From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Nov 02 2005 - 09:07:43 GMT
Ok Ham you win, I'll have to argue with you :-)
Just two points ...
You said
"I've heard more than one interview with a New Age cybernetics
researcher who thought that it was possible to replicate the
electrical patterns of brain activity in a computer, or as a chip
implanted in man, and thereby create a high form of "intelligence".
The fact that people believe in such notions has already diminished
the value of human subjectivity."
I say - people can dream can't they - it might be something some "New
Age Cyberneticists" aspires to - but it's not what Cybernetics is
about.
If you think Cybernetics is ignoring human subjectivity you're plain
wrong, you are plain wrong - it's just that subjecvtivity is
recognised as the "harder problem" from any rigorous / scientific
perspective. The mechanistic aspects are already seen by some as
almost trivial, so many real Cyberneticists have moved on the the
harder problem of real subjectivity.
Then you said
" ... by recognizing subjectivity as fundamental to existence,
Michael has taken a step that may allow the author's metaphysics ..."
I say - Look Ham - surely every intelligent reader of ZMM / Lila has
spotted that it's the missing subjectivity that MoQ add's back in to a
previously soulless form of objective (old scientific) world. That's
the whole point. None of us needs brownie points for pointing that
out.
I wasn't looking for an apology for being quoted without
acknowledgement - I was looking for an apology for your stinking
rhetorical use of "New Age Cybernetics" to dismiss Cybernetics and
scientific approaches to consciousness generally.
If you want to hold and express opinions about Cybernetics find
something out about it, rather than listening to media interviews.
Ian
On 11/2/05, hampday@earthlink.net <hampday@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Ian (Mike mentioned) --
>
> > Earlier in this thread Arlo made a wonderful jibe
> > about people living in glass houses, which seemed
> > to pass unanswered.
> >
> > Erin's response just tipped me off to your unwitting
> > reference to me.
> > [Ham Quoted] [Erin quoting McKenna] believes the
> > world is made of language.
> > [Ian reinforced] The world is made of information (full stop).
>
> I unwittingly did NOT credit you for the closing remark, for which I
> apologize, although I'm not sure this oversight qualifies me as living in a
> glass house.
>
> Erin has since confirmed his belief in today's post:
>
> > For me I can not think of how you can perceive reality
> > without semiotics so no I don't see a reality beyond
> > language...but I still hold the possibility of an
> > external world beyond semiotics but that is beyond my
> > ability to ever comprehend one so don't find it useful
> > in "believing" in one.
>
> I'll admit to finding semiotics even less comprehensible than the MoQ; but
> what is most incomprehensible of all is how anyone could envision reality as
> made up of symbols and words. I'm not sufficiently elitist to believe that
> the language of my ancesters, which evolved from cross-cultural influences
> over many centuries, is my reality. The ability to use language is just one
> of man's attributes and, despite insistence by some that all thoughts
> involve language, I believe most concepts and evaluations are not words or
> statements at all.
>
> Indeed, language is the least of the attributes I would list under
> subjectivity. Defining self-awareness are emotions such as awe, joy,
> sorrow, pain, disgust; cognitive values such as beauty, freedom, excellence,
> magnificence; and there is desire which compels us to work toward specific
> goals. These are all propietary aspects of our subjectivity, and none of
> them is dependent on words or logical propositions.
>
> > Cybernetics has nothing whatsoever to with creating AI to replicate
> > man - except in Hollywood and comic books.
>
> Unfortunately, such ideas are not mere science fiction.
> Cyberneticists frequently refer to 'semiotic constructs' in their work on
> AI. I've heard more than one interview with a New Age cybernetics
> researcher who thought that it was possible to replicate the electrical
> patterns of brain activity in a computer, or as a chip implanted in man, and
> thereby create a high form of "intelligence".
>
> The fact that people believe in such notions has already diminished the
> value of human subjectivity. This is why I take exception to their being
> considered in the context of Pirsig's philosophy. It would be a stretch of
> the imagination to believe that this kind of thinking was how the author
> intended his MoQ to evolve. It's just another way to put down individuality
> and pretend that the proprietary self is nothing but an artifact of
> biological evolution.
>
> I know you don't like to hear these things, Ian, and you reject my
> philosophy of Essence. But as one who has some reservations about the MoQ,
> I think it is fair to say that these ideas demean Pirsig's Quality thesis as
> well as my own philosophy.
>
> At the same time, by recognizing subjectivity as fundamental to existence,
> Michael has taken a step that may allow the author's metaphysics to be
> formulated in a more coherent way. I'm willing to give this a chance. What
> about you?
>
> Best regards,
> Ham
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 02 2005 - 10:55:20 GMT