Re: [Wittrs] Wittgenstein on Machines and Thinking
- From: Han Geurdes <han.geurdes@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 19:49:38 +0200
Kirby,
Your post is so very long. I agree fully with the introductory remarks
however. And if I understand the people from SPSP in the right way, politics
is never far away in all science and philosophical adventures. Every claim
has political consequences from grant funding to suppressing some pet
lower-thought forms of existence. My toaster can give quite a few lectures
on that.
On 22 June 2011 17:03, kirby urner <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Not every issue is a political or moral one.
> >
> >
> Ah, but this one is for sure, very much so. Remember how some
> "philosophes" would deny interiority to dogs, Descartes' era right?
> And such-and-such a race might not have full fledged souls.
>
> Women have sometimes been given a back-of-the-bus position
> -- all in terms of something called "consciousness" or "rationality".
>
> It's a topic area fraught with bigotry and high emotion, which is
> what Kubrik / Spielberg are bringing out in that revisiting of a
> Roman Coliseum, specializing in pandering to spectator lust
> for cruelty.
>
> Robots are victimized by a hostile species jealous of its status
> and wanting to prove something by subjecting robots to
> indignities.
>
> The analogies to humans and their dehumanization of other
> humans is obvious.
>
> Ranking beings as to their level of consciousness is politics
> personified. It goes on all the time.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqS83f-NUww
>
>
>
> > And those who speculated about submarines or flying rockets to the moon
> or
> > splitting the atom or other great advances in advance of their
> realization
> > were speaking nonsense? Does it only cease to be nonsense when someone
> has
> > already done it?
> >
>
>
> They were guilty of weaving nonsense throughout their accounts,
> yes. A lot of times it was mistakes around gravity. Phenomena
> not accounted for, not factored in.
>
> The special effect budget was maybe not good enough, or
> just there were lots of holes in the science.
>
> '2001 Space Odyssey' brought new realism to futurism. The
> images were so compelling, of the character HAL especially,
> that we somewhat define our post-2000 chapter with reference
> to that movie, and what failed to materialize.
>
> The science fiction "I, Robot" stuff: who's to say what level
> of "nonsense" is achieved in such fantasy? If we call fairy
> tales "nonsense" then in the same breadth lets admit that
> such "nonsense" is vital to the human psyche such that
> life without it is well nigh unimaginable.
>
> In that case, nonsense is vital to sense, and indeed that's
> not such a radical proposition.
>
>
> > Very different issue even if some of the words are the same.
> >
> >
> Yes, I think the way "consciousness" is extending into machinery
> is not through some new form of subjectivity suddenly facing us,
> from the other side of the silicon as it were, but through our
> own self awareness transforming through our amplified thinking
> abilities as these are augmented by silicon.
>
> Silicon circuitry has altered the quality of our consciousness,
> changed the dream, just as radio has, and the telephone, and
> so "consciousness", whatever it is (as if it were some "thing",
> some pseudo-object), is best not seen as a fixed constant
> regardless of the otherness (environment) that surrounds it.
>
> "Conciousness" is a moving target, with or without "conscious
> machines" that aren't "us" already.
>
>
> >
> > Who? Borgs on Star Trek or some metaphorical borg-like persons in the
> real
> > world?
> >
> >
> I tried to spell out above how I think consciousness is a
> moving target. Geeks have gathered in Portland for OS Bridge
> and speak this highly metaphysical mumbo jumbo. Of course
> they're conscious of food, water, wind, but also of less visible
> networks of servers, small companies, protocols, and a
> large number of tools, all floating in the ether as it were
> (I teach people in how to use some of them).
>
> If you unplug such a geek from her or his cyberspace context,
> is he or she really the same animal? We could say the animal
> is the same, but the persona has been altered.
>
> On the other hand, some parents send their kids to
> brainwashing camps to wean them off cyberspace, or
> do we call them deprogramming camps?
>
> The point being: we already admit to differences in consciousness
> among human beings, and should focus more on that, in trying
> to get more of a grip on what "consciousness" really means
> (lots of philosophically geared ethnography, and vice versa,
> awaiting more gifted scholars).
>
>
> > I think at some point it will happen though probably not overnight but
> > rather incrementally, over many iterations, false starts and so forth.
> >
> >
> Perhaps if we fast forward to the future, we're struck by how very
> different the quality of human consciousness seems, especially
> now that some are on Mars, some in under sea cities, and
> it's getting rare to find certain types of hybrids anymore.
>
> We're maybe forking into three or more species, as animals, and
> yet because of our shared cyber existence, our mentality is very
> intertwined. We feel we're a single species mentally, but
> acknowledge growing apart physically.
>
> Martians simply die on Earth and the under sea peoples are busy
> genetically re-engineering themselves (some no longer breath air).
>
>
> >
> > Well Jules Verne and H. G. Wells did pretty well. Issac Asimov and Arthur
> > C. Clark look good, too.
> >
> >
> Predictive narrative points in some general direction.
>
> The metaphor of "pointing to the future".
>
> Then we get some sense of "how accurately" so and so pointed.
>
> Where does L Ron. Hubbard come out? He stopped "predicting
> the future" and created a new kind of "church" instead. So many
> in Hollywood find learning improv through this church is a source
> of gigs and connections, as well as skills.
>
> I bring this up because I think philosophers have different ways
> of bequeathing a legacy.
>
> Some cliques of philosopher want to control the criteria pretty
> tightly, so things like "geodesic spheres" won't be considered
> philosophical in the way a true Platonist might have considered
> them.
>
> Last week I visited a famous philosopher by the name of Magnus
> Wenninger, who thinks quite highly of Wittgenstein, as I've posted
> here (citing his post to the Poly list).
>
> Some thinkers make a difference by contributing artifacts, designs
> for artifacts. Dewey contributed his Dewey Decimals. Stallman
> contributed the GPL and GNU.
>
> Wittgenstein tended to volunteer in various ways, showing what
> he meant by philosophy.
>
> I don't think he should be portrayed as turning people away
> from philosophy. Rather, we was steering tomorrow's
> philosophers into positions where they could make more
> of a difference. They could practice, do their thing, even
> while driving a fork lift sometimes, or hauling vegetables
> on a bicycle.
>
>
> >
> > Not yet, anyway.
> >
> >
> I think this word "metaphor" sometimes does more
> harm than good.
>
> It sets up this tension between the supposedly "literal"
> (meaning "true") meaning, and then all these "secondary"
> (meaning "not true") meanings, which we tolerate
> because they're "symbolic" i.e. "metaphorical".
>
> There's a lot of moral charge in the picture, as it's
> sometimes necessary to chide a person who doesn't
> seem to accept the same notion of literalness.
>
> To get wide eyed and say "no, no, I mean it, computers
> really do think!" -- that's just to be "a nutter" as
> Harry Potter's friends would say.
>
> On the other hand, it's just as peculiar to keep
> interrupting a play or puppet show, to remind the
> audience that the displayed objects aren't "really"
> having any of the thoughts imputed to them.
>
> Much of philosophy consists of statements with
> no obvious context, no clear home. Yet these
> statements may come across as meaningful-
> seeming nonetheless -- we can't shake them
> loose. Images "cling" sometimes.
>
>
> > Just as metaphorical though, given what you seem to mean here.
> >
> >
> If I use a screwdriver ninety-nine times out of a hundred to
> unscrew or screw in a screw, then one time in a hundred I
> use it to pry open a coconut, then we might, for the purposes
> of analogy, say the "secondary" use is "metaphoric".
>
> Applying "thinking" to dolls and computers is like picking
> up a well-known tool (like a screwdriver), and applying it in
> these agreed upon ways (to open a coconut).
>
> Dogs are even closer to "truly thinking" (not just "metaphorically"),
> if we insist on this spectrum of "literally to metaphorically
> true" -- a spectrum I'm quite suspicious of. This language
> game of calling expressions "metaphoric" should not be
> accepted without further investigation.
>
> Of the organic persuasion.
> >
> >
> Could we call ourselves "organic robots"? I've heard
> some refer to us as "meat puppets".
>
> I do smell politics here. People have different biases
> when it comes to where to draw certain lines.
>
>
> > I think Bruce would argue man is manmade (or man and woman made).
> >
> >
> That could be an interesting discussion on another
> thread. "Is man man made?" I'd say "clearly not" but
> then what would it mean to say "man *is* man made"?
>
> Lots of otherwise useless wheel spinning that might prove
> useful to us, because we're Wittgensteinians and know
> when we're looking at a lot of spinning machinery,
> wickedly complicated sometimes (and so we learn to
> simplify, using language games, invented tribes, other
> tricks of the trade -- even skits, and perhaps commercials
> of a satirical sort (designed to induce gestalt flips)).
>
>
> >
> > With a great potential for plasticity though.
> >
> >
> Yes.
>
>
> > And one of the scariest films I remember seeing, but scary not in an in
> > your face way but in terms of imagining such a development happening to
> > oneself.
> >
> >
> Reminds me of Kafka.
>
> "Gregor Samsa wakes up to find that he has
> been transformed into a giant insect-like
> creature. Gregor briefly examines his
> new body, but wonders only momentarily
> about what has happened to him. His
> attention quickly switches to observing
> his room, which he finds very ordinary but
> a bit small, and a framed magazine
> clipping of a woman in fur hanging up
> on the wall."
>
> -- Wikipedia
>
>
> > No, but it is metaphorical. I believe it was Duncan who used to make the
> > point about primary and secondary meanings a la Wittgenstein. I've
> thought
> > about that over the years and I no longer think there's a clear
> distinction
> > there. What is primary or secondary is mainly a function of immediate
> > context. The same concept can be both.
> >
> >
> I agree.
>
> What would it be like to take all applications of "thinking"
> as "equally metaphoric" meaning any use of the tool
> (screwdriver) is as OK as any other.
>
> I think the tool-like nature of a word like "think" might
> come into the foreground.
>
> Then you could go back to the old way of seeing:
> imagining there's a "literal phenomenon" to which the
> word "thinking" veritably and ostensibly points (close
> the eyes, demonstrate "thinking to oneself" -- the
> paradigm "doesn't get it about tool use" posture,
> like scrunching up one's forehead and staring
> intently at "the meaning" or "the it" ("Cousin It" we
> might affectionately call it, another darling beetle
> in the box).
>
>
> When is a metaphor no longer a metaphor?
> >
> >
> An excellent question.
>
> Do people only metaphorically have souls? Or do
> they not have souls at all and only imagine they
> do?
>
> I don't think we can say people have souls in
> a metaphoric sense because to say this would
> be denying there's a literal sense, and hence
> there'd be nothing to contrast "metaphoric"
> with. This is true whether or not one believes
> in souls.
>
> Again, it's the ghost of seeming meaningfulness
> which may hold us entranced. Another
> wandering meme chain comes along, some
> glinting bling in the ocean, nowhere to call home,
> yet attractive to fish.
>
> Philosophy: a lot of catchy tunes that got stuck
> in the collective consciousness. "Cogito ergo sum".
> People say they believe that is true, even when
> they don't speak any Latin. Suspicious.
>
>
>
> > Or it might not be.
> >
> >
> As an aside (you know I'm interested in tangents):
> aspartame (aspartic acid + L-phenylalanine) could have
> been marketed as an IQ booster, as that's what
> some people use it for. But admitting *any* change,
> even for the better, is to open the door to "causal
> effects" (i.e. symptoms) more generally, and that's
> not where the marketeers want to go. No, aspartame
> breaks down with no traces and no significant effects.
> What body builders do with aspartic acid is their
> business. The actual chemistry involved is argued
> by lawyers and safety experts, lobbyists.
>
> http://www.mindandmuscle.net/articles/aspartic-acid/
>
> So many fads, hoaxes, out there, with science
> used and misused by all sides. Thinking the battle
> for some concept of "conscious machines" could be
> "clean" seems somewhat hopeless to me. The
> evolution of "consciousness" (its meaning) has
> already been such a woefully corrupt process
> up until now. Everyone has their pet "theory of
> consciousness". One can hardly say the word
> without looking furtively around for a next huckster.
>
>
> > > Humans
> > > wear this "slug" between their shoulder blades, and all kinds
> > > of claims are made, based on MRIs, that their feelings of
> > > enhanced intelligence are due to these Intel pods (a
> > > gob of goo, supposedly throbbing with a seething thought
> > > like circuitry).
> >
> > Well something thinks the thoughts and it ain't our fingers and toes.
> >
> >
> We sometimes do think with our fingers, as when doing
> calculations. Sometimes with think with pen and paper
> and have thoughts we couldn't have otherwise.
>
> Does "something" think the thoughts?
>
> That sounds grammatically true, and metaphorically true, but
> a lot of the time when we say things like "he thinks he's better
> than most people" we are describing an attitude or frame of
> mind, not specific mental events or individual thoughts.
>
> We don't try mapping "he thinks he's better than most people"
> to any specific thought flitting through his mind. Even if we
> can sometimes read thoughts off a face as if viewing an MRI
> (the face, combined with the rest of the body, is designed to
> exude thinking) that doesn't mean "he thinks such and such"
> is a pointer to some hidden process. That's just an image
> (a metaphor?).
>
>
> > Why should we? What's the relevance to the current subject matter?
> >
> >
> The specifics of human consciousness are themselves changing,
> thanks to global electronics. Neuronal circuits within the head are
> met by high bandwidth optical and aural displays bringing content
> from workspaces around the globe.
>
> There's interactivity, immediacy, plus lots of asynchronous activity
> (delays, buffers, stacks, queues).
>
> Some will say consciousness as we know it now depends on
> prosthetic devices. Humanity is increasingly a cell-silicon
> creature -- all without those "chips" implanted in the brain, a
> far less sophisticated way of wiring brains to the bigger world
> than simply using the interface we're given, if operable (namely
> eyes, ears, fingers, other ports to/from the biological hardware).
>
> Kirby
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
