Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Can you explain this a bit more?

If we frame intelligence in terms of data processing (speed, load handling, inferential ability, etc.) then these things have pretty clear "cores" in things like processing chip power, bus speeds, and overall system architecture on the hardware end, and things like strong coding/various algorithms on the software end. Since we can see these cores very clearly as humans invent, design, assemble, and operate (or at least set in motion) them, why would we not suspect underlying cores for our own data processing operations - regardless of how accessible they are to us. Now, I realize this analogy may seem to echo the "Watchmaker" analogy after a fashion, but the critiques of the watchmaker analogy for intelligent design do not seem to apply to this comparison, especially since I'm not arguing that our processes are a product of "design".

OTOH, if we want to say that human cognition is qualitatively different than "AI" you could eliminate this "core" analogy, but now you wind up right back at where you started in trying to define intelligence in a way that covers both human and non-human forms.

 

[Einherjar86]

To me, chips and system architecture simply don't qualify as interior just because they're often located inside machines. I don't consider them internal at all, except in perhaps an arbitrary structural sense. When I talk about interiority in humans, I'm referring to aspects of human experience that cannot be extracted by taking apart a brain; so, even a surgeon going in with a scalpel won't be able to locate consciousness, or intelligence. But an engineer going into a computer can locate its chips and other components of its material structure.

 

[Dak]

To me, chips and system architecture simply don't qualify as interior just because they're often located inside machines. I don't consider them internal at all, except in perhaps an arbitrary structural sense. When I talk about interiority in humans, I'm referring to aspects of human experience that cannot be extracted by taking apart a brain; so, even a surgeon going in with a scalpel won't be able to locate consciousness, or intelligence. But an engineer going into a computer can locate its chips and other components of its material structure.

But the engineer can't locate the process itself or the software merely by taking apart the computer, or even looking inside. As another comparison, we have a pretty decent idea of what areas of a normal brain process different sorts of information, the "material structure" of mental processing.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm still not sure exactly what it is that I'm missing.

You're right that an engineer can't locate the process itself, just as a surgeon can't locate consciousness/intelligence in a human. The difference in popular parlance is that we assume that consciousness/intelligence in humans corresponds to some internal substance, whereas for a machine we simply associate its intelligence with the functions/processes that it carries out. We don't project any internal substance - chips don't count in this case as internal because they don't fulfill the same purpose that a purported substance of consciousness would. Chips are still material pieces of hardware, they're still identifiable, much like various parts of the brain are. To put it another way, there's no hard problem of computer intelligence. It's just simply a reflection of algorithms.

Also, I have a feeling that engineers have a very good idea about what parts of a computer do what...

EDIT: scratch that final comment, I misread what you were saying about the comparison.

 

[Einherjar86]

I haven't had a chance to read all of this closely yet, but Scott Bakker posted what appears to be a nice complement to what I've been thinking about lately. Apparently it's an older essay that he's re-posting, but anyway...

https://rsbakker.wordpress.com/2016/08/18/artificial-intelligence-as-socio-cognitive-pollution-2/

The question of assimulating AI to human moral cognition is misplaced. We want to think the development of artificial intelligence is a development that raises machines to the penultimate (and perennially controversial) level of the human, when it could just as easily lower humans to the ubiquitous (and factual) level of machines. We want to think that we’re ‘promoting’ them as opposed to ‘demoting’ ourselves. But the fact is—and it is a fact—we have never been able to make second-order moral sense of ourselves, so why should we think that yet more perpetually underdetermined theorizations of intentionality will allow us to solve the conundrums generated by AI? Our mechanical nature, on the other hand, remains the one thing we incontrovertibly share with AI, the rough and common ground. We, like our machines, are deep information environments.

 

[Dak]

Very good read.

 

[Dak]

https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2016/08/25/the-post-heroic-age/?singlepage=true

On "postheroism".

 

[Einherjar86]

This is interesting, to say the least. The Age of Heroes was a long time ago, though; but this doesn't mean that hero worship hasn't persisted. Band of Brothers features loads of hero worship, but it isn't part of the Age of Heroes. I'm intrigued by the piece, but a bit confused as to its position.

 

[Dak]

I think the overall point is that liberal "equalist" democracy is ultimately incapable of defending itself from external threats. That there are external threats (whether naturally occurring or provoked), requires any defense measures to increasingly be carried on outside of the eye of the public.

 

[Einherjar86]

So, is this author saying that heroes are a necessity in that they defend against external threats, even though they may do so in controversial ways...?

I'm curious about the notion of heroes, and skeptical above all else, because even in the ancient world, heroes weren't seen as actually necessary figures in the defense of the state. In fact, ancient Greek and Roman legions regularly punished soldiers that acted "heroically" - we tend to think otherwise because our modern image of ancient Greek and Rome is through the lens of 300 and Gladiator. For the ancient world, heroes served a primarily literary purpose through which the culture could to itself the fatal and tragic inevitabilities of heroic action. There were no real Achilles or Hectors; these figures were part of the cultural imagination, not actual soldiers. And actual Greek soldiers weren't encouraged to act like Achilles or Hector.

So, tl;dr, I think maybe this author is speaking of the modern conception of "hero" - in which case it's a bit misleading to talk about Achilles and the Age of Heroes.

 

[Dak]

It appears easily arguable that "actual heroes" are always constructions. That is, "heroic acts" are performed, which then in restrospect turn the performers into "Heroes" (capitalized). But this isn't central to the point of the article other than that the suggestion that warfare must be hid because there are sacrifices and whatnot that must be made to have a certain lifestyle.

It's an issue that warfare (determining it to be "defense" is its own argument) - a fertile environment for heroism - must increasingly be conducted outside of the public eye. "Everything Is Awesome" geopolitically, except that stuff that isn't that's happening over elsewhere but that doesn't have anything to do with us. We can instead limit our concern to slacktivism and demanding extra bathrooms or whatever.

The metatakeaway, and this isn't new, is that democracy necessitates removing serious decision making and action (including warfare) from public access/view.

 

[Einherjar86]

Interesting. So, why does warfare need to be invisible, so to speak? What's the democratic demand that drives warfare out of the public eye?

 

[Dak]

Interesting. So, why does warfare need to be invisible, so to speak? What's the democratic demand that drives warfare out of the public eye?

Off the cuff I would say because warfare cannot be democratic.

 

[Einherjar86]

Right, but I'm asking why, which is what I meant by the "democratic demand" - what is it about democracy that censors warfare?

You say that democracy demands that "everything is awesome" geopolitically, and I wonder why. Is it because democracy has no room for heroes, ideologically speaking - i.e. that democratic subjects can't, or shouldn't, be heroic, and so warfare (as breeding grounds for heroism) must be censored? Or is it because democratic values conflict with those of warfare? Obviously these two possibilities could overlap; and there could certainly be more than two possibilities.

 

[tagradh]

I'm struggling to see how someone can argue that warfare is no longer in the public eye. It's all over the internet, TV and the papers. People are better positioned to view it than they've ever been. That many countries increasingly rely upon special forces doesn't alter this fact and I don't buy the argument that having smaller conventional forces than we did 50 years ago makes a country like the UK significantly less safe. Were the UK's standing army twice its current size, it'd make next to no difference to the level of threat the UK faces from extremists. The security services of a 'liberal "equalist" democracy' like the UK today are massively superior to those we had in the past. That's the kind of thing that makes a difference.

 

[Einherjar86]

I was planning on getting to that point eventually. I'm also curious about the publicity, or lack thereof, of warfare. I mean, the Gulf War was arguably the most televised war ever, although that was over twenty years ago now.

Since then, however, I also feel that coverage of overseas warfare has expanded, especially considering (as you say) the rise of the internet.

 

[Dak]

@tagradh: Warfare may be more "visible", but it's far more distant, and increasingly so.

Right, but I'm asking why, which is what I meant by the "democratic demand" - what is it about democracy that censors warfare?

You say that democracy demands that "everything is awesome" geopolitically, and I wonder why. Is it because democracy has no room for heroes, ideologically speaking - i.e. that democratic subjects can't, or shouldn't, be heroic, and so warfare (as breeding grounds for heroism) must be censored? Or is it because democratic values conflict with those of warfare? Obviously these two possibilities could overlap; and there could certainly be more than two possibilities.

The article is saying both I think, but it's not democracy per se. Democracy as a desirable form of political organization is supported philosophically by the raising of Equality as the summum bonum. When a culture is oriented in such a way, it creates problems for the open promulgation of warfare, as well as for performances in the extreme. Warfare must be something done by Others, or kept out of site (It's no longer war, but "operations", "conflicts", etc. We no longer put "boots on the ground" even if we do, secret drone warfare, supporting rebels via monetary and technology transfer and "advisors", etc). Extreme performances/performers must be presented as contrived "programming" (media stars), or presented in such a way so that the performer is really just "one of us, and not really that different". Simone Biles might be 10000x better at gymnastics than [you] could ever be (especially with your sedentary lifestyle and all) due to a unique combination of work ethic and physical makeup, but the important thing is that she's just a young girl crushing just like you on the same guy you crush on.

 

[tagradh]

@tagradh: Warfare may be more "visible", but it's far more distant, and increasingly so.

What exactly do you mean by distant? And which countries are you referring to? Whether you're using the word literally or more figuratively the distance from warfare of various Western countries (compare, say, the US, the UK, Germany, Croatia and Ukraine) varies greatly.

 

[Dak]

What exactly do you mean by distant? And which countries are you referring to? Whether you're using the word literally or more figuratively the distance from warfare of various Western countries (compare, say, the US, the UK, Germany, Croatia and Ukraine) varies greatly.

Figuratively.

 

[tagradh]

Figuratively.

Then how far back do we have to go to find a time where war wasn't so distant? Unless we count The Troubles, the last time any meaningful percentage of people in the UK were really exposed to war (as in knowing soldiers, casualties, etc.) was WW2. For the US I guess it would be Vietnam. But given the way everyone is hooked up to the internet now I'd have thought more people have exposure to the realities of the past two Gulf Wars than they did to Vietnam or The Falklands War.

I guess I could buy some of the argument if it focused on countries like Germany and Japan as opposed to all 'western liberal democracies'. I don't think it holds up with regards to the US or the UK though.