Our success is killing us

[coberst]

Our success is killing us

The aims of technology are achieved and our chances for survival are fatally diminished. The fault is not in our technology but in us. The fault lies within human society.

McLuhan made us aware of the fact that technology is an extension of our self. I would say that we and also our ecosystem are both gestalts, a whole, wherein there are complex feedback loops that permit self healing and various means that protect us from our self.

The dictionary defines gestalt as meaning a structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts. When we interfere with the gestalt, i.e. our ecosystem or our self, we are changing some one or some few of the feedback loops that help us maintain equilibrium. Such modifications, if not fully understood, can send the gestalt into a mode wherein equilibrium can no longer be maintained.

In 1919 Ernest Rutherford announced to a shocked world “I have been engaged in experiments which suggest that the atom can be artificially disintegrated. If it is true, it is far greater importance than a war.” Today’s stem-cell research could, in my opinion, be considered as more important than a war and also more important than Rutherford’s research success.

The discussion regarding the advisability of continuing stem-cell research primarily focuses on the religious/political factor and on the technology but there is little or no focus upon the impact that could result to our society beyond its health effects.

We are unwilling or unable to focus on the long-term effects of our technology and thus should put much of it on hold until we gain a better means to evaluate the future implications of our technology.

What do you think about this serious matter?

[cdn2wheeler]

Originally Posted by coberst

Our success is killing us <snip>

We are unwilling or unable to focus on the long-term effects of our technology and thus should put much of it on hold until we gain a better means to evaluate the future implications of our technology.

What do you think about this serious matter?

I think you're right.

I also think that technology will continue on it's march regardless of how much we wish to slow things down.

Technological change is driven by two innate human drivers: fear and greed (there are others, of course, but these are the two that are generally at play here). Fear comes into play especially in matters relating to military technology. Greed is the fire that feeds the economic drivers. Both are blinkered to long-term realities and, as such, lead to the exact situation you're describing here.

[shivraj]

Seven deadly sins according to Mahatma Gandhi

#1 Wealth Without Work
#2 Pleasure Without Conscience
#3 Knowledge Without Character
#4 Commerce Without Morality
#5 Science Without Humanity
#6 Religion Without Sacrifice
#7 Politics Without Principle

[Brutha]

The aims of technology are achieved and our chances for survival are fatally diminished.

Without technology probably nobody on this board will survive the next 100 years.

When we interfere with the gestalt, i.e. our ecosystem or our self, we are changing some one or some few of the feedback loops that help us maintain equilibrium.

Some days ago my biology prof said that living things aren't at equilibrium. That how live works, it's never in equilibrium as long as it's alive but only when it's dead.

Technological change is driven by two innate human drivers: fear and greed (there are others, of course, but these are the two that are generally at play here).

While fear may redristibute resources to certain scientific projects, it doesn't really create more new projects.

We are unwilling or unable to focus on the long-term effects of our technology and thus should put much of it on hold until we gain a better means to evaluate the future implications of our technology.

There is no way to predict the long term effects of techonolgic change.

It difficult to predict how the internet will look like in 5 years from now but it is practially impossible to predict how it will look like twenty years from now.

The future isn't what it used to be

In addition stem cell research isn't that dangerous as some other technologies (AI's, genetic manipulation of plants/bacteria, nanobots[if there is a way to build them], some physics element which theoretically could blow up our planet).

You don't know which technology's are dangerous beforehand. You won't get things like AI reasearch to stop because company's like google make billions with trying to figure out how to make the google search "smarter".
You would have to forbit services like google and we live in a society where that isn't really possible.

Worst case for AI research would be if someone write an AI in twenty years which can increase it's own intelligence which hacks into all computer in the world in a single day and make that person the new emporer of the world (or worse: that person looses control of the AI and that AI tries to kill all humans and succeeds).

You won't get technology to stop, so enjoy the ride.

[shivraj]

Worst case for AI research would be if someone write an AI in twenty years which can increase it's own intelligence which hacks into all computer in the world in a single day and make that person the new emporer of the world (or worse: that person looses control of the AI and that AI tries to kill all humans and succeeds).

You won't get technology to stop, so enjoy the ride.

I don't think this is possible in recent years or in this century unless we have very powerful processing equipment like quantum computers..
progress in Strong AI is very very slow.. It might take 100 to 200 years

[Sam988]

Originally Posted by shivraj

I don't think this is possible in recent years or in this century unless we have very powerful processing equipment like quantum computers..
progress in Strong AI is very very slow.. It might take 100 to 200 years

Not really. In the current computational advancement rate, we will have the hardware needed to create AI in some decades. And that's not even taking in consideration the fact that the rate of changes and advancements is constantly accelerating.



Here's an interesting article by Ray Kurzweil:

KurzweilAI.net

Kurzweil’s Law (aka “the law of accelerating returns”)

[shivraj]

I really believe that human mind is not just central nervous system and part of the mind doesn't obeys physical laws. It's nearly impossible to develop consciousness in inanimate objects by just use of faster data processing..

Another problem is Homunculus argument in the development of such machines..

The homunculus argument arises most commonly in the theory of vision. One may explain (human) vision by arguing that the light from the outside world forms an image on the retinas in the eyes and something in the brain looks at these images as if they are images on a movie screen (this theory of vision is sometimes termed the theory of the Cartesian Theater: it is most associated, nowadays, with the psychologist David Marr). But the question is: 'who' is it who is looking at this 'internal' movie inside the brain? The assumption here (although this is rarely made explicit) is that there is a 'little man' or 'homunculus' inside the brain 'looking at' this movie. (Alternatively it might be proposed that the images on the retinas are transferred to the visual cortex where it is scanned. But here again, all that has been done is to place a homunculus in the brain behind the cortex.)

The reason why this is a argument is that an obvious problem then presents itself: how does the homunculus 'see' this internal movie? The obvious answer is that there is another homunculus inside the first homunculus's 'head' or 'brain' looking at this 'movie'. But how does this homunculus see the 'outside world'? In the psychology and philosophy of mind, 'homunculus arguments' are extremely useful for detecting where theories of mind fail or are incomplete.
Philosophy of mind is the basis of AI !

Also read this interesting article on wikipedia..
Ryle's regress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Brutha]

It not so much that I know that Ray Kurzweil is right but we don't know whether he is or isn't.

If you read predictions (cyberpunk) from twentyfive years ago above the techonology we have today, they predict that we have laser weapons and on the other hand that it will cost 1$ to transfer one megabyte of data.

Another problem is Homunculus argument in the development of such machines..

You can use the Homunculus argument the same way against the google spider, who finds from time to time what I am looking for when I ask it. When you analyse the google spider it would come down to certain chips doing something (which is to complex for any human to understand completly) which results in me getting what I want.
I could tell a similar story about how neurons act in a complex way that nobody understands completly.
Complex systems do strange things.

There is one difference, we feel like we are a homunculus sitting in our head. There are neurologists who thinks that this is a story that our brain tells itself, that doesn't really happens (there are a bunch of brain reconstruced events that don't really happen).

I don't think this is possible in recent years or in this century unless we have very powerful processing equipment like quantum computers..

Even when that is true, some of the scientists who research quantum computers (they build a quantum computer with a handful atoms a year ago) think that they will build a useable quantum computer in the next twenty years.

The dangerous techonogy's are those who have the ability to have a tipping point by selfreplicating and accerleating change.
Stem cell research doesn't has those chracteristics.

@Sam988: Please don't copy copyrighted material. Link to it instead.

[shivraj]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The dangerous techonogy's are those who have the ability to have a tipping point by selfreplicating and accerleating change.

Jonathan Huebner, a physicist who works at the Pentagon's Naval Air Warfare Center in China Lake, California. Questioning the whole notion of accelerating technical progress, he studied the rate of "significant innovations per person". Using as his sourcebook The History of Science and Technology, Huebner concluded that the rate of innovation peaked in 1873 and has been declining ever since.

our current rate of innovation — which Huebner puts at seven important technological developments per billion people per year — is about the same as it was in 1600. By 2024, it will have slumped to the same level as it was in the Dark Ages, around 800 AD. "The number of advances wasn't increasing exponentially

" we have to run faster and faster just to stay in the same place. "

first theory is that early innovators plucked the easiest-to-reach ideas, or "low-hanging fruit", so later ones have to struggle to crack the harder problems. Or it may be that the massive accumulation of knowledge means that innovators have to stay in education longer to learn enough to invent something new and, as a result, less of their active life is spent innovating. "I've noticed that Nobel Prize winners are getting older," he says.

"Our aggressive, tribal nature is hard-wired, unreformed and unreformable. Individually we are animals and, as animals, incapable of progress." The trick is to cage these animal natures in effective institutions: education, the law, government. But these can go wrong. "

Moore's Law — which successfully modeled the rapid increase of computational power available at plummeting cost — has never been anything like a smooth phenomenon. Crucial and timely decisions — some of them pure happenstance — saved Moore's Law on many occasions from collision with either technological barriers or cruel market forces. !!!

Cybernetics and education and a myriad other factors have helped to overcome the "specialization trap". Past success is no guarantee of future behavior. Those who foresee upward curves continuing ad infinitum, almost as a matter of faith, are no better grounded than other transcendentalists, who confidently predicted other rapturist fulfillments, in their own times.

" The world is Organized by embodied beings like us to be coped with by beings like us. The computer would be totally lost in our world. It would have to have in it a model of the world and a model of the body, which AI researchers have tried, but it's certainly hopeless. Without that, the world is just utterly un-graspable by computers.

The truth is that human intelligence can never be replaced with machine intelligence simply because we are not ourselves thinking machines. Each of us has, and uses every day, a power of intuitive intelligence that enables us to understand, to speak, and to cope skillfully with our everyday environment. "

Interesting article opposed to law of accelerating returns is here..
Measuring Innovation in an Accelerating World: Review of "A Possible Declining Trend for Worldwide Innovation," Heubner, TF&SC 2005

[coberst]

Cognitive science has introduced a new paradigm that argues against the former AI (symbol manipulation) paradigm. You might find it to be interesting.

We have in our Western philosophy a traditional theory of faculty psychology wherein our reasoning is a faculty completely separate from the body. “Reason is seen as independent of perception and bodily movement.” It is this capacity of autonomous reason that makes us different in kind from all other animals. I suspect that many fundamental aspects of philosophy and psychology are focused upon declaring, whenever possible, the separateness of our species from all other animals.

This tradition of an autonomous reason began long before evolutionary theory and has held strongly since then without consideration, it seems to me, of the theories of Darwin and of biological science. Cognitive science has in the last three decades developed considerable empirical evidence supporting Darwin and not supporting the traditional theories of philosophy and psychology regarding the autonomy of reason. Cognitive science has focused a great deal of empirical science toward discovering the nature of the embodied mind.

The three major findings of cognitive science are:
The mind is inherently embodied.
Thought is mostly unconscious.
Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.

“These findings of cognitive science are profoundly disquieting [for traditional thinking] in two respects. First, they tell us that human reason is a form of animal reason, a reason inextricably tied to our bodies and the peculiarities of our brains. Second, these results tell us that our bodies, brains, and interactions with our environment provide the mostly unconscious basis for our everyday metaphysics, that is, our sense of what is real.”

All living creatures categorize. All creatures, as a minimum, separate eat from no eat and friend from foe. As neural creatures tadpole and wo/man categorize. There are trillions of synaptic connections taking place in the least sophisticated of creatures and this multiple synapses must be organized in some way to facilitate passage through a small number of interconnections and thus categorization takes place. Great numbers of different synapses take place in an experience and these are subsumed in some fashion to provide the category eat or foe perhaps.

Our categories are what we consider to be real in the world: tree, rock, animal…Our concepts are what we use to structure our reasoning about these categories. Concepts are neural structures that are the fundamental means by which we reason about categories.

Quotes from “Philosophy in the Flesh”.

P.S If we take a big bite out of reality we will, I think, find that it is multilayered like the onion. There are many domains of knowledge available to us for penetrating those layers of reality. Cognitive science is one that I find to be very interesting.

[Mark Lapierre]

I think that as long as we have differing views, we will be safe. It's the ones who promote caution that keep the ones at the bleeding edge in check. I think that both are doing something worthwhile, and usually with good reason. The ones pushing for progress probably love exploring the boundaries of whatever happens to be their technological frontier. They're probably the ones who love what they're doing but wouldn't even consider using their knowledge to harm people.

You mentioned Rutherford. Richard Feynman was also involved in the Manhattan project, and in his biographical "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman!" he talks about how he, and the people he worked with, were solving problems and working hard because it was what they did. It wasn't about trying to win a war, and, according to Feynman, it was only his boss who was upset (by the potential for misuse of that technology) after the bomb was detonated.

I think it's a very cynical view which considers halting progress because of the potential for harm, but I also think it's a rational, life-saving view that considers the potential for harm before using the results of progress. But then there is also the possibility that research itself could be disastrous. I heard about some plans to do experiments which aimed to produce microscopic black holes in a particle accelerator. We're in trouble if those black holes don't evaporate as expected...

But ultimately I don't see the problem. I see how there could be a problem, but all research is surrounded by so many checks and balances, reviews by ethics boards, etc., and becoming increasingly visible to the general public, than any technology will be heavily scrutinised by a large number of people with a huge variety of views long before it has the chance to harm us.

Unless it's kept extremely secret and released without warning. *makes sure his tinfoil hat is on securely*

Originally Posted by Brutha

Without technology probably nobody on this board will survive the next 100 years.

Most people on this board won't survive the next 100 years with technology. Unless Aubrey de Grey is right...

Originally Posted by Brutha

There is one difference, we feel like we are a homunculus sitting in our head. There are neurologists who thinks that this is a story that our brain tells itself, that doesn't really happens (there are a bunch of brain reconstruced events that don't really happen).

Agreed. The homunculus argument doesn't stand up to our current neurological understanding of the processes involved in perception.

Originally Posted by shivraj

"Our aggressive, tribal nature is hard-wired, unreformed and unreformable. Individually we are animals and, as animals, incapable of progress." The trick is to cage these animal natures in effective institutions: education, the law, government. But these can go wrong. "

Does he support this cynical statement? Unreformed? Unreformable? Incapable of individual progress? Has he not spent any time with successful, happy, creative people?

Originally Posted by shivraj

The world is Organized by embodied beings like us to be coped with by beings like us. The computer would be totally lost in our world. It would have to have in it a model of the world and a model of the body, which AI researchers have tried, but it's certainly hopeless.

He first points out the uncertainty in observed trends, then states with certainty that a possibility related to those trends is hopeless? Bit of a contradiction there...

Originally Posted by coberst

“These findings of cognitive science are profoundly disquieting [for traditional thinking] in two respects. First, they tell us that human reason is a form of animal reason, a reason inextricably tied to our bodies and the peculiarities of our brains. Second, these results tell us that our bodies, brains, and interactions with our environment provide the mostly unconscious basis for our everyday metaphysics, that is, our sense of what is real.”

Sounds familiar. Antonio Damasio talks about this in his book, Descartes' Error.

[coberst]

Mark

You evidently appreciate good books. I too am a fan of Damasio especially "The Feeling of what Happens" and I am also a fan of Feynman especially "QED". Feynman was a great teacher, scientist, and writer.

I will suggest that you might find the book "Philosophy in the Flesh" by Lakoff and Johnson to be very enlightening. This book proposes a revolutionary new paradigm for cognitive science.

[Alex2007]

Originally Posted by shivraj

Seven deadly sins according to Mahatma Gandhi

#1 Wealth Without Work
#2 Pleasure Without Conscience
#3 Knowledge Without Character
#4 Commerce Without Morality
#5 Science Without Humanity
#6 Religion Without Sacrifice
#7 Politics Without Principle

I can not catch that guy. The only thing I agree with him is his 2nd sin:
#2 Pleasure Without Conscience

[shivraj]

Originally Posted by Alex2007

I can not catch that guy. The only thing I agree with him is his 2nd sin:
#2 Pleasure Without Conscience

Wealth Without Work
This refers to the practice of getting something for nothing - manipulating markets and assets so you don't have to work or produce added value, just manipulate people and things.

Some network marketing and pyramidal organizations are matter of worry because many people get rich quick by building a structure under them that feeds them without work. They are rationalized to the hilt; nevertheless the overwhelming emotional motive is often greed: "You can get rich without much work. You may have to work initially, but soon you can have wealth without work."Justice and judgement are inevitably inseparable, suggesting that to the degree you move away from the laws of nature, your judgement will be adversely affected. You get distorted notions. You start telling rational lies to explain why things work or why they don't.

Pleasure Without Conscience
The chief query of the immature, greedy, selfish, and sensuous has always been, "What's in it for me? Will this please me? Will it ease me?"
The ultimate costs of pleasures without conscience are high as measured in terms of time and money, in terms of reputation and in terms of wounding the hearts and minds of other people who are adversely affected by those who just want to indulge and gratify themselves in the short term.

Knowledge Without Character
As dangerous as a little knowledge is, even more dangerous is much knowledge without a strong, principled character. Purely intellectual development without commensurate internal character development makes as much sense as putting a high-powered sports car in the hands of a teenager who is high on drugs. character education is very important.

Commerce (Business) Without Morality (Ethics)
In his book Moral Sentiment, which preceded Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith explained how foundational to the success of our systems is the moral foundation : how we treat each other, the spirit of benevolence, of service, of contribution. If we ignore the moral foundation and allow economic systems to operate without moral foundation and without continued education, we will soon create an amoral, if not immoral, society and business. Economic and political systems are ultimately based on a moral foundation.
People get in trouble when they say that most of their economic transactions are moral. That means there is something going on that is covert, hidden, secret. People keep a hidden agenda, a secret life, and they justify and rationalize their activities. They tell themselves rational lies so they don't have to adhere to natural laws. If you can get enough rationalization in a society, you can have social mores or political wills that are totally divorced from natural laws and principles.

Science Without Humanity

If science becomes all technique and technology, it quickly degenerates into man against humanity. Technologies come from the paradigms of science. And if there's very little understanding of the higher human purposes that the technology is striving to serve, we becomes victims of our own technocracy. We see otherwise highly educated people climbing the scientific ladder of success, even though it's often missing the rung called humanity and leaning against the wrong wall.

The majority of the scientists who ever lived or living today, and they have brought about a scientific and technological explosion in the world. But if all they do is superimpose technology on the same old problems, nothing basic changes. We may see an evolution, an occasional "revolution" in science, but without humanity we see precious little real human advancement. All the old inequities and injustices are still with us.

About the only thing that hasn't evolved are these natural laws and principles - the true north on the compass. Science and technology have changed the face of most everything else. But the fundamental things still apply, as time goes by.

Religion Without Sacrifice
Without sacrifice we may become active in a church but remain inactive in its gospel. In other words, we go for the social facade of religion and the piety of religious practices. There is no real walking with people or going the second mile or trying to deal with our social problems that may eventually undo our economic system. It takes sacrifice to serve the needs of other people - the sacrifice of our own pride and prejudice, among other things.

Politics Without Principle

If there is no principle, there is no true north, nothing you can depend upon. The focus on the personality ethic is the instant creation of an image that sells well in the social and economic marketplace.

You see politicians spending millions of dollars to create an image, even though it's superficial, lacking substance, in order to get votes and gain office. And when it works, it leads to a political system operating independently of the natural laws that should govern - - that are built into the Declaration of Independence : "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness . . . . "

In other words, they are describing self-evident, external, observable, natural, unarguable, self-evident laws: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident." The key to a healthy society is to get the social will, the value system, aligned with correct principles. You then have the compass needle pointing to true north - true north representing the external or the natural law - and the indicator says that is what we are building our value system on : they are aligned.

But if you get a sick social will behind the political will that is independent of principle, you could have a very sick organization or society with distorted values. For instance, the professed mission and shared values of criminals who rape, rob and plunder might sound very much like many corporate mission statements, using such words as "teamwork," "cooperation," "loyalty," "profitability," "innovation," and "creativity." The problem is that their value system is not based on a natural law.

Figuratively, inside many corporations with lofty mission statements, many people are being mugged in broad daylight in front of witnesses. Or they are being robbed of self-esteem, money, or position without due process. And if there is no social will behind the principles of due process, and if you can't get due process, you have to go to the jury of your peers and engage in counterculture sabotage.