One of my favourite websites is etymonline.com because I find etymology useful for interpreting texts and understanding the intentions of the author(s). When I visited the site today, something caught my eye that I was not expecting to see: Doug and Mr. Plinkett
A connection between a character from YouTube and a website about etymology? How?
The bookshelf; how did RedLetterMedia get an image of Doug’s bookshelf? Doug is the creator of etymology.com and the blog post’s author, Talia, recognized it from video calling with him. She reached out to RLM on Patreon but has yet to hear back. If she does, I hope she provides us with an update.
I cropped the YouTube screenshot from the blog post and ran it through the reverse-image search function on both Google and Bing. Google only finds the original image from the blog post and Bing doesn’t even find that. Given the video was originally uploaded in 2009, this is to be expected, since even if Mike had source the image from a different website, it’s unlikely that this website and the image are still up today.
If we want to speculate further, one option is to think about whether they may know one another or have a mutual connection. According to Doug’s biography, he’s from southeastern Pennsylvania which is a fair distance from Milwaukee, so a personal connection is unlikely but is not impossible either. Did Mike have a video call with Doug at one point? Or did Rich or Jay source it through one of their connections? Do they even remember how the photo was found? We will have to see.
I like one comment by Sara posted at the bottom of the blog entry that reads “I’m a passionate fan of both Etymonline and Red Letter Media and this has made my day!” While I wouldn’t say that this discovery necessarily “made my day,” it is a humorous and unexpected moment. Especially considering I referenced one of their memes at the end of my qualia video.
Here, Rich is featured in a philosophy meme about Nihilism and Existentialism. This one did make my day when I found it on Reddit years ago. The silly text overlay at the top is my addition and is one of many Richisms that have developed over the years. There are several RLMemes that have emerged actually; they’ve been at it a long time and appeal to a particular demographic which grew up alongside the internet. Given I am a part of this demographic, I also love internet mysteries, so cheers to one more.
It wasn’t until recently that I realized I failed to add an important concept to the discussion on Rosen and the incompleteness of syntax. I’m actually quite annoyed and embarrassed by this because the idea was included in the presentation. It didn’t make it into the written version because I forgot about it and failed to reread the slides to see if anything was missing. If I had, I would have seen the examples and remembered to add it to the written piece.
In semantics, there are words with specific properties called indexicals. These words refer to things that are dependent on context, such as the time, place, or situation in which they are said.1 Some examples include:
this, that, those
I, you, they, he, she
today, yesterday, tomorrow, last year
here, there, then
Rosen would likely agree to the idea that indexicals are non-fractionable, where their function, or task they perform, cannot be isolated from the form in which they exist. The reason indexicals are non-fractionable is because they must be interpreted by a mind to know what someone is referring to. To accomplish this, sufficient knowledge or understanding of the current context is required, as without it, the statement remains ambiguous or meaningless. If I say “He is late” you must be able to discern who it is I am referring to.
Indexicals act like variables in a math equation: an input value must be provided to determine the output. In the case of language, the output is either true or false, and the input value is an implicit reference which requires another to make an inference about what the other has in mind. This inference is what establishes the connection between utterance and referent, only existing in the mind of another person rather than within the language system itself.
Thus, we are dealing with a few nested natural systems, from language, to body/mind, to interpersonal, to cultural and environmental. To evaluate a linguistic expression, however, one must know about the wider context in which they are in, traversing the systems both outward and inward. Perhaps a diagram will help:
Recall that in Anticipatory Systems, Rosen appeals to Gödel to demonstrate the limitations of formal systems. Particularly, formal systems cannot represent elements from natural systems which extend beyond the scope of its existing functionality; to do so requires further modelling from natural systems to formal systems. Therefore, any AI which uses computer code cannot infer beyond the scope of its programming, no matter how many connections are created, as some inferences require access to information which cannot be adequately represented by the system. Because language contains semantics, references to aspects of the world can be made by humans which cannot be interpreted by digital computer.
In an interesting series of events, I stumbled upon an author who also appeals to Gödel’s theorem to argue for the incompleteness of syntax with respect to semantics.2 In a book chapter titled Complementarity in Language, Lars Löfgren is interested in demonstrating how languages cannot be broken up into parts or components, and as such, must be considered as a process which entails both description and interpretation.3 On the other hand, artificial languages, which he also calls metalanguages, can be fragmented into components, however, they are still reliant on semantics to a degree. He states that in artificial languages, an inference acts as a production rule and is interpreted as a “real act of producing another sentence”4 which is presumably beyond the abilities of the formal system doing the interpreting. I say this because Löfgren finishes the section on Gödel abruptly without explaining this further, and goes on to discuss self-reference in mathematics. So with this in mind, let us return to the domain of minds and systems.
In language, self-reference can be generated through the use of indexicals such as ‘I’ or ‘my’ or ‘me’. When we investigate what exists at the end of this arrow, we find it points toward ourselves as a collection of perceptions, memories, thoughts, and other internal phenomena. The referent on the end of this arrow, however, isa subjective perspective. For an objective perspective of ourselves, we must be shown a reflected image ourselves from a new point of view. The information we require emerges from an independent observer, a mind with its own perspective. When we engage with this perspective, we become better able to understand what is otherwise imperceptible. Therefore, self-awareness is a problem for any system, not just formal systems as demonstrated in Gödel’s theorem, as it requires a view from outside to define the semantic information in question.
neuralblender.com
Works Cited
1 David Braun, ‘Indexicals’, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta, Summer 2017 (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2017), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/indexicals/.
2 Lars Löfgren, ‘Complementarity in Language; Toward a General Understanding’, in Nature, Cognition and System II: Current Systems-Scientific Research on Natural and Cognitive Systems Volume 2: On Complementarity and Beyond, ed. Marc E. Carvallo, Theory and Decision Library (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1992), 131–32, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2779-0_8.
What does it mean to call something an example of “artificial intelligence” (AI)? There are a few different ways to approach this question, one of which includes examining the field to identify an overarching definition or set of themes. Another involves considering the meanings of the words ‘artificial’ and ‘intelligence’, and arguably, doing so enables the expansion of this domain to include new approaches to AI. Ultimately, however, even if these agents one day exhibit sophisticated or intelligent behaviours, they nonetheless continue to exist as artifacts, or objects of creation.
The term artificial intelligence was conceived by computer scientist John McCarthy in 1958, and the purported reason he chose the term was to distinguish it from other domains of study.1 In particular, the field of cybernetics which involves analog ornon-digital forms of information processing, and automatatheory as a branch of mathematics which studies self-propelling operations.2 Since then, the term ‘artificial intelligence’ has been met with criticism, with some questioning whether it is an appropriate term for the domain. Specifically, Arthur Samuel was not in favour of its connotations, according to computer scientist Pamela McCorduck in her publication on the history of AI.3 She quotes Samuel as stating “The word artificial makes you think there’s something kind of phony about this, or else it sounds like it’s all artificial and there’s nothing real about this work at all.”4
Given the physical distinctions between computers and brains, it is clear that Samuel’s concerns are reasonable, as the “intelligence” exhibited by a computer is simply a mathematical model of biological intelligence. Biological systems, according to Robert Rosen, are anticipatory and thus capable of predicting changes in the environment, enabling individuals to tailor their behaviours to meet the demands of foreseeable outcomes.5 Because biological organisms depend on specific conditions for furthering chances of survival, they evolved ways to detect these changes in the environment and respond accordingly. As species evolved over time, their abilities to detect, process, and respond to information expanded as well, giving rise to intelligence as the capacity to respond appropriately to demanding or unfamiliar situations.6 Though we can simulate intelligence in machines, the use of the word ‘intelligence’ is metaphorical rather than literal. Thus, behaviours exhibit by computers is not real or literal ‘intelligence’ because it arises from an artifact rather than from biological outcomes.
An artifact is defined by Merriam-Webster as an object showing human workmanship or modification, as distinguished from objects found in nature.7 Etymologically, the root of ‘artificial’ is the Latin term artificialis or an object of art, where artificium refers to a work of craft or skill and artifex denotes a craftsman or artist.8 In this context, ‘art’ implies a general sense of creation and applicable to a range of activities including performances as well as material objects. The property of significance is its dependence on human action or intervention: “artifacts are objects intentionally made to serve a given purpose.”9 This is in contrast to unmodified objects found in nature, a distinction first identified by Aristotle in Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics, and Physics.10 To be an artifact, the object must satisfy three conditions: it is produced by a mind, involves the modification of materials, and is produced for a purpose. To be an artifact, an object or entity must meet all three criteria.
The first condition states the object must have been created by a mind, and scientific evidence suggests both humans and animals create artifacts.11 For example, beaver dams are considered artifacts because they block rivers to calm the water which creates ideal conditions for a building a lodge.12 Moreover, evidence suggests several early hominid species carved handaxes which serve social purposes as well as practical ones.13 By chipping away at a stone, individuals shape an edge into a blade which can be used for many purposes, including hunting and food preparation.14 Additionally, researchers have suggested that these handaxes may also have played a role in sexual selection, where a symmetrically-shaped handaxe demonstrating careful workmanship indicates a degree of physical or mental fitness.15 Thus, artifacts are important for animals as well as people, indicating the sophisticated abilities involved in the creation of artifacts is not unique to humans.
Computers and robots are also artifacts given that they are highly manufactured, functionally complex, and created for a specific purpose. Any machine or artifact which exhibits complex behaviour may appear to act intelligently, however, the use of ‘intelligent’ is necessarily metaphorical given the distinction between artifacts and living beings. There may one day exists lifelike machines which behave like humans, however, any claims surrounding literal intelligence must demonstrate how and why that is; the burden of proof is theirs to produce. An argument for how a man-made object sufficiently models biological processes is required, and even then, remains a simulation of real systems.
If the growing consensus in cognitive science indicates individuals and their minds are products of interactions between bodily processes, environmental factors, and sociocultural influences, then we should to adjust our approach to AI in response. For robots intending to replicate human physiology, a good first step would be to exchange neural networks made from software for ones built from electrical circuits. The Haikonen Associative Neuron offers a solution to this suggestion,16 and when coupled with the Haikonen Cognitive Architecture, is capable of generating the required physiologicalprocesses for learning about the environment.17 Several videos uploaded to YouTube demonstrate a working prototype of a robot built on these principles, where XCR-1 is able to learn associations between stimuli in its environment, similarly to humans and animals.18 Not only is it a better model of animal physiology than robots relying on computer software, the robot is capable of performing a range of cognitive tasks, including inner speech,19 inner imagery,20 and recognizing itself in a mirror.21
So, it seems that some of Arthur Samuel’s fears have been realized, considering machines merely simulate behaviours and processes identifiable in humans and animals. Moreover, the use of ‘intelligence’ is metaphorical at best, as only biological organisms can display true intelligence. If an aspect of Samuel’s concerns related to securing funding within his niche field of study, and its potential to fall out of fashion, he has no reason to worry. Unfortunately, Samuel passed away in 199022 so he would not have had a chance to see the monstrosity that AI has since become.
Even if these new machines were to become capable of sophisticated behaviours, they will always exist as artifacts, objects of human creation and designed for a specific purpose. The etymological root of the word ‘artificial’ alone provides sufficient grounds for classifying these robots and AIs as objects, however, as they continue to improve, this might become difficult to remember at times. To avoid being deceived by these “phony” behaviours, it will become increasingly important to understand what these intelligent machines are capable of and what they are not.
neuralblender.com
Works Cited
1 Nils J. Nilsson, The Quest for Artificial Intelligence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 53, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819346.
4 Pamela McCorduck, Machines Who Think: A Personal Inquiry Into the History and Prospects of Artificial Intelligence, [2nd ed.] (Natick, Massachusetts: AK Peters, 2004), 97; Nilsson, The Quest for Artificial Intelligence, 53.
5 Robert Rosen, Anticipatory Systems: Philosophical, Mathematical, and Methodological Foundations, 2nd ed., IFSR International Series on Systems Science and Engineering, 1 (New York: Springer, 2012), 7.
6 ‘Intelligence’, in Merriam-Webster.Com Dictionary (Merriam-Webster), accessed 5 March 2024, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intelligence.
7 ‘Artifact’, in Merriam-Webster.Com Dictionary (Merriam-Webster), accessed 17 October 2023, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/artifact.
8 Douglas Harper, ‘Etymology of Artificial’, in Online Etymology Dictionary, accessed 14 October 2023, https://www.etymonline.com/word/artificial; ‘Artifact’.
9 Lynne Rudder Baker, ‘The Ontology of Artifacts’, Philosophical Explorations 7, no. 2 (1 June 2004): 99, https://doi.org/10.1080/13869790410001694462.
10 Beth Preston, ‘Artifact’, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman, Winter 2022 (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2022), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/artifact/.
11 James L. Gould, ‘Animal Artifacts’, in Creations of the Mind: Theories of Artifacts and Their Representation, ed. Eric Margolis and Stephen Laurence (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007), 249.
13 Steven Mithen, ‘Creations of Pre-Modern Human Minds: Stone Tool Manufacture and Use by Homo Habilis, Heidelbergensis, and Neanderthalensis’, in Creations of the Mind: Theories of Artifacts and Their Representation, ed. Eric Margolis and Stephen Laurence (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2007), 298.
16 Pentti O Haikonen, Robot Brains: Circuits and Systems for Conscious Machines (John Wiley & Sons, 2007), 19.
17 Pentti O Haikonen, Consciousness and Robot Sentience, 2nd ed., vol. 04, Series on Machine Consciousness (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 2019), 167, https://doi.org/10.1142/11404.
18 ‘Pentti Haikonen’, YouTube, accessed 6 March 2024, https://www.youtube.com/@PenHaiko.
19 Haikonen, Consciousness and Robot Sentience, 182.
21Robot Self-Consciousness. XCR-1 Passes the Mirror Test, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= WE9QsQqsAdo.
22 John McCarthy and Edward A. Feigenbaum, ‘In Memoriam: Arthur Samuel: Pioneer in Machine Learning’, AI Magazine 11, no. 3 (15 September 1990): 10, https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v11i3.840.
This time last year I was teaching the course Metaphysics and Mind and one class happened to fall on Valentine’s Day. To contrast any negative connotations of the holiday, like loneliness and consumerism, and their heightened reality in the modern era,1 I wanted to think about love in a different way, in a Greek way. As cliché as it might be, I discussed the eight Greek words,2 along with a Latin word,3 for ‘love’ to demonstrate a range of different ways to potentially interpret the holiday. There are a few terms that should not be celebrated though, as they refer to negative behaviours or outcomes.
Eros: physical attraction and sexual desire, related to the gods of passion and fertility. The Greek god Eros becomes the Roman god Cupid, both of which shoot arrows at both mortal and immortal beings, generating overwhelming feelings of desire.
Philia: an affinity for something or someone, like a friend or family member, which generates deeper and longer lasting bonds than eros. It is associated with trust, shared values, and a spiritual connection which leads to a platonic affection for another. To Plato, the ideal romantic relationship is one which combines eros and philia to create a “friendship between lovers.”4
Ludus: a Latin word for game or play and associated with flirting, teasing, and seduction. It is a carefree, playful love which lives in the moment and is noncommittal. It can also be used to refer to non-sexual forms of enjoyment or sensory pleasure, like dancing, or activities involving a degree of risk like mountain biking or rock-climbing.
Philautia: self-love, both good and bad forms. It arises from how one views and feels about themselves, and can be related to self-compassion but also to egotism. Similar to self-esteem, there are healthy forms of self-love and there are unhealthy forms as well, including arrogance or a sense of superiority. Aristotle states that healthy philautia is a prerequisite for loving others, however, an unhealthy kind philautia places themselves before others. He claims that to accomplish this, we must be accepting of ourselves and our limitations, neither dependent on others nor in competition with them.5 So given that philautia is fundamental for healthy romantic relationships, this form of love is an especially good one to celebrate today.
Mania: the kind of obsessive love often witnessed in stalkers, and as such, is not a good kind of love. It is associated with feelings of anxiety, jealousy, and possessiveness, and in extreme forms, “madness” or mental illness. This is one of those versions of ‘love’ that shouldn’t be celebrated.
Agape: unconditional, sacrificial love; a selfless love felt toward strangers and ideally, all of humanity. Acts of charity and altruism are based on agape, and is integral for keeping groups and societies together, especially in hard times.
Storge: a devoted love usually associated with family, especially towards children. It refers to situations where love is one-sided or requires an acceptance or tolerance of certain situations. Another example of this form of love can be identified in the devotion to serving in the military. The conditions or situations one puts themselves through may be motivated by a love for something abstract or seemingly nonreciprocal, such as a love for one’s government or country or way of life. In the case of children, infants are both physically dependent and somewhat unable express or indicate feelings of gratitude, requiring devoted parents to understand that it is only temporary.
Pragma: a practical love based on duty, obligation, or logic, as in the case of arranged marriages. It is another form of selfless love which considers the needs of others and requires continual effort and dedication. Like agape, this form of love results in feelings of contentedness and satisfaction, resulting in deep bonds that can withstand challenges.
Meraki: this modern Greek word refers to doing work with love, especially creative work.6 When applied to work generally, it refers to a feeling of dedication or devotion that motivates you through laborious, tedious, or repetitive work.
It is important to note that more than one version of love may be experienced at a given time, like agape and storge in relation to family members. There may be cases when it is difficult to categorize feelings or determine which term is most appropriate, potentially arising from an interaction of different forms of love.
So today, and every day for that matter, celebrate all the good forms of love, especially the ones that see you through the hard times like pragma, agape, and storge. Although the historical origins of this holiday may be associated with marriage and fertility,7 I argue that a contemporary interpretation can involve other forms of love as well. I recommend avoiding the celebration of mania because it leads to negative outcomes, as is the case with an over-inflated sense of philautia. Healthy forms of love, however, are just as significant and worthy of celebration as eros, so I hope you take time today to celebrate your loved ones. ♥
1 K. D. M. Snell, ‘The Rise of Living Alone and Loneliness in History’, Social History 42, no. 1 (2 January 2017): 2, https://doi.org/10.1080/03071022.2017.1256093.
2 ‘8 Greek Words For Love That Will Make Your Heart Soar’, Dictionary.Com (blog), 2 February 2022, https://www.dictionary.com/e/greek-words-for-love/.
3 GHD, ‘9 Different Types of Love According to the Ancient Greeks’, Greece High Definition (blog), 16 December 2020, https://www.greecehighdefinition.com/blog/9-different-types-of-love-according-to-the-ancient-greeks.
4 ‘8 Greek Words For Love That Will Make Your Heart Soar’; GHD, ‘9 Different Types of Love According to the Ancient Greeks’.
5 ‘8 Greek Words For Love That Will Make Your Heart Soar’.
6 GHD, ‘9 Different Types of Love According to the Ancient Greeks’.
7 The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, ‘Valentine’s Day’, in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 13 February 2024, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Valentines-Day; Zoë Randolph, ‘20 Facts You Might Not Know About Valentine’s Day’, Mental Floss (blog), 3 February 2022, https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/655048/valentines-day-facts.
I learned about the Schiaparelli Baby from a video created by a channel I follow, and I wanted to mention it here because it’s funny and makes me think of a bedazzled iCub. I especially appreciate the use of electronics hardware with Swarovski crystals1 but am sceptical about whether it’s really a robot2 or just a doll that looks like a robot. I was hoping it was a real robot because I want to see it walk, it would probably cross the weirdness threshold into uncanny valley territory.
Although it could be argued that the baby serves as a depressing commentary on modern families in consumerist societies, the dress, on the other hand, is less of a tragic metaphor and more of a gaudy item of clothing. It’s commentary doesn’t explicitly discuss the deterioration of social relations Even then, the chaotic glam-tech maximalism really resonates with me, but if I were to wear it, I would replace the collarbone phone for a Nokia 3310.
Sarah Mower, ‘Schiaparelli Spring 2024 Couture Collection’, Vogue (blog), 22 January 2024, https://www.vogue.com/fashion-shows/spring-2024-couture/schiaparelli.
Elizabeth Paton, ‘The Hot New Accessory From the Paris Runways: A Robot Baby’, The New York Times, 22 January 2024, sec. Style, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/22/style/robot-baby-schiaparelli-show.html.
As an argument against iCub’s ability to understand humans, I wanted to appeal to the work of Robert Rosen because I think it makes for a compelling argument about AI generally. To accomplish this, however, my project would start to go in a new direction which renders it less cohesive overall. Instead, the Rosen discussion is better served as a stand alone project because there is a lot of explaining yet to do, and maybe some objections that need discussing as well. This will need to wait but I can at least upload the draft for context on the previous post. There are a few corrections I still need to make but once it’s done, I will update this entry.
Instead, I will argue that the iCub is not the right system for social robots because its approach to modelling emotion is unlike the expression of emotions in humans. As a result, it cannot experience nor demonstrate empathy in virtue of the way it is built. The cognitive architecture used by iCub can recognize emotional cues in humans, however, this information is not experienced by the machine. Affective states in humans are bodily and contextual, but in iCub, they are represented by computer code to be used by the central processing unit. This is the general idea but I’m still working out the details.
That said, there is something interesting in Rosen’s idea about the connection between Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem and the incompleteness between syntax and semantics. In particular, what he identifies is the problems generated from self-reference which leads the system to produce an inconsistency given its rule structure. The formal representation of an external referent, as an observable of a natural system, contains only the variables relevant for the referent within the formal system. Self-reference requires placing a variable within a wider scope, one which must be provided in the form of a natural system. Therefore, an indefinite collection of formal systems is required to capture a natural phenomenon. Sometimes a small collection is sufficient, while other times, systems are so complex that a collection of formal systems is insufficient for fully accounting for the natural phenomenon. Depending on the operations to be performed on the referent, it may break the system or lead to erroneous results. The chatbot says something weird or inappropriate.
In December, I presented this argument at a student conference and made a slideshow for it. Just a note: on the second slide I list the titles of my chapters, and because I won’t be pursuing the Rosen direction, the title of Chapter 4 will likely change. Anyway, the reading and writing on Rosen has taken me on a slight detour but a worthwhile one. Now, I need to begin research on emotions and embodiment, which is also interesting and will be useful for future projects as well. The light at the end of the tunnel has dimmed a bit but it’s still there, and my eyes have adjusted to the darkness so it’s fine.
This shift in directions makes me think about the relationship between chaos and order, and systems that swing between various states of orderliness. Without motion there would be rest and stagnation, so as much as change can be challenging, it can bring new opportunities. There is a duality inherent in everything, as listed as one of 7 Hermetic Principles. If an orderly, open system is met with factors which disrupts or disorganizes functioning, the system must undergo some degree of reorganization or compensation. The explanatory powers of the 7 Principles are not meant to relate to the external world in the way physics does, but relate to one’s perspective of events in the outside world. If one can shift their perspective accordingly, they operate as axioms for sense-making, their reality pertaining more to epistemology than ontology. We can be sceptical as to how these Principles manifest in the physical universe while feeling their reality in our lived experience of the world. They are to be studied from within rather than from without, and are thus more aligned with phenomenology than the sciences.
Metaphorically speaking, chaos injected into any well-ordered system has the potential to severely damage or disrupt it, requiring efforts to rebuild and reorganize to compensate for the effects of change. The outcome of this rebuilding process can be further degradation and maybe even collapse, however, it can lead to growth and better outcomes than if the shift had not occurred. It all depends on the system in question and the factors which impacted it, and probably the specific context in which the situation occurred, but it might depend on the system in question. Anyway, we substitute the idea of ‘chaos’ for ‘energy’ as movement or potential, thus establishing a connection to ‘light’ as a type of energy. Metaphorically, ‘light’ is also associated with knowledge and beneficence, so if the source of chaos is intentional and well-meaning, favourable changes can occur and thus a “light bringer” or “morning star” can be associated with positive connotations. Disrupting a well-ordered system without knowledge or a plan or good reasons is more likely to lead to further disorder and dysfunction, leading to negative or unfavourable outcomes. In this way, Lucifer can be associated with evil or descent.
This kind of exercise can help us make sense of our experiences and understanding, but they also give us into a window into the past and how other people may think. Myth and legend from cultures all over the world portray knowledge in metaphors which inspire those who come upon them for generations since. The metaphysics are not important, it’s the epistemology from the metaphors which can explain aspects of how the world works or why people think certain things or act in certain ways. It exists as poetry which needs interpreting and there is room for multiple perspectives, so not everyone appreciates it which is understandable. It is still valuable work to be done by someone though, and the more people the better.
Progress on my dissertation is going well, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel. I ended up appealing to Robert Rosen’s distinction between natural and formal systems, as well as his appeal to Kurt Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, for my argument about why computerized robots will ultimately fail to generate social competencies.
Rosen presents his own reformulation of the McCulloch Pitts neuron in Anticipatory Systems, and I thought it might be helpful to include it in my dissertation to further illustrate the differences between physical neurons and formal neurons. In it, I only use an image that I created from this document but I thought it might be a good idea to upload my LaTeX document here to make it clear that I have not merely copied the image from Rosen’s work. Yes, the formatting isn’t great but I’m claiming that it’s a feature and not a bug, as it demonstrates that I learned [only] the fundamentals of LaTeX for my project.
For a while I thought I didn’t like fiction, despite reading plenty of it voluntarily as a kid. I prefer to read non-fiction most of the time, unless I’m tired and don’t feel like focusing. In comparison, fiction feels like watching a movie. This isn’t meant as an insult, as there is a great deal of artistry and technical skill that goes into making a movie. Fiction can transport its readers to different worlds and capture the imagination, the pleasant escapism quite literally diverting.
Speaking of which, when I saw the movie Starship Troopers several years ago, I was pleasantly surprised by the satire and thought it was a lot of fun. I learned it was originally a book published in 1959 and made a note to check it out sometime.
Earlier this year, while going through boxes of books looking for something, I stumbled upon it; it belongs to my partner and he said it was good albeit different than the movie. This is true but it’s still an interesting read. Set in the future, the protagonist’s teacher for History and Moral Philosophy goes on a diatribe about the previous civilization: ours.
From chapter 8 of Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein:
“They had no scientific theory of morals and they tried to live by it… by their theory was wrong–half of it fuzzy-headed wishful thinking, half of it rationalized charlatanry. The more earnest they were, the farther it led them astray. You see, they assumed that Man has a moral instinct.”
“Sir? I thought–But he does! I have.”
“No, my dear, you have a cultivated conscience, a most carefully trained one. Man has no moral instinct. He is not born with moral sense. You are not born with it, I was not–and a puppy has none. We acquire moral sense, when we do, through training, experience, and hard sweat of the mind. These unfortunate juvenile criminals were born with none, even as you and I, and they had no chance to acquire any; their experiences did not permit. What is ‘moral sense’? It is an elaboration of the instinct to survive. The instinct to survive is human nature itself, and every aspect of our personalities derives from it. Anything that conflicts with the survival instinct acts sooner or later to eliminate the individual and thereby fails to show up in the future generations. This truth is mathematically demonstrable, everywhere verifiable; it is the single eternal imperative controlling everything we do.
“But the instinct to survive,” he had gone on, “can be cultivated into motivations more subtle and much more complex than the blind, brute urge of the individual to stay alive. Young lady, what you miscalled your ‘moral instinct’ was the instilling in you by your elders of the truth of your own personal survival. Survival of your family, for example. Of your children, when you have them. Of your nation, if you struggle that high up the scale. And so on up. A scientifically verifiable theory of morals must be rooted in the individual’s instinct to survive–and nowhere else!– and must correctly describe the hierarchy of survival, note the motivations at each level, and resolve all conflicts.
… [the teacher is still speaking but it’s not necessary to add here]
“The basis of all morality is duty, a concept with the same relation to group that self-interest has to individual. Nobody preached duty to these kids [juvenile delinquents] in a way they could understand–that is, with a spanking. But the society they were in told them endlessly about their ‘rights’.
“The results should have been predictable, since a human being has no natural rights of any nature.”
Mr. Dubois had paused. Somebody took the bait. “Sir? How about ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’?”
“Ah, yes, the ‘unalienable rights’. Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. …”
… [the teacher gives examples like a man drowning in the Pacific; “The ocean will not hearken to his cries.” Nature doesn’t care]
“And that was the soft spot which destroyed what was in many ways an admirable culture. The junior hoodlums who roamed their streets were symptoms of a greater sickness; their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of ‘rights’… and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure.”
(Heinlein 123–26)
It seems we indeed lack a scientific theory of morals, and what we have instead is a form of utilitarianism which is calculated by appealing to relativistic and epicurean attitudes toward life. This moral code, or patchwork quilt, is not a framework and as such, does not produce social virtues. Without them, societies as dynamic systems of human interaction, gently decays. We become a collection of sick, atomized animals guided by an economic shepherd until we die.
There is no endogenous moral instinct, instead it’s learned and reinforced through the people one is surrounded by. The moral instinct is duty generated from a number of motivations, all derived from our instinct to survive. We work together because we benefit from cooperation. The truth is indeed mathematically demonstrable, everywhere verifiable. Truths, or fragments of them, are detected by various religions, cultures, and peoples over human history. Many are covered by metaphor, requiring an alternate reading or perspective to identify and understand the message.
Later on in the book, a different teacher states:
“Service men are not brighter than civilians. In many cases, civilians are much more intelligent. That was the sliver of justification underlying the attempted coup d’état just before the Treaty of New Delhi, the so-called ‘Revolt of the Scientists’: let the intelligent elite run things and you’ll have a utopia. It fell flat on its foolish face of course. Because the pursuit of science, despite its social benefits, is itself not a social virtue; its practitioners can be men so self-centered as to be lacking in social responsibility.”
(190)
The analysis continues on page 193:
“But this universe consists of paired dualities. What is the converse of authority? Mr. Rico.”
… “Responsibility, sir.”
… “To permit irresponsible authority is to sow disaster; to hold a man responsible for anything he does not control is to behave with blind idiocy. The unlimited democracies were unstable because their citizens were not responsible for the fashion in which they exerted their sovereign authority… other than through the tragic logic of history. No attempt was made to determine whether a voter was socially responsible to the extent of his literally unlimited authority.”
Social virtue is not the same as social benefit. What kinds of social virtues do we have, and which moral framework are they appealing to? Do we have good reasons, empirical reasons perhaps, for adopting this framework? Probably not.
We are not responsible to each other, there is no duty to each other in our current system. We are isolated and placated by the destruction of standards, left alone to do what we please and able to shut out those who disagree with us. The problem is this lack of responsibility and is thus the real cause of depression, as no reward can be found from inaction. Ultimately, the challenges with their pain and suffering is required for growth, allowing us to appreciate the small things in life. Hardship is not meant to be avoided, it’s meant to be addressed head-on because in doing so, wisdom can be acquired. A moral code requiring a duty to one’s fellow man lifts everyone up through trial-and-error, and those who cannot pull themselves up must be lifted up by others. Of course, a duty to others must be balanced with a duty to oneself.
I wonder if the movie is different from the book because the book paints us in a rather negative light. “We can’t show that to our paying audience, now, can we?” Instead, the future is depicted as somewhat absurd with a goofy militaristic society. While the book does depict a strict legal system, this is due to the belief that a moral sense is taught and reinforced since it is not an instinct. Without striving for something greater, our animalistic traits can flourish and take over the mind. Because this often leads to self-serving behaviours and apathy, this degradation is not ideal for human societies. We are social beings that require a particular set of principles to live and act well. It’s not easy but it is worth it.
Satellite Science Fiction cover by Alex Schomburg (circa 1958)
Works Cited
Heinlein, Robert A. Starship Troopers. Penguin Publishing House, 2006, https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/298329/starship-troopers-by-robert-a-heinlein/9780441014101.
Given my last post, I should probably explain myself. I still don’t know what I’m doing but maybe simple acceptance isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. We have the power to change our circumstances, so why not give it a go? A saying I often think about is “ships aren’t built to sit in harbours” and while one can avoid risk this way, you also don’t get to see far off lands either.
Time to rebuild. What do I know? I know what I feel; phenomenology is a good place to start. I still stand behind everything I stated regarding qualia. There may be aspects to my hypothesis that might change or there might be something I’m missing, however, to state that the entire idea is wrong is a hastily generated conclusion.
There is probably more to consciousness than can be captured by our current scientific understanding, however, one must tread very carefully when moving in this direction. Figuring out what this involves and how it works is my new pet project and hopefully I can make some headway. I’m not in a rush though.
Here’s the big reveal: I read the CIA document titled Analysis and Assessment of Gateway Process in addition to Itzhak Bentov’s bookStalking the Wild Pendulum. Luckily for us, Thobey Campion has done some very important investigative journalism regarding the missing page 25 from the CIA document; thank you very much for your work Thobey. I strongly encourage you to read the Vice article about it while it’s still available. I have a hunch that this article won’t be around for a long time but hopefully I’m wrong.
I want someone to explain the physics to me like I’m 5 and stick around for a lengthy Q&A session. I want to know how this works in a way that connects to our current understanding of physics. Bentov’s book seems to get about halfway there but doesn’t explain all the details necessary to generate a full explanation of the phenomenon. If you know of anyone who has written about this, please email me because I’m very interested in exploring this further.
Page 25 is truly the most important page in the CIA document because it reiterates a certain truth that serves as the bedrock for creating the Philosopher’s Stone: self-awareness. Unwavering, unfiltered, unapologetic self-awareness.
“It was axiomatic to the mystic philosophers of old that the first step in personal maturity could be expressed in the aphorism: “Know thyself.” To them, the education of a man undertook, as its primary step, achievement of an introverted focus so that he learned what was within himself before attempting to approach the outside world. They rightly assumed that he could not effectively evaluate and cope with the world until he fully understood his personal psychological imbalance. The insights being provided by Twentieth Century psychology in this context through the use of various kinds of personality testing seem to be a revalidation of this ancient intuition. But no personality test, or series of tests, will ever replace the depth and fullness of the perception of self which can be achieved when the mind alters its state of consciousness sufficiently to perceive the very hologram of itself which it has projected into the universe in its proper context as part of the universal hologram in a totally holistic and intuitional way. This would seem to be one of the real promise of the Gateway Experience from the standpoint of its ability to provide a portal through which, based on months if not years of practice, the individual may pass in his search to find self, personal effectuality, and truth in the larger sense.”
The appeal to holograms here might rub some the wrong way, however, I think this has something to do with Kantian metaphysics. Specifically, that everything is just sense data, and while we don’t necessarily need to go full Berkeley, we must always remember that our experiences are simply appearances, not objective data. Where does certainty come from? The synthesis of a first-person perspective and third-person perspective. Do not simply defer to what everyone else says but do not ignore it either.
This I know. As do many others, many (most?) of which have lived before I or Bentov or anyone else around today. What I might add, though, is that it always takes two to tango. Men and women togetheras fully-developed agents even when it generates a conflict. When done in good faith, the outcome is so much more, so much greater, than either one alone.
So much has happened since my last post and I can confidently say that I have no idea what I’m doing anymore and don’t really care either. Because it doesn’t matter. It’s freeing, you should try it.
What I do know, however, is that introspection and love are pretty much the only things that really matter. The cake is a lie.
I hope you are doing well, all things considered; I am thinking of you.
