Throw and Catch

I shirk reflecting about group work because I don’t want to be negative. Or because what bothers me about working with other people might be due to a personal trait of my own and not due to my partners’ being poor coworkers, therefore they do not deserve negative feedback. The problem that I always have when working with other people is communication. I often think that I state things very clearly and precisely and in response I get vague replies that seem to indicate either that my arrow completely missed the target or that it flew right by them and they didn’t even notice it, they just felt a breeze blow by that incited their response.
I like D.G. and was excited to work with her. But, although we did the transformations project together, I don’t feel like I really worked with her. I felt like I worked alongside her, and she me. But we didn’t really put things together, we just put things on top of each other; sifted rather than mixed. I got the impression that she has a really busy life and that spending much time out of class on the project would not work out well.
However, I think we did manage to put together a decent paper. The research paper that I did last term concerned a subject I had already spent a lot of time thinking about outside of school: the art of music engineering. I was eager to do research this term on a subject that I have spent very little time thinking about: trade. My main insight came from reading a book about historic economies based on exchanging presents. This led me to thinking about how trade is just as much about exchanging wares as it is about exchanging ways of thinking.

Trying to talk without needed words

One of the points that Kurzweil repeatedly asserts in the “Response to Criticism” chapter of The Singularity is Near, is that the machines of tomorrow will be much different than the machines of today. This is most pointedly voiced in response to the criticism of Dembski and Denton, who believe that machines do not have access to spirituality and that biological life can’t be recreated or matched due to our flawed approach, which dissects integrated parts and that by doing so, misses a fundamental aspect of unity, respectively. I like that Kurweil constantly argues that future machines will be fundamentally different than current machines and may be just as likely to be conscious as dolphins. It does seem to me that the current hang ups really do stem from a belief that machines are simply nuts, bolts, and grease: linkages, rather than processors. But as we continue in the direction of pattern recognition software that displays emergent properties of intelligence our language to describe this software will change (this kind of parallels the fact that successes in AI become their own fields and are no longer called AI) and we’ll stop calling software and computers machines.

Kurweil is wrong when he says that technology will transcend biology because strong AI will surpass technology (maybe that’s why the cover reads “When humans transcend biology”). One way to think of it, but a sloppy mish-mashed way, is that strong AI is biological and technological, insofar as it can think and therefore is alive: cogito ergo sum. In terms of the direction of technology that Kurweil charts out, the terms technology and biology act more as barriers than useful partitions to guide our thinking and therefore the language must change out of a necessity to understand the world we’ll inhabit. And to me, it’s not unnerving that there may be living-technology. I know that the way that I’ll think about it when I interface with it will be so different than the way I currently project. Right now, I don’t have many points of reference because the debate is about possibilities yet to be measured, as we continue in this direction, there will be more measurements, new words and new commonplaces, albeit foreign commonplaces.

Where’s the nearest bush?

I can’t believe how often I go to the bathroom. On average the past week, I went to the bathroom eight times a day. I wonder if my classmates had that same number of toilet flushes in their audit. I suppose I just have a small bladder and have to pee a lot. One of the things that I realized from tracking myself was how easy it is to not pay attention to something like how often I go to the bathroom. I have been using restrooms my entire life, and if I have always been using a toilet eight times a day, then it is probably the thing that I have done more than anything else in my whole life. I’m a pro. And, like professional athletes, I don’t even think about going to the bathroom, in the same way a baseball player doesn’t think about how fast to run to get to where he or she needs to be in order to catch a fly ball, they just do it (as Nike famously branded). Because of this, I even found that I would forget to mark down on my tally, which I kept in my shirt pocket at all times the past week, that I flushed a toilet, I would make a mental note while in the bathroom but then sometimes forget to write it in ink. It is such an unconscious activity, it can be as unnoticeable as breathing or sleeping, my brain-stem is in charge, not me. I have trained myself not to think about it. And that is precisely why the eco-foot-print activity is important. As it is so easy to not think about going to the bathroom, it is likewise so easy to not think about the fact the my toilet has sent thirty-two gallons of water in one day, simply down the drain.

Falling to the Singularity.

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/bhi_gif.html

Ich bin noch nicht singularitarian.

The singularity, as described in Kurzweil’s, The Singularity is Near, is a technological messiah. Kurzweil even states that the singularity will bring about the epoch in which “The Universe Wakes Up.” This epoch sounds to me like the messianic age of peace, but instead ushered in by more intelligent powers than ourselves rather than divine powers. Not only does Kurweil predict that AI will far outpace our own intelligence, but he predicts that the meshing of AI with human intelligence will make it possible to surpass traditional limits, such as the speed of light and death! All of which I am immediately skeptical of.
Throughout all of our history there have been predictions of end times (and if the singularity brings about fundamental changes such as making death a worry of the past, we can safely, an ironically, call the singularity an end time since it will bring such a distinctly new beginning) occurring in a lifetime and, it seems to be a fairly uninteresting aspect of humanity, namely, that we attach more importance to the age in which we live in than other times (I don’t think that Jesus will return to earth as the messiah in my lifetime, or anyone’s lifetime) because all of the predictions have been wrong, the world didn’t end, this lifetime didn’t turn out to be the more important than another lifetime. In this case, I guess what I would say to a singularitarian is, “you will not live forever.”
But The Singularity is Near is a very interesting book because, although falling into the End-of-the-World-Prediction category (Kurzeil briefly suggests that the big bang could have been a singularity, which on his part is a direct comparison to an end of the world scenario), it is a popular-science book that is supported by evidence. In fact, well supported. One day, the world will end, or at least, humans will end (not to say that I think the singularity will be the end of humans), therefore there must be more important eras (importance is in this case just suggesting a relationship with a more broader historical perspective, ending, for me, doesn’t suppose more meaning than any other part of a process). And, maybe this era is more important than others, at least I think it is important to understand why someone like Kurweil thinks so.
Thus far, regarding the scientific subjects mentioned, I am most interested in how cellular automata can produce complex patterns with simple instructions. How reversible computing can effectively make computations without expending any energy. And how nanotubes will bring about what Kurweil thinks will be the next technological paradigm: three dimensional molecular computing. Having only read the first three chapters, I look forward to reading more about Kurzweil’s philosophical speculations about what the singularity will be like, which I expect him to discuss in the seventh chapter.

Neutering the needy.

I was struck most by the fact that the US supported the same logic of eugenics as the Nazis when I saw the documentary abut Nazi medicine. This makes it seem that the thoughts that the Germans had at that time were anything but foreign–their arguments were sound and convincing. That period is often depicted as being driven by propaganda, I think that the movie alluded to the fact that the Nazis were also driven by logic, which is what is unsettling about the history. In fact, one could make strong ethical arguments for Nazi eugenics with the utilitarian perspective and common-good perspective: A larger percentage of the population may benefit from the removal of certain persons (most good for most people). The community will strengthen from the removal of certain persons (values and goals will be shared more).
But the Nazi’s fall short when it comes to the rights perspective, the fairness perspective, and the virtue perspective. It is ethically wrong to make people act in ways they do not choose according to the rights perspective. Likewise, it is ethically wrong to discriminate and show favoritism according to the fairness perspective. And lastly, it is ethically wrong to murder according to the virtue approach.

I am right and you are right, but one of us is wrong.

The ethical perspectives addressed in “What is Ethics,” by Velasquez, Andre and others, are useful for organizing what is going on inside of our heads when faced with knots of emoting people. The various approaches make it easy to pinpoint how values conflict and solutions never balance out mathematically (unless imaginary numbers are used). For example, the utilitarian approach states that whatever achieves the best possible outcome for the greatest number of people could easily butt heads with the virtue approach that states that we should act in ways that encourage certain ideals. Let’s say that by lying to the government we could save food that was deemed uneatable and give it to people who don’t have any food. This may be ethically right when viewed with the utilitarian perspective because more people are benefiting from this scenario. At the same time, this may be ethically wrong when viewed with the virtue perspective because it promotes dishonesty.

Data is real, but less real than a rock.

Last week I read Rheingold’s first chapter, “The Heart of the Well,” about how real feelings can be communicated through virtual mediums. To be sure, I agree that real communication occurs through virtual mediums, but at the same time, what is being communicated virtually is different that what is being communicated when I talk to someone in person. This explains some of the problems that the younger generation of Japanese are currently faced with, according to a recent Studio 360 radio program.
The Studio 360 program interviewed Japanese citizens who purported three main problems with the Japanese youth, as a result of pervasive technology: extreme social withdraw, snapping (violent outbursts), and suicide. Technology is blamed for this because the younger generation gets all of their pleasure from virtual worlds, which makes them unable to handle the real world. I wonder what is it that is being communicated when we use virtual mediums? What is left out when we use virtual mediums? Will virtual communication ever develop so that it equals real communication? Or is that impossible, because virtual and real are by definition different?

Walking around cyberspace.

The community that started and developed the WELL was different than I had expected. I have always associated The Whole Earth Catalogue with hippie culture that is rooted in the ground. And yet, one of the founding members of The Whole Earth Catalogue developed the technology for the WELL. Obviously, I was wrong in assuming that environmentalists were did not share space with technologists, which now makes sense to me when I think that both groups are bonded by being countercultural.
The significance the Deadhead community had in funding the WELL also surprised me. I think their story is an interesting development of virtual places. This community was created around their love of watching the Grateful Dead perform and other than the temporary venues of performance, the community had no physical place to meet. Physical places partially define cultures and communities and the Deadhead culture finally found a place on the WELL, but it was a virtual place. As virtual places continue to develop today, how will our idea of physical space change? Could online places provide a communal area for other itinerant cultures, such as Gypsies?

I trust that this isn’t a will-o’-the-wisp.

In order to minimize the effect of Groupthink on me, I commit to the following statements:
I will listen without interrupting and will try to fully understand what people are communicating to me. Sometimes I presume I know what people are trying to say to me and I hear my interpretation of them more than I hear their voice. When I think I know what they’re talking about, even though I may not, I have a tendency to interrupt them, despite not having heard them out. My presumption is similar to Janis’ point that Groupthink makes us see rivals and enemies as diluted stereotypes. By listening fully, I won’t be able to simplify others’ views and will have to give them more consideration.
I will actively switch roles with other group members. Even though I am inclined to be passive in groups, by switching leadership positions and intermittently taking on active roles I will transform the groups I am in into dynamic arrangements. Ideally this sporadic structural shifting will make standards less fixed and groups thoughts less fixated.
I will personally research others’ claims that are unfamiliar to me. Groupthink strives on the division between us and them. Learning about foreign concepts on my own will make the division less clear and I will start becoming one of them, even though my allegiance may not be with them. This way I will not be censoring myself, which Janis thinks is a tendency of group members to try and reduce their internal doubts.
I will talk to group members when group leader is absent. All group members are aware of the leader’s presence and the influence of his or her presence usually creates additional pressure and anxiety. Talking to group members when the leader is absent will likely lead to more comfortable and open discussions.
I will use the written word to encourage unconstrained discourse. The virtual WELL community that Rheingold discusses is about how people are willing to share ideas in writing that they would not share in person. He mentions how he often disagreed with one member of the WELL community while exchanging messages online and how in person, at the picnic, they got along peaceably. Since the written word enables a freer exchange of ideas, sharing ideas through writing can help block against Groupthink.
I will make sure that everyone in my group clearly agrees about the definitions of their roles in the group. Janis comments that groups with clearly defined roles and standard procedures make it easier to think critically and are more likely to make better decisions than individuals. By knowing one’s place, disagreement is more likely to be constructive and properly interpreted.