to Platt:
so, how would they have written the article without the subj/obj split? im
curious.
Lithien
http://members.tripod.com/~lithien/pixiedust.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Platt Holden <pholden5@earthlink.net>
To: moq_discuss@moq.org <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Date: Saturday, January 09, 1999 1:16 PM
Subject: MD S-O and AI
>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
>
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