I'd be curious for any thoughts from @Wayfarer as well.

I read chapter 5, and some of chapter 8, as prescribed. I can't say really much to the points raised in those chapters about 'machine intelligence' or 'artificial intelligence'. The whole issue seems to revolve around a known unknown, or what makes the machine tick? Does it have intentionality, if not, then what then makes it 'intelligent'? Is it purposeful behavior, then again, does it have intentionality?

Kind of circular if you ask me.

Oh, so it's metaphysics time, again. Sorry, don't have much to offer in that regard.

Do androids dream of electric sheep, is a question that keeps on bothering me when I see your posts with that avatar. Hehe.

It's always metaphysics time.

Do androids dream of electric sheep, is a question that keeps on bothering me when I see your posts with that avatar. Hehe. — Posty McPostface

That's why PKD's likeness is emblazoned so on TPF; to remind the metaphysically small-minded of their lack! :rofl:

:point:

As long as we were dependent on horsepower and the firepower of cannons firing mere projectiles, we were protected by the limits of our grasp. — BitterCrank

BitterCrank has summed up my perspective pretty well. To expand on that a bit...

The last century was characterized by a knowledge explosion which gave us two things.

1) Many wondrous miracles, too many to list.

2) An extremely efficient method for erasing all the miracles.

I expect more of that is coming, just at a faster pace. More miracles, and more technologies capable of crashing civilization.

We probably can't even imagine many of the coming miracles, just as those of us who grew up in the 60's couldn't have imagined the impact the Internet would have. A lot of very cool new things are surely coming.

On the other hand, the state of civilization will become increasingly fragile. As is the case with nuclear weapons, every technology with the power to crash civilization will have to be successfully managed every day forever. A single failure a single time with a single power of this scale will result in game over, at least for centuries to come. There's really little in the record of human history to suggest such a record of perfection is possible.

The scale of these coming powers is what to focus on, because that's what erases room for error. In the past we could charge ahead at full speed, make mistakes, clean up the mess, and then continue charging. WWII comes to mind as a good example of this.

What's really interesting, and fairly terrifying, is that everyone has basically known all of the above since Hiroshima in 1945, and yet we keep acting as if nothing has changed. We keep gathering knowledge as fast as we possibly can. We keep reaching for as much power as we can possibly get. We keep pushing, pushing, pushing ever deeper in to a process which is going to end our ability to make mistakes and then clean up the mess.

After discussing this for about a decade, I've come to this conclusion (for now). Our best hope may be to have some kind of epic calamity that is big enough to wake us up, but not big enough to kill us. As example, a limited regional nuclear war. Or maybe even a single detonation.

There really isn't much evidence that we're going to be able to reason our way out of obsolete patterns of the past. We're probably going to have to hit some wall with a loud bang, much like the drunk who refuses treatment until he finally kills someone while drunk driving.

It seems to me there will be a lot of luck involved. If we have the small chaos before the big chaos, we might learn and adapt. If the big chaos comes first, well, game over, no adapting possible.

My concept of a change in the human condition is hard to properly describe, and I'm conflicted about the concept itself. My view of it is based in a Judeo-Christian conception of morality, admittedly, even though I'm no longer a Christian per se. I try to avoid that aspect, simply because I want to deal with the ideas as objectively as I can without introducing assumptions and baggage, both my own, and your's/the reader's, etc. Making all of this more confusing, I'm on the fence as to whether the human condition is something that we can change ourselves. I see a conflict between the heights that humanity can arrive at, and the depths that we can fall into. And so I have a fundamental tension in my view of whether we can and should strive to change our condition, or whether it's hubris. BUT, one thing that I'm sure of is that our physical striving to change our condition, tech, is utterly inert and unable to change our condition. I think I've already made my points about that. To the contrary, the human condition is an inner condition, in the sense of an esoteric, rather than an exoteric condition; the human condition is not a material condition; it's a spiritual condition. We live in a world of spiritual poverty. The human condition is spiritual poverty. For that to change from spiritual poverty to spiritual nourishment would require a profound shift. I don't know how it can be done. But I refuse nihilism on the shear basis of my own living and breathing existence, and so I have to entertain the possibility of a shift from spiritual poverty to spiritual nourishment. It's apophatic; I know it's possible because I feel it's lack. — Noble Dust

Thanks for sharing this. There are different ways to word the angst we feel, but “spiritual poverty” does nicely. In a way different than the suffering of existence, such as Sartré described, this poverty seems related to morality, but not exactly equal to it. For example, imagine an innocent child born into a family racked by drug abuse. To switch the word “poverty” with “famine”, we as a species somehow seem to be starving on our deepest levels in the midst of plenty.

Nutritional science continues to map the foods, vitamins, minerals, etc. that one needs to be in an optimal state of health. Have we filled ourselves with emotionally and spiritually empty calories, grabbing immediate but cheaper psychological “fuel” and meaning because it is more readily available. What if the healthier options are very limited and hard to find? The body, mind, and spirit all need their various fuels or inputs. Quality is an issue, but a lesser something is often better than nothing. If this condition has been existent for a long time, things like social media, video games, and television itself are definitely factors, but not necessarily the source of the issue. And are fractured families, unemployment, drug abuse, violent behavior, etc actually the source, a symptom, or perhaps both (as in a feedback loop)?

Idiocracy was a good indicator of America I believe.

So, California passes SB100, mandating that we go 100% renewable by 2045.

I think a career in the solar industry wouldn't be a bad idea for me. Thinking about going to some occupational school and do the solar voltaic occupation.

Thoughts?

For so long as you do not confuse (the) business with what the business does.

For so long as you do not confuse (the) business with what the business does. — tim wood

Which is what exactly? I'm afraid of committing if there's something I haven't considered here.

Which is what exactly? I'm afraid of committing if there's something I haven't considered here. — Posty McPostface

Solar sounds good. But you don't do solar; you do the business of doing solar - unless you want to be the guy screwing the panels on someone's roof. Nothing mysterious here, the same could be said for any endeavor. It's a little like liking hamburgers, so you decide to open a hamburger business - the business of hamburgers isn't eating hamburgers, it's getting other people to buy the hamburgers. That's all, and you already know this, right?

That's all, and you already know this, right? — tim wood

Oh, yeah. I would mostly just be a roofer in regards to solar panel installation. Nothing mysterious about that aspect of the job in my mind.