About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 20

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 - 8:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve Wolfer: I believe Nathaniel defined mature self confidence as knowing that you have the capability to learn whatever you need to know to achieve your goals. Not that you already know everything. If you are a good problem solver you will always be a good problem solver. I am very much looking forward to the future. Boredom is death.

Addendum:
I don't know which book of Nathaniel Branden's I read this in. Does this sound remotely familiar to anyone?
(Edited by Mike Erickson on 11/12, 7:33am)


Post 21

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 - 9:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike,

Which Steve?

:-)

Post 22

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 - 6:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Joe:

I can open the thread but my AVG gives me a little bleep that it has intercepted something. I have Windows XT. And, as I said before, I can't open the link in the first post.


Post 23

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 - 6:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My wife had sent this to me in an email earlier. Fascinating.

For what it's worth, it opens up fine in ROR forum on my machine, and I'm using Safari (3.1.2).

jt

Post 24

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 - 6:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

Great link. Fascinating topic. I'll have some interesting reading tonight.

jt

Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 - 8:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good video, though I concur with Dean that some of it is a little bit disingenuous, such as the implication that a good portion of what you learn in college will be useless. New knowledge doesn't tend to eradicate old knowledge, but is build on the principles of the old knowledge. Relativity did not make Newtonian mechanics useless nor will fiber optic cables which transfer 2TB/s make knowledge of electromagnetism useless.

Similarly the 'broadband' penetration of Bermuda, as pointed out, is only so high because it's a small, wealthy area. Luxembourg also has the highest GDP output per energy consumption, but it's not a fair comparison to a large nation.

The US is very large and it's overall population density is about half of a typical European country when averaged out, so any infrastructure penetration is much more expensive. This is exacerbated by the fact that most of the US was built after cars were prominent, and stupid zoning laws which force people to live spread further and further out.

I always find claims like this interesting

"By 2013 a supercomputer will be built which exceeds the capacity of a human brain"


Because so few people realize the corollary implication of that, that every single human being on the planet right now has the most powerful supercomputer, for the mere price of 2,000 calories per day, at their complete disposal! And yet we use it for memorizing survivor episodes or figuring out the best pick up line. If only we could see what programs were running and how many 'cpu' cycles they were taking up.

Kurzweil's "Law of Accelerating Returns" is a good article to read on accelerating change.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1

Post 26

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 - 5:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike,

You said, "I believe Nathaniel defined mature self confidence as knowing that you have the capability to learn whatever you need to know to achieve your goals."

I don't remember that, but it could be accurate. I do remember him talking about self-esteem as an experience of confidence in ones ability to learn whatever one needs to know. And what you pointed out, looking forward to the future, and the willingness, even eagerness to learn new things is a hallmark of that aspect of self-esteem. I've also found that those people who are the very best in an area, the real experts, are not just confident, but usually open to learning, and not in the least defensive.

Sometimes we don't complete our maturity in some areas because nothing has required us to do so. I suspect that some people find becoming a parent does that - stimulates them to mature in ways that hadn't been seen as lacking before, but in hind-sight, clearly were. The first time I was responsible for managing a group of people, I found myself maturing in ways that wouldn't have occured to me before.

I suspect that is more helpful to consider maturity as most often the absence of immaturity - process complete in that area. I further suspect that immaturity is almost always a kind of defense in action - some part of a person stays young in some inappropriate, non-helpful way.

The child we once were was capable of some things that needed no improvement - an endless curiosity, a capacity to learn, an ability and willingness to laugh, an imagination, etc. In a great many other areas we needed to mature, to improve, to add on. For the most part you can divide those things we needed to add or improve into those we acquired through natural learning, and the rest from some kind of stimulated learning. That is, in some areas we just naturally mature - in other areas we are strongly stimulated by peers, parents, school, etc., to change and mature. And, for nearly everyone, in a few small areas, we should have matured more, but still haven't. This is important, because it relates to where we are as democratic society, picking candidates, and laws, and yet reality hasn't forced us to be as self-responsible as it once did - say, a hundred years ago.

The most important aspects of maturity lie in the ways we use our consciousness - exercising will to focus, being open to information that tells us when we need to act with greater responsibility, or integrity, or honesty, or assertiveness - the self-esteem pillars. That would be the strongest relationship between maturity and self-esteem and an eagerness to learn new things.

Post 27

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 - 6:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

Copyright ©1963; renewed 1991 Special Rider Music


Post 28

Thursday, November 13, 2008 - 3:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
MD:>>  ... such as the implication that a good portion of what you learn in college will be useless.

MD:>>  ...  the corollary implication of that, that every single human being on the planet right now has the most powerful supercomputer, for the mere price of 2,000 calories per day, at their complete disposal! And yet we use it for memorizing survivor episodes or figuring out the best pick up line.


A couple of years ago, I was meeting with the chairman of the humanities program at my community college.  Enrollments in his classes are down, though nursing and food prep are up.  He said something like this: "People ask me what good these classes are and I ask them, 'What job do you want to have in 25 years?'." 

I entered high school in 1964. I had one year of high school credit for German classes going in because of an accelerated junior high program.  That program then said that I did not need to take shop classes because I would be going to college to work with my mind, not my hands.  In 1991, I was working for a robotics company, teaching programming, and I sure wished I had had some shop classes.  It took me two years to learn to take a robot apart and put it back together.   On the other hand, the skilled trades guys were blank when I said that programming is just a little language with its own grammar, syntax and vocabulary.  No one told them they'd be working with their minds.

The market is always right and the market rewards specialization.  However, generalists survive when specialists lose their niches. 

Last year, I had a class called "Sociology of the Workplace."  We read about MacDonaldization and de-skilling of the workforce.  In one book, a woman quipped that she knew nothing about baking, but that she knew nothing about making shoes, either.  What she knew was the Windows Interface.  That was supposed to show the loss of skilled work.  But in another class, I read about a sociological study done 100 years ago in Muncie, Indiana.  The older workers at the Ball Glass factory there were glassblowers, but the young guys wanted to learn to run the automatic machines.  Not only did it pay more, but the skills were more widely applicable to other automatic machines in other companies.

Schumpeter's model of "creative destruction" is limited.  Jane Jacobs pointed out that seldom is anything old ever really lost.  It just gets included into the new in new ways not expected. My first lab class in college chemisty was glass-blowing. Back to that shop thing again. 


Post 29

Thursday, November 13, 2008 - 5:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't believe in "AI" or "the coming Singularity."

It has to do with what humans are.

I could "beat" an AI Turing Machine, sooner or later.

Ed



Post 30

Thursday, November 13, 2008 - 7:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have my own doubts about AI, and certainly far more doubts about "the coming singularity". However, I would not rule out the possibility of AI entirely.

Presently, growth in this area of study is effectively controlled by the scientists and programmers involved. I would expect research will blossom and start yielding more fruit when software is written capable of re-writing its own code. One method - probably the most likely to succeed - is using swarm theory. And, realistically, I think this does potentially carry risks. I'm not suggesting something as alarming and farfetched as in Crichton's book "Prey". However, I can only hope that researchers are quite careful in defining the behavioral objectives on any such projects.

After all is said and done, all living things have their own particular value systems. Any program ascending to the level of true intelligence should be expected to develop a value system germane to it's nature. In my opinion, if well done, it is likely such programs would be benign, and would serve man well (no, not a cookbook - : ) )

jt

Post 31

Thursday, November 13, 2008 - 8:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
JT,

However, I would not rule out the possibility of AI entirely.

Presently, growth in this area of study is effectively controlled by the scientists and programmers involved. I would expect research will blossom and start yielding more fruit when software is written capable of re-writing its own code.
Interpretation:
You can't rule out AI because, currently, growth in the area is controlled by humans. However, if you arbitrarily assume the existence of AI (software re-writing its own code), then research will really start to blossom ... and we will have AI soon after that (if not sooner)!

All that's needed is a little AI first, and then we'll have a lot of AI.

:-)

Ed


Post 32

Thursday, November 13, 2008 - 1:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

I don't believe that programs that write program code are generally considered to be AI. There are already many examples of (relatively) simple programs that do this now (e.g. programs writing HTML).

Also, I do not rule out humans generating the "successful" code, but I think it far more likely - owing to the speed of the machine vs human processing - that the code reaching what we might consider true AI status is more likely to be generated by a program applying swarm algorithms. Thus human endeavor is more likely to write the program that will write THE program.

: )

jt

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 33

Thursday, November 13, 2008 - 2:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

Assuming that our unique human characteristics are NOT magical or some kind of exclusive gift from a god - then nothing bars some non-human, at some time in the future, of demonstrating those exact characteristics.

I've written lots of software that generates software - and some of the applications were fairly sophisticated - but like Jay says, that is really trivial. At this point no one can even conceive of software or any machine that actually envisions alternatives, some that do not exist, and then choses. But what makes it impossible?
---------

Putting aside the concept of AI, and putting aside the concept of the Singularity, the part of Kurzweil's hypothesis that so fascinated me was his understanding of the rate of progress in acquisition of knowledge and the progress in technology. We are not on a linear slope. Our movement from past to future is charted exponentially. And his understanding of the way each technical paradigm is like an 'S' shaped curve that rests upon the 'S' shaped curve below it, and will die out to have the next technical revolution take off as an 'S' shaped curve continuing up. Like integrated circuit chips is a paradigm sitting on top of transistors which sits on top of tubes. And perhaps organic based, or nanotechnology produced chips will be the 'S' curve that takes over from integrated circuits. And with each one, the time is shortened as the curve grows steeper.

This understanding changes so much - and it so perfectly fits the understanding of human nature - of man as a rational animal - a thinking, choosing creature. It is a better fit of man and economics and politics. It establishes the locus of progress in man's explosive ability to envision things that have never been and to bring them into existence - when property rights are respected. It better portrays the dynamic relationship we have with this culture that we created, depend upon and live within.

Post 34

Thursday, November 13, 2008 - 8:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm reminded again of Jame's Burkes series "Connections - an alternate view of change" which also places emphasis on the accelerating speed of change. He credits this as being the result of the accelerating speed of communication.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTbCNycm0nQ

jt

Post 35

Friday, November 14, 2008 - 5:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
JT and Steve,

What would life be like if man only had a strictly computational rationality?

Humans don't have a strictly computational rationality, but a volitional rationality. It's like we have a little executive humunculus in our heads watching over our rationality (and our emotionality and anything else) -- and turning on and turning off "spickets" in response to what he sees and what he understands of what he sees.

To get AI, we'd need to create this volition ex nihilo. Now, we have not even been able to make a single, living leaf ex nihilo (and leaves don't even think!).

Ed


Post 36

Friday, November 14, 2008 - 11:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

I'm just pointing out two things:
1) For a wide variety or reasons, the rate of increase in knowledge and technology are increasing exponentially,
2) Nothing prohibits the existence of another kind of entity capable of some form of volitional consciousness. (Do you disagree with that? If so, then it is just a matter of time. How much time? Depends upon the exponent :-)

But the AI and the Singularity is not, the important part of the discussion from my viewpoint. I'm excited about that first point and what makes it possible, and what it implies about human nature and our culture.

Post 37

Friday, November 14, 2008 - 4:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,

Okay, but let's be more pedantic (really). First off, I agree that the rate of technological advance increases increasingly. However, I disagree with the premise that "nothing prohibits the existence of another kind of entity capable of some form of volitional consciousness."

Let me re-phrase that.

I agree that there isn't something I could name that "prohibits the existence of [yadayada]", but you're asking me to prove a negative. I disagree with your premise as a viable argument in the debate about AI. I shouldn't have to come up with something that disproves imagined possibility.

Ed


Post 38

Friday, November 14, 2008 - 7:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed, It wasn't my intention to try to trap you into attempting to prove a negative. Let me try to phrase my concern differently. Suppose I got all excited about the possibility to make an artificial heart - and that this was several hundred years ago. And, lets suppose someone told me that was not possible. Not just that I couldn't do it, and not just that the technology didn't exist, but that it was not something that under any circumstance could exist except in its natural state.

That is what it seems like to me when you argue against the possibility that any entity, natural or artificial, could ever be volitional - only human beings. I could ask my imaginary person what it is about the function of pumping blood that would prohibit it from ever being done by something other than the human heart. Would that be an unfair request?

My argument is that if our physical being can give rise to the emergent properties that we have, then so can some other entity. We may not even be close to having the technology to duplicate all of those properties, but I want to hear if someone thinks there is a principle or property that would make this impossible.

Post 39

Friday, November 14, 2008 - 9:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed,

I'd agree with Steve, and add that we are all essentially constructs of physics and chemistry. It such a construct cannot exist, then we cannot logically exist. Unless you wish to inject the question of 'soul' to separate us from our physical and chemical origins... but THAT argument cannot be logically made (and would look strange on this forum).

jt

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.