truly thinking about such an implication is one that me and many others instinctively shy away from.

I didn't understand that when Scott said it (that's what you said, Scott, basically, isn't it?), and I don't understand it any better now that you say it.

Why does there have to be more? What are you afraid of? What would you be missing? A "soul"? Consciousness?

Let me ask a question: Can science proof that pain hurts without re-course to subjective experiences? If not, does that seem to indicate that pain doesn't really hurt, it's just what we think? (Or more accurately what we appear to be thinking... wait, appear to whom, er, what... erm...)

I daresay subjectivity is a boundry that science will not be able to cross. That doesn't mean that we can't get a more objective picture of subjective phenomena, but that doesn't stop them from being subjective. Whether pain hurts us or not, that's independent on what we know about pain's objective side.

I suspect, I don't understand the core of the problem.

[Radone]

I
Why does there have to be more? What are you afraid of? What would you be missing? A "soul"? Consciousness?

Let me ask a question: Can science proof that pain hurts without re-course to subjective experiences? If not, does that seem to indicate that pain doesn't really hurt, it's just what we think? (Or more accurately what we appear to be thinking... wait, appear to whom, er, what... erm...)

I daresay subjectivity is a boundry that science will not be able to cross. That doesn't mean that we can't get a more objective picture of subjective phenomena, but that doesn't stop them from being subjective. Whether pain hurts us or not, that's independent on what we know about pain's objective side.

I suspect, I don't understand the core of the problem.


For me, being a machine is not enough. I would argue that subjective phenomena are not subjective since the very idea of independent assessment would be a fantasy. It is a conceit since our 'thoughts' are simply mechanical actions. The right programmer could render all people to love the taste of Coke and hate Pepsi. Are these people still being subjective?
As for pain, again it is simply a mechanical process, and with the right software/hardware, I know that someone could make my wife's kiss feel like knives cutting my flesh. Or make me hurt whenever I look at my sons. All things are reduced to mechanics, and for me, there would seem to little difference at that point between a human and a lawnmower.
Let's say there is a rapist, and he is caught. The victim and the rapist both have their memories of the attack replaced with something 'nice'. Did a crime occur, and does it even matter since all that happened is two machines became damaged, but they were easily repaired.

[Dawnstorm]

For me, being a machine is not enough. I would argue that subjective phenomena are not subjective since the very idea of independent assessment would be a fantasy. It is a conceit since our 'thoughts' are simply mechanical actions. The right programmer could render all people to love the taste of Coke and hate Pepsi. Are these people still being subjective?

It's Descarte's "cogito ergo sum" problem. I can only ever know for myself, not for others. Follow me further, about pain:

As for pain, again it is simply a mechanical process, and with the right software/hardware, I know that someone could make my wife's kiss feel like knives cutting my flesh. Or make me hurt whenever I look at my sons. All things are reduced to mechanics, and for me, there would seem to little difference at that point between a human and a lawnmower.

If you hit me on the head with a hammer, I hurt. The pain itself is a mechanical reaction, but the "hurting" aspect of pain needs somebody/something to "hurt" to be effective. Nobody else can ever feel the "hurting" aspect of my pain, though you will be able to perceive my facial muscles, etc.

Changing my (hypothetical) wife's kiss into lecaration pain doesn't change that. It's still pain, and its "hurting aspect" is still subjective, in the sense that nobody else will ever feel it.

You may be able to reproduce my pain by manipulating someone elses brain. But that's what it is. A reproduction on a different subject.

If I program a virtual person into a virtual invironment and re-produce said pain, is there any subjectivity involved? Can a simulation feel the pain?

What if you use the simulation of pain in a chip in your lawnmower and trigger it whenever sensors on the blades strike something harder than grass, so it stops. Do you have a lawnmower who can feel pain?

The answer, as absurd as it sounds, is that we cannot know (although we can refine the problem until we've written an enceclopedia worth of text). Because the hurting aspect of pain is subjective. What we have achieved, though, is a definition of pain that works without the subjective experience.

The question, then, is: what is the function of pain's "hurting", if a lawnmower could use the same model for the same functions, possibly without the "hurting".

I don't see science answering the question why pain hurts, and pleasure pleases. Since they're all inherently tied to a subject, I don't see how science can even tackle the question, no matter how detailed the descriptions of pain become.

Saying, "You're not feeling pain, it's just a mechanical process," is meaningless to me. Pure rhetorics, until you demonstrate conclusively that they are mutually exclusive.

Let's say there is a rapist, and he is caught. The victim and the rapist both have their memories of the attack replaced with something 'nice'. Did a crime occur, and does it even matter since all that happened is two machines became damaged, but they were easily repaired.

The simple answer is, yes, a crime occurred, but the two people involved cannot remember. They probably could, if their memories hadn't been tampered with. If you strand them on a deserted island, tell them what you've done and ask them the question, then leave, there can be no objective answer between them, if you erradicated all physical traces of the crime, along with the memories. If one of them suddenly remembers, they both have no way of checking on the truth of the memory (i.e. it could be a conviction mistaken for a memory). The one who remembers, would at least know that there is something in his/her mind that might or might not be a memory. The successful amnesiac cannot check on the other's experience of the memory - it's entirely subjective (although, by assuming s/he's good at spotting lies, s/he could convince him/herself that s/he found a way).

***

I don't pretend to know the subjective experiences of my computer. I don't pretend to know your subjective experience. Because - I assume - you have more in common with me than my computer, I consider the statement that you feel pain more likely than the statement that my computer feels pain (even if my computer were running a perfect simulation of the neural processes that make up pain).

That our brains can be manipulated like machines comes as no surprise to me. Regrettable, but ultimately irrelevant to the fact there is consciousness. The question whether machines can have consciousness isn't one I can answer. Since I can't rule out that machines (say SF-AI's as a thought experiment) have consciousness, I cannot - strictly speaking - use this as a distinctive feature of organisms. So, perhaps it turns out we are machines. Does that downgrade humans? Does that upgrade machines?

I can't make head nor tails of these questions. I still don't know what kind of more we're talking about.

Boy, talk about rambling... :eek: