Thought experiments are usually pretty evil mind manipulations, as I've said before.
The thing is that in order to respond to thought experiments, you must allow yourself to admit them as possible, as potentially real.
I got the title of this post from an advert for an NYT "Best Selling" book of such questions - which provides a clear example of the PSYOP nature of Establishment-allowed and Mass Media-publicized thought experiments.
"How would you react if you learned that a sad and beautiful poem that touched you deeply had been written by a computer?" compels us to admit (for the purposes of argument, in our own understanding) that the very highest realms of human creativity can - in principle - be replicated by computers.
Of course there is no instance of any such creativity from a computer ever; for the good reason that it is impossible - impossible in principle, not in practice.
But we are supposed to take it seriously, and in doing so we take it seriously - and thus genius-level computer creativity becomes a social reality, even when a real impossibility.
One could extend the thought experiment (and of course this has been done, is being done, on a near daily basis in the media and elsewhere); to even more subversive questions as:
"How would you react if you learned that your deeply loved wife of twenty years was in fact a robot"?
Or the Philip K Dick story The Electric Ant, in which the "how would you react" is to learning that you yourself were a robot*.
Focusing on "how would you react" is a classic way of smuggling assumptions; of the "do you still beat your wife" type, or implicit character-assassinations like asking "what made X become such an murderous psychopath?".
(Of course, PKD is the genius-originator of this line of thought-experiment; with a difference that he really lived it.)
The PSYOPS give-away is that this kind of supposedly-free-thinking-radical, subversive, confusing, delusion-inducing, doubt-generating, demotivating thought experiment is media mainstream - often mandatory in schools and colleges; and indeed currently a Major (Trillion Dollar) part of public funding, strategy and propaganda...
Is actually located in an Establishment monitored and controlled public discourse; in which innumerable and ever-increasing everyday and obvious experiences and observations are treated as hate-facts: taboo, suppressed, slurred, dishonestly-denigrated, excluded, and increasingly punishable.
This kind of detailed, long-term manipulation of discourse - such that the impossible must be taken seriously and the true must be regarded as a lie - is clearly intentional and strategic... Global and totalitarian PSYOPS, in other words.
11 comments:
Real creativity is impossible for a computer, but since “AI” is based on industrial-scale plagiarism, it’s possible in principle that it could “produce” something moving. In that case, it’s pale fire would have been snatched from the sun, the human beings from which it plagiarized.
Or a computer-produced product could be moving the way, say, rainbows are. The question of how rainbows and sunsets can be meaningful despite being produced by blind and unfree processes is still, in my opinion, unsolved.
https://narrowdesert.wordpress.com/2018/05/27/shining-buddha-problems/
All this is hypothetical, though. In the real world, “AI” products remain palpably and repellently soulless.
Other examples include Robert Heinlein’s Love Is Enough. Also the films Inception or the Matrix. I believe these such attempts can have power because they focus one’s attention outward where it is much more important to focus it inward and on God.
@Jeffrey - Yes.
On the other hand, if approached from Christian assumptions, then good works of art can be beneficial - when their "message" is despairing. Shakespeare for instance.
Dystopias are fascinating, harmful (and produced) nowadays, precisely because they are addressing a Godless materialist civilization.
@Wm - Your example of computer plagiarism proves my point - as we agree.
If I was to convince the world that I had written something authored by Robert Frost, would that make me a poetic genius?
@Wm - "Or a computer-produced product could be moving the way, say, rainbows are. The question of how rainbows and sunsets can be meaningful despite being produced by blind and unfree processes is still, in my opinion, unsolved."
I think the philosophical insights of Rudolf Steiner and (especially) Owen Barfield are relevant. If we have really taken on board that all knowledge entails consciousness - then we can begin to look for the operations of consciousness in such phenomena.
Including that consciousness is an attribute of all Beings; so that all real meaning has consciousness on both sides - *somewhere and somehow*. This includes entities that pour culture regard as non-alive things - so we cease to regard a rainbow as a fact of nature.
A rainbow is the exact example Barfield explores at the start of Saving the Appearances.
How would you react if AI disproved left-wing agenda?
@Ap - not sure if you're being serious.
If so, your question assumes a false possibility, in the exact way I describe in the post - i.e. the question has the built-in assumption that AI can prove a thing - which it can't.
It was a joke. The topic reminds me of the question "how would you react if your child confessed that he is a ***". I would answer that with "well, how would you react if your child confessed that he is a Christian fundamentalist homophobe"?
The underlying philosophy about such questions is that anything can be copied to any extent. For Christians, that must be false, because Heaven is a place that is good by its nature; the nature of Heaven comes from being Heaven, it's not something that can be copied.
But I believe this philosophy is false even for the physical universe. However the universe was created, it didn't resemble the operations of AI at all. What AI is really doing is creating a sub-nature, a virtual world within the world by reshuffling words and images.
"Dystopias are fascinating, harmful (and produced) nowadays, precisely because they are addressing a Godless materialist civilization."
Orwell's materialist assumptions pervade Nineteen Eighty-Four. I once falsely believed that he wrote it as a reaction to That Hideous Strength because he had written a critique of THS a couple of years before publication of 'Eighty-four. In his scenario, the hideousness raged unchecked by supernatural intervention. But I later read that he had been working on the idea since the early 1940s.
What a contrast:
-You, a non-believer at age 14 reading the Gospel of John and concluding that the heart of Christianity lay there.
-I, a believer, reading 1984 at 14, horrified at the prospect of being unable to maintain integrity under torture. "There are no martyrs here, Winston." Orwell stacks the deck.
But then, the Party lies routinely. If there were any martyrs, they wouldn't say.
a_p - My understanding is that Orwell based 1984 on Zamyatin's We, published in English 1924 (https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2016/12/i-live-in-exact-place-jesmond-that.html).
I read most of Orwell's fiction and non-fiction in my middle teens, and later read the collected journalism. I retain a lot of respect for Orwell as an essayist, although not the fiction - and find him memorable; but I no longer want to read him.
Post a Comment