Hi LS:
Recently the NY Times reviewed a new book entitled "The Age of Spiritual
Machines-When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence” by Ray
Kurzweil.
Naturally this piqued my interest since in the past we've had much
discussion about artificial intelligence here on the Squad. So I
downloaded and read the book's first chapter which the Times was kind
enough to provide.
The title of the chapter was "A (Very Brief) History of the Universe: Time
Slowing Down." The author stepped through the usual litany of what
happened during the first 10 billioneth of second, etc. etc. and made
some interesting observations about chaos, evolution and exponential
growth. But, as you might expect, not one word about values, morals or
quality.
The really interesting thing to me was the author's assumptions about
reality, i.e., his underlying metaphysics. Again, no surprises here. He is
a true blue subject-object splitist. Here's the way he describes the great
divide:
“The objective reality is the reality of the outside observer observing the
process. The subjective experience, however, is the experience of the
process itself, assuming, of course, the process is conscious.”
I dare say most readers will nods their heads in agreement as their eyes
skim over this passage, again confirming that the subject-object split is
reality and that anyone who thinks otherwise has a screw or two loose.
But we Pirsigians will immediately question the author's assertion. We will
note the sneaky shift from "observing" in the first sentence to
"experience" in the second, as if observation could somehow be divorced
from the observer's experience. We'll also note the gratuitous throw away
line at the end of the second sentence ("assuming, of course, the
process is conscious") to draw the reader's attention away from the
sudden and inexplicable switch from "objective reality" to "subjective
experience," as if subjective experience was not really real. And, we will
once again note the complete absence of any moral judgment. There's an
assumed antiseptic truth to what the author has written onto an implied
stone tablet.
I fear such cockiness is the Archilles heal of AI'ers. So long as they stick
to the division of subject-object-as-reality (Bo's intellectual level to which I
wholeheartedly concur) they will not achieve their dreams. But if they can
be persuaded to adopt the aesthetic outlook suggested by the MoQ and
begin to believe deep down in their gut that “the test of the true is the
good,” they may indeed give us a world beyond anything yet imagined.
Platt
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:48 BST