Shakespeare, a poet, wrote the line “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,” for the character Jack Cade in the Henry VI cycle, and it refers to Cade’s vision of a utopian, social revolution in which he would be dictator. Of course, the irony is that when it comes to establishing or maintaining autocratic rule, one must first kill all the poets. After all, nobody really understands lawyers.
The Poetry Foundation, human rights groups, and other news agencies report today that Iranian poet and activist Hashem Shaabani was executed by hanging on Monday after suffering three years of imprisonment and torture. His crime was “waging war against God.” There’s a reason artists are invariably among the first to be killed or imprisoned by any authority predicated on orthodoxy; and it is the underlying reason why I will never stop writing or speaking about the rights and the value of artists. Because their work is not just content. And while we may take the absence of orthodoxy in our own governance for granted, we should not underestimate the social or economic force of artistic diversity for helping it stay that way.
Coincidentally, I leave this month for Rome to film some documentary material with the widow of my former film professor about a man named Giordano Bruno — philosopher, scientist, and heretic burned at the stake in 1600 by order of Pope Clement VIII. Perhaps the trip will provide new food for thought for this blog. For now, it’s enough to say that as we debate the subtle and profound ways in which technology changes our world and our notions of civil liberty, that we are privileged to have this dialogue in relative luxury, with the leisure of academics, and at a safe distance from people who still hang poets.
“their work is not just content”
I think it would be fair to say that their work is very often discontent. Which is why they are both important to society and typically ignored in policy decisions. Even when discussing authors’ rights, the law makers seem a lot more concerned with the business people on both sides of the debate, than the artists that do the actual work that makes business possible.
Because the business people have enough money to contribute to campaigns… Here in the States, there is a big problem with campaign finance laws… essentially, unless you have (lots of) money, or a very sizable membership, you have no political voice as far as most politicians are concerned. It is very unfortunate.
But he wasn’t executed for being a poet, so it’s kinda irrelevant.
You don’t fight false truth (religion) with more false truth (art). You fight false truth with real truth (science). Sure, the Catholic Church was able to prosecute Galileo for his “beliefs”. But what they couldn’t do was stop the Earth from revolving around the Sun.
First of all, M, you need to decide if art is irrelevant or manipulative. You seem to want it both ways. Either it has the power to affect people and even effect action, or it doesn’t. I say it does, which is why totalitarian regimes like to kill artists alongside the scientists. Also, on a philosophical level, the Church (think of the term symbolically) can indeed stop the Earth from revolving around the sun. If enough people reject science — now think Texas School Board and evolution — it really doesn’t matter what the truth is, does it? If people live as though the Earth is flat, then it might as well be.
Yeah David, you are right. I’ll admit that I’m still trying to form my opinion on art (ie. exactly what it is, and what it does). It is worth looking at in the abstract sense just like technology is though.
FYI, “M”…
The “Singularity” is also a religion…
‘promises of life after death?’ = check
[edited check-list of several other things i decided not to include as to offend anyone= check]
Art (some of it anyhow…) is supposed to challenge your thinking.. ie, to actually make you think. If everyone thought and believed the same thing, it would be a very boring world. Other art is relaying an emotion… “i feel this way…maybe you do to?” Art can certainly contain ‘truths’, but at no point is it a substitute for science.. nor does it even try to be. The fact that you position it that way is odd to say the least… Do you want to have conversations? Or are you here to troll [again]?
Actually, what is great about the technological singularity is it not a religion, yet offers the possibility of immortality.
You may be confusing it with religion because of the immortality or life after death sounds like something out of a religious belief. This is definitely the case – it’s a common theme in most world religions. But the singularity can allow humanity to achieve immortality without metaphysics or supernatural deities or whatever of the sort that exists in religion. Ergo, it’s actually plausible. And that is what makes it actually irreligious.
Sorry M, but no dice. As my Internet Atheist friends like to remind me, what makes a religion is not supernatural beings, but a reliance on faith. That’s why they deflect arguments about Stalinism and Maoism by saying that they weren’t really atheism but state religions. As of now the Singularity is faith-based.
As well, even if Kurzweill et al manage to get past the problems of energy, global warming, and world poverty, there is no guarantee that the “you” that emerges from the Singularity will be the same “you” that went in. You are taking a leap of faith.
More importantly, the very idea of the Singularity is not some Platonic ideal that always existed. It is very much the product of science fiction writers, or liars as you would have them
I’m going to go with this definition of religion: “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.”
I feel like people abuse the term obviously. Of course speculating about the future in a using things like “logic” is not the same as believing that everyone should put their faith in the existence of zombie sky god that is secret and invisible but controls the whole universe and happens to be well… very critical of the idea of masturbation. The later belief is arguably schizophrenic, however unfortunately socially acceptable it may be.
And that is not the definition most people use for religion. Buddhism and Taoism, whatever atheists claim about them being “philosophies,” are considered religions by most people and have no deities or even “a superhuman controlling power.”
The Singularity is not based on “logic.” it’s a fairy tale for computer scientists.You are making a leap of faith whether you like it or not.
And you didn’t respond to my next point, which is that The Singularity came to us as a thought experiment, i.e. fiction.
Well, we can’t be certain a technological singularity will definitely happen. But given our rate of advancement in both computer hardware and in learning algorithms, it seems likely within the next few decades. Of course nothing is certain. The shockwave of a false vacuum collapsing could obliterate the planet in the next millisecond after you read this.
I see you use the tired leap of faith religionist argument. You know, we can’t be certain that a flying spaghetti monster (pbuh) isn’t secretly manipulating all of our scientific results for some mysterious reason. So I guess, you are right. Everything could be in question! It’s all a leap of faith in the end of the day.
Speaking of the flying spaghetti monster.. even though it’s about equally plausible as Christianity, Pastafarianism is a far superior religion. Naturally because it involves pirates, beer volcanoes and hookers. May you find your way to Him and be touched by his noodly appendage.
Isn’t it reasonable to say that the difference between religion and either science or philosophy is the element of faith? Although philosophers and scientists have been religious, neither relies on faith in the more disciplined application of his craft. The technological singularity is a theory based to an extent on real science (Moore’s Law and all that), and I don’t think believing in its probability is a religious act unto itself. One can see the rationale for the event much like climate change based on computer models, and without an element of faith. Where I believe the confusion occurs begins with the fact that some technologists — and according to Lanier, it’s quite a few — talk about the singularity in a way that parallels the Rapture. Kurzweil’s utopian predictions combined with the leap across an event horizon into the unknown take on a very Rapture-like quality to say the least.
Agreed. It does sound like rapture and Kurzweil in the Age of Spiritual Machines basically admits he has no idea if it would be the end of humanity in a SkyNet-like fashion (one can argue that the Terminator’s SkyNet was Hollywood story of “singularity gone awry”, of course there are many other movies with this theme), or if it would humanity’s transcendence to a superior form.
Besides the singularity not happening, or happening in hundreds of years instead of decades, there is also a little known argument that the creating a general AI that can improve itself might not be able to improve itself exponentially because there might very well be a exponential relationship between compute power and intelligence (traditional singularity models seem to assume that the relationship is linear or maybe at worst, quadratic). This is plausible. But what makes me doubt this is the areas in which computers already exhibit a superhuman like intelligence (arithmetic, data recall) obviously do not have a non-polynomial relationship. But there is some indication that limited elements of intelligence can very well be NP (can be justified to some extent by Moravec’s paradox), so a superintelligence might not simply a very smart human, but something completely different.
Actually, you’re right. the Singularity is not a religion: it lacks anything like the social benefit that even evolutionary biologists admit religion has: it provides an impetus for people to treat each other better (even though they don’t always do so). It’s the most solipsistic philosophy I’ve ever encountered.
Pastafarianism lacks even the humor of such “satirical” religions as The Church Of The Subgenius.
And once again, you have ignored the fact that The Singularity comes to us through the ideas of novelists and other writers – you know, those icky artists.
And i’m sorry, but “uploading” your consciousness is very much a leap of faith, and any reasonable philosopher would admit that.
No. You don’t need to believe in fairy tails to be good to each other. Religion is directly resulted in iniquitous human suffering and societal degradation over thousands of years of human history. Even today. Christianity easily knocked Western civilization 1000 years. It is only when the hold of Church dogma was broken that the Enlightenment occurred.
You know how the learned that the tooth fairy and Santa Claus were fake as you grew up? I say this to the religionists of the world: grow up. Your primitive racist and homophobic precepts have no place in the modern world.
Your eagerness to throw the baby out with the bathwater in regard to religion applies just as strongly to technology. In fact, it is technology that has provided those who wield power, religious or political (as if there’s really a difference), with the tools for the very iniquity you abhor.
Social Darwinism is recognized as one of mankind’s greatest blunders, no religion required.
The internet is probably the greatest engine of hatred, bigotry, homophobia, and racism that the world has ever known. It is used for bullying, scamming, jingoism, hate speech, theft, and the violation of people’s rights every single day. Why does it get a free pass?
Patrik,
The Internet is a communications medium. It bears no responsibility for the behaviors of humans that use it. The fact that religion and mass media and kinds of bizarre bullshit comes from the collective mind of humanity leads me to be believe that human intelligence is just completely fucking broken. One of the reasons to be a “believer” in the technological singularity is it allows you to safely throw away the idea that the best nature can do as far as intelligence is concerned is human cognition. That would actually kind of depressing. 🙂
I’ll just let your blanket mischaracterization of Western History slip (hint: very few historians believe in the notion that Christianity “knocked Western civilzation 1000 years”) and again point out that you have yet again ignored that it was authors and other non-scientists who came up with the ideas that make the singularity even imaginable.
If you truly think that getting rid of religion will do anything to stop racism or homophobia, you are in for a huge disappointment.
Oh, and as to your macros there…
I was born in North America and I was born an agnostic.
But your entire M.O. seems to be that you devalue any human expression whatsoever in favor of the Almighty AI.
Not really. I just “devalue” human expression that has no real value, or rather, malicious value.
monkey,
This argument of yours is the actually very similar to the oft repeated young Earth creationist argument: “how can you say our theory is wrong when evolution is a theory and might not be true”.
You don’t seem to get that this is a difference between a theory that is backed by empirical observation and deductive reasoning and a theory that consists of contradictory and unsupportable bullshit. The fact that a theory is falsifiable does not put it in the same league as a theory that is simply false.
M: there is no empirical evidence for the singularity.
If your definition of singularity is simply the creation of AI, that is different from most others who propose it. No True Scotsman, anyone?
And you seem to have a very limited view of what human expression has value, and guess what? You’re not the one who gets to decide it.
The creation of a general, “hard” AI that is able to improve itself in an exponential manner.
Ok, some thoughts on the “singularity”…
Q: Is your ‘essence’ or ‘soul’ or whatever that makes ‘you’ you… is that captured when i take a picture of you? Can you ‘see’ through the picture? (ie, is the picture looking back at me?). NO? …
Ok, now what if i added more pixels? Still no?
… ok, how many ‘pixels’ must i add to the picture before it becomes ‘me’? not possible? i didn’t think so either… i can add endless amount of pixels (data) to the picture, but it still doesn’t ever ‘become’ me… i might be a representation of me, but at no point am i ‘self aware’ as the picture..
As for computers and Moore’s Law:
OK– is a computer alive? Is my laptop alive? What if i doubled the processor power, is it alive now? is it me?… what if i multiplied the processing power by whatever big number that you think necessary… is it alive now? is it me? see where i’m going…? I think it takes a tremendous amount of faith that by adding enough ‘data’ the thing becomes you. IE> RELIGION. (and about as sane as Scientology in my mind…)
The other problem with Moore’s law is that it is no more than an observation of a specific type of development over a historically brief period of time. It is not a law in the same sense as the laws of physics. In other words, it is only true until it isn’t.
It isn’t anything like the laws of thermodynamics or motion.
That’s exactly true. It’s not an actual law. But we know generally that the human brain occupies a certain amount of space and takes a certain amount of energy, and that it can be “bootstrapped” with less than 600MB worth of data (600MB being the amount of data in the human genome, that is, enough to bootstrap an entire human).
Even if the human brain is the physically best possible way to compute (I don’t think it is, much like flying like a bird isn’t necessarily the best way to have something fly), we have a long way yet to go as far as computational technology is concerned.
It’s worth noting (as I mentioned above, but it probably came off as rambling), that there isn’t necessarily a guarantee that development of AI with the ability to improve itself will lead to a technological singularity. It seems likely based on the “intelligent” things computers already do, but we don’t know enough about the computational complexity of general intelligence. For instance, it might take 4x computational power to only get 2x increase in intelligence. This is called a quadratic complexity. If the complexity of intelligence is non-polynomial, we might not see a “intelligence explosion” all. We’d have a really smart AI, but not a “technological singularity” in my opinion.
Also to James_J, transhumanism and technological singularity are actually different things. Mind uploading and what not aren’t “elements” of a technological singularity. The singularity refers to the creation of AI, and the general philosophy is that what comes after that is unknown.
Now wait a minute… you were going on about immortality by “living in the machine” and what-not. This, if i’m not mistaken, is a (one of the) version(s) of the ‘singularity’– one that you bandy about. So, what’s missing? If it’s not just a matter of ever more powerful computing power… Oh, that’s right, the magical pixie dust!! Be cautioned though, i’ve heard that Peter Pan keeps a tight lock on Tinker Bell…
Yes, you are mistaken. The technological singularity is specifically regarding the creation of AI. The immorality thing is [part of] transhumanism. A technological singularity may led to immortal humans, because an AI may make scientific discoveries much faster then a human could. But it is not strictly necessary. Some human scientist can find a way to stop or reverse old age independent of any AI being developed, for instance.