Kenmuir refers to the destiny of the cybercosm and, when asked what that is, replies:
"'You've heard. It's been prophesied for centuries, since before artificial intelligence existed. Mind, pure mind, taking over the universe.'" (p. 484)
He refers to our contemporary speculations, including Anderson's speculations in this book! Anderson's Acknowledgements are to:
Karen Anderson
Gregory Benford
CJ Cherryh
Larry J. Friesen
Robert Gleason
Alan Jeffery
Mike Resnick
SM Stirling
Freeman Dyson
Hans Moravec
Roger Penrose
Gunther S. Stent
Frank J. Tipler
Some, though not all, of these guys will have speculated about pure mind taking over the universe. I leave it to the keen Poul Anderson fan to google all the names and to find out who has said what.
What is "pure mind"? I can think of two possible meanings:
(i) "pure spirit," discarnate/unembobied consciousness, in the theological sense;
(ii) unemotional intellect in the Star Trek Vulcanian sense.
(i) The "mind" discussed by Kenmuir is post-organic but remains materially based so it is not "pure spirit." I think that discarnate consciousness is logically possible (because I cannot see that it is self-contradictory) but no more than that. How would it exist/come into existence/be caused to exist etc? It would surely be undetectable? James Blish's characters speculate here that spirit is stable negative entropy but this idea remains speculative.
(ii) Intellect contemplating logic and mathematics would also appreciate the aesthetics, e.g., of the proof that there is no highest prime number. It would also be able to contemplate, e.g., visual and musical aesthetics. There would be nothing to prevent it from transcending itself by intuiting its oneness with the universe.
I fail to see that (ii) is a threat to humanity as Kenmuir seems to think.
8 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I've at least vaguely heard of eight of the 13 persons you listed here. I don't recall some, like Larry J. Friesen, Robert Gleason, Hans Moravec, etc.
I know you've found the "threat" posed by the cybercosm to mankind not quite convincing. But I've argued elsewhere that story is interesting it shows the characters struggling with a problem or conflict. So, by itself, the idea of AIs somehow having interests opposed to those of mankind is not that hard for me to accept.
Sean
I think what is meant by "pure mind" here is that it's not tied to any -particular- material form.
That is, it's a transferrable and replicable body of patterned interacting information.
That's what we are, pretty much, but we're inextricably linked (or trapped in, depending on your view) a particular physical body and must share its fate.
Mr Stirling,
Right on. My thinking is too traditional.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I once had dinner with Roger Penrose, more than twenty years ago. He was spending a year or whatever in was at Penn State, where my father was a professor of philosophy, and I was a graduate student in materials. My parents were having him over for dinner, and they invited me as well. I recognize some of the other names, but I don’t believe I’ve ever met any of the other people on the list.
Best Regards,
Nicholas D. Rosen
Nicholas,
Rock on.
Paul.
Kaor, Nicholas!
But do you recall what the dinner conversation was like? And what did Roger Penrose talk about? Mind you, I don't expect casual dinner time talk to be PROFOUND!
Regards! Sean
Kaor, Sean!
I don’t recall the dinner conversation, sad to say. I do recall running into the great man a few months later; he said that I looked familiar, but he couldn’t place me. I told him (I suppose; I don’t remember my exact words) that I was Professor Stanley Rosen’s son, and that we had had dinner together. I do have the impression of him being polite and personable.
Best Regards,
Nicholas
Kaor, Nicholas!
Good! I HAD wondered if Roger Penrose might have mentioned SF and Poul Anderson.
Sean
Post a Comment