Jamie:
Perhaps I am completely mistaken and thanks for this detailed
"rebuttal" . . . <g>
However, I learned a long time ago that most of what most people talk
about is deliberately superficial and, therefore, not worth talking
about. No, I'm really not any good at a cocktail party. As best I
can tell, this is a result of what Gregg calls his "Justification
Hypothesis" and what others like Bob Trivers (who I know) call
"self-deception."
This is what the Gestaltists in the 1920s/30s called "figure" and it
stems from the need to avoid dealing with reality in terms of its
"ground." As a result, I tend to ask *why* someone says what they say
(i.e. what "caused" this to happen for them and others), rather than
following them down their argumentative rabbit-holes. Throughout my
career, the story-behind-the-story has been my goal (and I'm sticking
with it.)
I personally know Kevin Kelly and Ray Kurweil and many people who have
been involved with Teilhard de Chardin's ideas (plus Lyndon LaRouche
and many others pursuing these illusions.) I have been dealing with
them for many decades. Perhaps I have mistaken what they are up-to
but at least in my case that mistake is the result of my direct
experience with those involved.
> Besides, evolution got rid of most hominid species and will likely
> get rid of most humans as well. It's just evolution.
The fantasy of "upgrading" humanity to another species (and blaming
"evolution") -- as promoted by David Brin (who I know as well) -- is
also reflected in the "movement" called "Post-Humanism," a conference
about which I participated in a couple months ago at NYU. This is
*not* where we are heading and what I am doing here is trying to warn
Gregg &al about its increasingly common pitfalls. This is "virtual
reality" and it comes from the distortions of our perceptions caused
by the previous paradigm. We don't need to do that anymore, despite
what Hollywood says.
Yes, these *fantasies* have a cause. It is not the same cause as the
"Fifth Joint Point," although I understand why there is confusion on
the matter -- which is why I have been suggesting that causality is
central to this investigation (and, therefore, using Aristotle instead
of Plato as the "starting point.") What Gregg is talking about is
*formal* cause (driven by new technologies); what Teilhard &al are
talking about is *final* cause and the "complexity" types are dealing
with is a twisted version of *material* cause. As a result, they do
not agree.
> Kevin Kelly's version of the Singularity is really the emergence of
> a global collective intelligence that's actually very similar to
> Gregg's Global Justification System.
There will be no "global system" of any sort (and, don't be fooled,
Kevin is just talking about the 2nd Coming and humans becoming
"angels.") The Chinese will make sure of that. I have been deeply
involved with their "system" for 20+ years and it *cannot* be "merged"
with the West. 100% not going to happen. Billions of people will
make sure of that.
As a result, what we are talking about hereabouts is the West, not the
East. And, the "decline" of the West, as announced by Spengler 100
years ago, while we're at it. You can draw those boundaries around the
cultures that teach their children the alphabet. Since, as Gregg
correctly asserts, Culture is based on "language," the difference
between alphabetic and ideo/pictographic written language technologies
is fundamental to how Culture is formed and, indeed, has been for
2000+ years. Totally different approaches to order and chaos in the
East and the West.
> Teilhard's noosphere and Omega point are based on his view that
> evolution proceeds towards greater complexity.
No, that is *neither* Teilhard's nor Gregg's view. "Complexity" has
nothing to do with Teilhard (who was simply renaming the 2nd Coming
for a Jesuit audience) -- in fact the modern notion of "complexity"
wasn't even formulated when he wrote those texts. Furthermore, Gregg
has fundamentally distinguished what he is doing by introducing
"dimensions of complexity," not "greater complexity." No "complexity
theorist" agrees with what Gregg has done (which is more akin to
LaRouche and his focus on Cantor's "transfinites.")
This is exactly the sort of confusion that I have been at pains to
hope to avoid. Thank you for helping us to sort all this out . . . !!
Mark
Quoting Mathew Jamie Dunbaugh <[log in to unmask]>:
> Mark,
>
> I think you're completely misunderstanding the ideas of people like
> Kurzweil, Kelly, or even Teilhard.
>
> " they play on people's desire for a "final" cause to look forward to
> (someday) as the ultimate escape
> "
> This isn't true. Nobody is talking about an ultimate escape. There are some
> people with such interests who might take an interest in the Singularity
> for that reason, but the field of thought around the Singularity doesn't
> come from some agenda.
> You seem to be arguing that the agenda is the cause of the philosophy, and
> this is absurd. The philosophy is grounded in abundant reason and evidence.
>
> "
> This is why so many attracted to this approach are "evangelicals" and
> why
> some of them even commit suicide to get to their "final reward
> "
> like suicide-bombers
> "
>
> - I have no idea why "them" (Singularitarians) includes suicidal cults and
> bombers. This is ridiculous.
>
> "
> Ultimately, their plans
> ...
> mean getting rid of humanity.
> "
> This is false, their plans do not mean to get rid of humanity but mainly to
> upgrade it.
>
> Besides, evolution got rid of most hominid species and will likely get rid
> of most humans as well. It's just evolution.
>
> Mainly, Kurzweil theorizes the Law of Accelerating Returns, which is
> basically that evolution accelerates towards change, intelligence, and
> complexity. This is a fine idea. And there's nothing wrong with theorizing
> radical ideas like saturating the universe with computronium or "waking up"
> the universe or whatever. They're based on the observation that we (humans)
> are more awake (conscious) than any previous era, among other observations.
>
> Kevin Kelly's version of the Singularity is really the emergence of a
> global collective intelligence that's actually very similar to Gregg's
> Global Justification System. Kelly actually disagrees with Ray or
> Teilhard's Singularity/Omega Point. You can get his actual views in this
> 8-minute video, which is very interesting. He explicitly states that he's
> against the idea of a single destiny, that he's more of an evolutionary
> pluralist. Although he believes it's inevitable that we'll have a
> planetary-scale intelligence (but it won't be the only intelligence)
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3DW9oozZNL7GE&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=MGBRtMzu2MIbpg9yf45di5_rKN45xYvQDQgOCLq9Yv4&s=VA56iad3GDUL20Po8ECT434hssy7x8fq2qOalZHa1gE&e=
>
> Kevin Kelly's book The Inevitable makes perfectly reasonable and yet novel
> predictions that have no basis in agenda at all. The forces he lists are as
> follows:
>
>
> 1. Becoming: Moving from fixed products to always upgrading services and
> subscriptions
> 2. Cognifying: Making everything much smarter using cheap powerful AI
> that we get from the cloud
> 3. Flowing: Depending on unstoppable streams in real-time for everything
> 4. Screening: Turning all surfaces into screens
> 5. Accessing: Shifting society from one where we own assets, to one
> where instead we will have access to services at all times.[8]
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_The-5FInevitable-5F-28book-29-23cite-5Fnote-2Dsmithsonianmagazine-2D8&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=MGBRtMzu2MIbpg9yf45di5_rKN45xYvQDQgOCLq9Yv4&s=AYgG5OEB8d1-fsDv3i-o-nzBiKwKVcQH26r1omql8Hs&e=>
> 6. Sharing: Collaboration at mass-scale. Kelly writes, “On my imaginary
> Sharing Meter Index we are still at 2 out of 10.”
> 7. Filtering: Harnessing intense personalization in order to anticipate
> our desires
> 8. Remixing: Unbundling existing products into their most primitive
> parts and then recombining in all possible ways
> 9. Interacting: Immersing ourselves inside our computers to maximize
> their engagement
> 10. Tracking: Employing total surveillance for the benefit of citizens
> and consumers
> 11. Questioning: Promoting good questions is far more valuable than good
> answers
> 12. Beginning: Constructing a planetary system connecting all humans and
> machines into a global matrix
>
>
> Notice the last one, which is very similar to Gregg's fifth joint point.
>
> Teilhard's noosphere and Omega point are based on his view that evolution
> proceeds towards greater complexity.. He was simply trying to reconcile
> religion and science by thinking the Omega point was drawing us into it. It
> might not be true that the end is causing the present (the future is
> drawing us into it) but there is probably a general trajectory of
> evolution. It's obvious that it moves towards increasing complexity and
> integration.
>
> Why don't you target their actual arguments than some assumed agenda you
> think "they" have? A more virtuous way to argue would be to steel-man your
> opponent's actual ideas rather than straw man them, and focus more on the
> actual arguments than some presumed agenda that nobody is talking about.
>
> Jamie
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:25 AM Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Gregg:
>>
>> Correct. The problem with exponential/transcendental/infinity
>> "arguments" is that they play on people's desire for a "final" cause
>> to look forward to (someday) as the ultimate escape -- although, to be
>> sure, few involved would be able to describe what Aristotle meant by
>> that and why it is always accompanied by the other three causes (which
>> "limits" all this to natural outcomes, not "infinite" ones) . . . <g>
>>
>> This is why so many attracted to this approach are "evangelicals" and
>> why some of them even commit suicide to get to their "final reward" --
>> like suicide-bombers (remembering that Islam began as an
>> "implementation" of the Book of Revelation) and cultists like the
>> Nike-wearing Hale-Boppers &c. The Protestant Reformation was largely
>> dedicated to the 2nd Coming and it still has enormous influence --
>> particularly in the English and German-speaking worlds. Arguably the
>> Third Reich was a "paganized" version of the Christian endtimes, for
>> instance.
>>
>> I first heard of Ray Kurzweil when he was being promoted by George
>> Gilder in his "Microcosm" (which I helped with the final edit.)
>> George is a *deep* evangelical (or "born-again"), as is Kevin Kelly --
>> with whom he bonded back in the 90s at Wired magazine. I had my
>> little chat with Ray after he spoke at one of George's "Telecosm"
>> conferences.
>>
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Microcosm-2DQuantum-2DRevolution-2DEconomics-2DTechnology_dp_067170592X&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=nbwcjayT4w9hKkrtDFGGDhe9348lpZbYGisOPOoaoXk&s=qArea0n9gZRg1MsVKwZQJ-f1wMmEJLKdibG8f6lCZso&e=
>>
>> To be sure, some of these "evangelicals" are also technologists and
>> for them the "2nd Coming" (which will finally clear up "corruption" on
>> Earth) takes the form of the Singularity (to come, not the "Big Bang")
>> that Kurzweil is famous for promoting. Ultimately, their plans --
>> sometimes disguised as "Colonies on Mars" &c -- mean getting rid of
>> humanity. We call these people the "Digital Sphere" to distinguish
>> them from the East and the West -- both of which want to keep the
>> humans.
>>
>> My concern is that as you elaborate your "5th Joint Point" there will
>> be a tendency to attract these types, who will be confused that your
>> "chart" points to an Teilhardian "Omega Point" or some such *finality*
>> and not just another "dimension of complexity" (with an associated
>> *new* mentality for humans, this time shaped by digital memory and not
>> illusions.)
>>
>> Alas, as good a song as this was (for my generation), we are *not*
>> getting back to the Garden (and, no, we are not "golden" or, in any
>> meaningful sense, even "stardust") . . . <g>
>>
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3D3aOGnVKWbwc&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=nbwcjayT4w9hKkrtDFGGDhe9348lpZbYGisOPOoaoXk&s=vsHt26trxhS1oEiRhBej1X-sZRIFm8tBfrqA1xycHic&e=
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> P.S. My recommendation for those trying to find a 60s anthem for what
>> we're going through now would be Buffalo Springfield's (two of whom
>> became CSNY and covered Joni) 1967 "For What It's Worth . . . "
>>
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3Dgp5JCrSXkJY&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=nbwcjayT4w9hKkrtDFGGDhe9348lpZbYGisOPOoaoXk&s=SHnYnxJdljpW-S6_EP7MNSxDGhJZCKTJIeUaPrOsnyQ&e=
>>
>> Quoting "Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx" <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>> > Mark,
>> >
>> > You are correct that here is a lot of specificity that needs to be
>> > articulated on what the curve means. And you are right that it is
>> > not true exponential growth curve. Indeed, when you zoom in on it,
>> > it is not, straight exponential growth curve at all. (Actually, if
>> > you look again at the powerpoint of Chaisson's
>> > work<
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Cosmic-2DEvolution-2DRise-2DComplexity-2DNature_dp_0674009878&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=nbwcjayT4w9hKkrtDFGGDhe9348lpZbYGisOPOoaoXk&s=CKYifCg5Sj8NOSPTLawxLC0_Cfq3AaeruNy5iKWM0vA&e=>,
>> second graph underneath, you will see that point, although it is easy to
>> overlook). If we zoom in on the changes, we see a graph more like this the
>> following depiction (the last 500 years setting the stage for our current
>> meta-cultural/5th joint point/Digital Life
>> > revolution).
>> > [cid:image005.png@01D43E05.8DB51340]
>> >
>> > I think this is consistent with what the attached paper on S curves
>> > was getting at, when it concluded that it hoped to help folks "to
>> > see historical developments in terms of relatively quiet periods
>> > separated by fairly radical transitions".
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Gregg
>> > [cid:image006.png@01D43E05.8DB51340]
>> >
>> >
>> > ############################
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>> > write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> > or click the following link:
>> > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> or click the following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
