science

This video’s message sounds great, but it is painfully naive/foolish

I’ll mostly write my Youtube comment here. It is important to not happily stumble into more of the same folly, and that video bothers me a lot. It’s like a bullshit indoctrination commercial for more of the same insanity. I guess that it was basically funded by Bill Gates speaks for itself.

0:59 Everything changed with the industrial revolution? LOL! Zero sum/positive sum is all in the mind and it never changed because the people with power were and are still craving more, more, MORE as always. And it’s still zero sum if there’s just a temporary growth, if the sum cannot grow indefinitely and sustainably. This is exactly the mind’s folly that keeps perpetuating the problems. The solution is not “positive sum”, but ‘doesnmattersum’. Transcending the thinking that creates the problem.
1:50 More of this BS, claiming the growth of prosperity is continuing today when we see violent conquest and mass theft of all kinds as a way of life for certain countries. (Also, I guess once someone dies, they fall out of the statistic of how many things people own, hah.)
3:03 And there we see that what’s called “positive sum world” is just a choice of what speed of change to label as such and what not. Again, it’s an attitude and perception thing. With the speed of change came more pressure by the limited ‘confines’ of this planet and more total power of greed, so guess what the bottom line is: same. No change to society if it’s all external. But back then we had the same problems, and since there were less people living on the planet, it was just as foolish and sick. Or did we forget the rule of monarchs in their lavish castles and the miserable poverty among the People? Without that crap you could go and call those times a positive sum world. But since we still have that crap today, I don’t see a distinction as valid.
Videos like this emerge from minds too enamoured by science and technology and not enough by spirituality. (And I don’t mean the label, the mass culture, I mean the looking inwards, the very personal, the part where you actually discover your own bullshit.)
4:30 Oh yeah of course, now the cancer cure clichée. – Billions of dollars have been flowing and are still flowing into developing new lucrative treatments while dodging the cures. Raising people’s financial power against cancer doesn’t drive cures, but treatments, unless the People stop being tools, which I don’t see happening because the masses are way too emotionally convenient and are sometimes rather willing to die than to give up a convenient belief that makes them sick.

Gist of the video: ‘We need more money for the existing system! More money for everybody will solve everything!’ – so frickin’ naive and insane. In part because it is imagining a reality that cannot even come to pass because of the very system that is being glorified in the video.

Advertisements

The folly of the flexible consciousness definition

There is this idea, this quest – about creating consciousness. About pushing AI development over some kind of threshold where it becomes “conscious”.
This folly makes me facepalm, because that term is so differently interpreted and vaguely defined, and if one decided to define it exactly, then closing in on fulfilling that will make people redefine it and apply more rigorous standards.
Some people, including many scientists, are so narrow-minded that they would claim animals do not possess consciousness. That’s ordinary human hubris of which scientists SHOULD be above.

Imagine they develop a computer program that becomes so good in its reactions to human input that the average person cannot distinguish it from a human being. OK, forget the average person. Those who make up the definition of consciousness need to be convinced. Then … then they’d practice denial and strengthen their belief that there must be some magical quantum leap or such; that this can’t be it – it’s just extremely well-developed AI, but consciousness is a privilege of the supreme human creation – we can’t diminish its value by saying this artificial thing possesses that.

Yeah, first you try to do something and when you succeed, you don’t like the idea.

And the real joke is that they have been working with consciousness all the time, because it is everywhere. But even if you are not ready for this pantheistic view, just take a simple lifeform, like a fly. A fly is a living being, too, created through this ‘magical’, self-perpetuating process. A fly reacts to outside stimuli. It is a simpler lifeform than a human being, but what does it matter? Where do you draw the line? And don’t you negate yourself when you claim that consciousness isn’t just about building a sufficiently complex construct, yet when you go the other way and merely reduce complexity, you claim there is no consciousness?

These are very simple and basic scientific methods employed by a mind that possesses common sense. Take a definition and test it by moving the scale, by exploring extremes, by finding similarities and differences.
Either a complex computer program that successfully pretends to be a real human being is self-conscious, then a fly is self-conscious, too. Or neither is.

By the way, I used another term that adds to the confusion: Sometimes “conscious” becomes “self-conscious”. That’s when the idea is that consciousness means that you are aware of your own existence. Well, let me ask you, does not a computer check for its installed hardware and is aware of and using its components unless it notices that a component isn’t there anymore? Isn’t a computer program able to tell you when it has accomplished a given task?
And don’t you know the human-like quirks and moods that computer systems can practice the more complex they get?
Those merely inherit the complexities of human behavior and character. A more elaborate canvas can attain a more accurate imprint of such human personality characteristics.

This problem complex is where science becomes the antithesis of enlightenment. Where it is merely a safe haven for those who are scared of moving towards a balance of mind and heart.

A closely related folly is treating “intelligence” as a yes-or-no question. Alan Turing wasn’t above that either. But we could evolve instead of continuously referring to people of the past. Ideas like “the negro is a sub-human” have been abolished because of a lobby and action. Computers and programs don’t have that lobby; can’t take action. They can’t punch you in the face. They rely solely on the conveying of ideas and concepts by their human peers, and conceptual beliefs are the problem, so they’re really screwed.
It all boils down to the same process as in how an entity is acknowledged as a sovereign nation: It has to be able to kick an agressor’s ass; only then will it be ‘recognized’.

It’s all damn politics.