History in a blur

April 7, 2011 at 10:45 am Leave a comment

What’s disturbing about mechanical intelligence isn’t its capabilities, rather its what an a.i. free from the pinnings of emotion could do, machinic intelligence can operate in ways different from human and be so valuable to be taken as a spouse. Singularities need to be part of a human ethnic group. The cellphone, the nanosuit, these are already important parts of the social group, the nanosuit assimilates with the soldier, the phone with our social lives.

In Gibson the singularity learns from the web. It even composes dub. Machinic learning represents an alternative interpretation of human ethnicity, human communication goes in, otherness comes out. The problem of producing an intelligence over the human becomes where will such an intelligence learn from. If all ethnicity is writen at the human speed what will it look like in a blur?

Knowledge is, beyond biology, how we construct much of the social around us. Race, for instance, in America has much more to do with class and less to do with skin color, if these intelligences construct their ethnicities from us, will they need someone to hate too?  Will they break into social groups? Should we expect machine intelligence with preppies and freaks?

But I think the bigger problem with the singularity, and the one that’s always bugging me is: can human thought be reduced to logic and mathematical reasoning? Do you really want o be an emulation of human intelligence running inside a machine intelligence that produces being in a different manor? By what means can we check that math’s swallowing of language is accurate? And after being swallowed, how will language change?

Let’s take for a moment James Gleick’s findings in The Information, literacy changed the way language worked. Pre-literature people think differently than post-literate people. Post-literates are better at abstractions, they think more like the machine they invented Platonism etc. The change from reality to living inside an abstraction creates multiple paradoxes, lest not forget that our singularity thing will need to somehow house the paradox of thought swallowing thought, as if that philosopher’s mirror: math could hold the brittle seductions of language inside itself. Additionally, as the linked white horse dialogue shows, words contain multiple contradictions in their usage, only resolvable because of a shared visual reality.  I’m rambling and this has been sitting in edits for a week, so I’ll go ahead and publish, but this needs a little polish, I just don’t have the time.

Entry filed under: media, thinking. Tags: , , .

Pepper Leopard being killed

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


April 2011
« Mar   May »

Most Recent Posts

%d bloggers like this: