Using Technology to Deepen Democracy, Using Democracy to Ensure Technology Benefits Us All

Sunday, June 03, 2012

Robot Cultists Ready For Some Re-Branding

In the comments section of a piece in which transhumanoid luminary and "cosmic engineer" Giulio Prisco admits he is a Robot Cultist but then complains that I call him one, but then totally agrees he is one again anyway, some other Robot Cultists make some awkward efforts at some last ditch re-branding.

Mormon Transhumanist Lincoln Cannon declares, "If 'robot' is understood to mean creative and compassionate posthumanity then I worship robots." There is a fly in his ointment, however. "The problem is that almost no one understands 'robot' in that way," he gamely admits, somewhat deflated.

James Carroll tries to take a different tack. "All robots are not necessarily the cold, science-fiction, de-humanized kind of thing," he assures us. "After all, our current bodies already ARE Robots." Brilliant! Copy keeps failing to live up to the original? Claim the original IS the copy, and then the copy lives up to the original by definition! Wait, will anybody really fall for that? Whatever! C'mon, roll with this, we're brainstorming here, we're pitching ideas, we're being thought leaders!

If we are already robots, Carroll goes on to insist, then the REAL "question with regard to transhumanism is only about whether we [who are robots, recall –-d] can make them [also robots, but somehow different enough not to be us though there is no real difference --d] better or not [yes, indeed, robots better than the original us who he said were already just robots anyway in the last sentence, but that was the last sentence, stop living in the past, this is the FUTURE we're talking about, man! --d]." And about that REAL question, the question of whether "we" Robots will ever be able to make "them" Robots better than the Robots we already are, he adds: "I think that the answer to that question is remarkably obvious." Despite the actual evidence remarkably obviously being an infinitely creepy and dysfunctional mountain of landfill-destined FAIL, one suspects, being a Robot Cultist, he thinks what is remarkably obvious is indeed the opposite.

Prisco himself seems very enthused about this re-branding effort. "Of course I totally agree," he cheers Carroll on. "[A]s you say robots are not necessarily the cold, science-fiction, de-humanized kind of thing," not necessarily at all… only, you know, so far factually and stuff they are. So what's your point? Anyway: "[A]nd (especially) our current bodies already ARE Robots." Right. EVERYBODY knows THAT now. That was settled a whole paragraph ago. Presumably, this means sexual reproduction is already making new robots all the time, so it is hard to know why even Robot Cultists don't show pictures of squirming infant mammals when they are writing all their paeans to robots, but instead keep talking about and showing the same stiff plastic and dodgy metal mechanical artifacts everybody else in the world is talking about when they talk about robots. Weird, huh?

That Robots are actually "creative" and "compassionate" and "warm" and soon Soon SOON to be better Better BETTER "is evident to us, but many people still see robots as cold, metallic and de-humanized (even anti-human), and of course bioluddites use this in support of their positions." Damn those bioluddites and their dumb facts!

Later in the comments, Prisco adds: "It makes sense to assume that the universe is the fastest computer that can compute itself." You know, it's worth reading Robot Cultists even if for no other reason than that they can be counted on to say things like this on a fairly regular basis. He goes on, "[T]he existence of a faster-than-the-universe computer would lead to logical contradictions. This 'solves' the Problem of Evil, because God is unable to predict with complete accuracy that certain events would lead to, say, Auschwitz and can only work with incomplete resources and information, like us." Well, it's certainly a relief to find that little pickle solved at last, isn't it? And if this ends up failing "to make sense" to enough people for it to become a problem, too, well, hell, there's always time for a little re-branding!

9 comments:

jimf said...

> Despite the actual evidence remarkably obviously being
> an infinitely creepy and dysfunctional mountain of
> landfill-destined FAIL
> ( http://www.buzzfeed.com/tommywilhelm/21-signs-we-should-give-up-on-robots ). . .

I don't know. I think that butt robot has definite possibilities.
As a fruit juicer, perhaps.

jimf said...

> Mormon Transhumanist Lincoln Cannon declares, "If 'robot'
> is understood to mean creative and compassionate posthumanity
> then I worship robots." There is a fly in his ointment,
> however. "The problem is that almost no one understands
> 'robot' in that way," he gamely admits, somewhat deflated. . .

Of course, **your own** use of the term "robot" in "Robot Cult"
is, in fact, a light-heartedly disparaging (diminishing by
way of calling up images from _Lost in Space_, _The Wizard of Oz_,
and various toy catalogs) metaphor for **all** the posthuman,
"superintelligent" dreams of the >Hists and Singularitarians,
whether they look like tin men (or 60's mainframe computers, for
that matter) or not. Though it does seem to
be difficult for even sophisticated SF authors to get entirely
away from that image. The Ship Minds in Banks' Culture novels
manage OK, but the "drone" that inevitably accompanies the human
Culture agent -- usually described somewhat vaguely as a piece
of flying Samsonite -- drags one's imagination back in the
direction of tackier associations.

http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/48/48_images/aimechalivingpeople1.jpg

Barkeron said...

Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Thanks for linking to that site, haven't seen that masterwork before.

"Turing Church"

"Cyber Angels"

"convergence of transhumanist science and religion, cosmist spirituality and technology"

"plan to build/become God(s)"

"Religion 2.0"

Are we sure they aren't an Astroturfing organization of Scientology meant to increase their followers by appealing to the Geek crowd and gaining mainstream cred? :D

jimf said...

> Are we sure they aren't an Astroturfing organization of Scientology
> meant to increase their followers by appealing to the Geek crowd and
> gaining mainstream cred? :D

It's funny you should mention that. Long ago, in a galaxy far far away,
I got flat-rate Web access at home (via WebTV at the end
of '96) and ran into Yudkowsky's "Staring into the Singularity" one
hot Saturday afternoon in July '97. I became a fan. A year
or two later I forwarded the link to Mr. Y.'s "The Meaning of Life FAQ"
(bottom line: to get to the big S as quickly as possible; damn the
torpedoes and full speed ahead) to an SF fan and fellow computer programmer
at work, a woman named Dyanne O.

Ms. O.'s immediate response: "What is this, some kind of Scientology
front?" I was completely nonplussed -- "Why would she think **that**?"

Now, I think her B.S. detector (or, in Egan's terms, "Bullshit Squared"
detector) was right on target.

Too bad I never really got to compare notes with her after I
realized what was going on.

;->

jimf said...

> Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster! . . .
>
> "Turing Church"
>
> "Cyber Angels"
>
> "convergence of transhumanist science and religion,
> cosmist spirituality and technology"
>
> "plan to build/become God(s)"
>
> "Religion 2.0"

C. S. Lewis had this all figured out back in 1945, when he
wrote _That Hideous Strength_ (the third and final volume of his
"Deep Heaven" trilogy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_Hideous_Strength ).

The book is hysterically funny and over-the-top in so many
ways. I found it extremely off-putting when I first tried to
read it long ago (it really doesn't follow on very well from
_Out of the Silent Planet_ and _Perelandra_), but I really
appreciated it for the first time after my discovery of the
on-line transhumanists and singularitarians.

There's a characteristic excerpt from it in the comment
thread of:
http://amormundi.blogspot.com/2008/03/power-of-poop-or-prisco-responds.html

And another little one in the comment thread of
http://amormundi.blogspot.com/2007/10/responding-to-few-objections.html .
Notice Lewis's mention of the computer -- it's called a
"pragmatometer" there.

My favorite two characters in _Hideous_ are Professor Filostrato
and Fairy Hardcastle. Miss Hardcastle should have her own float in
the gay pride parade!
( http://amormundi.blogspot.com/2009/02/george-orwells-review-of-that-hideous.html )

;->

jlcarroll@gmail.com said...

About my comments you wrote: "Brilliant! Copy keeps failing to live up to the original? Claim the original IS the copy, and then the copy lives up to the original by definition! Wait, will anybody really fall for that? Whatever!"

That is a marvelous bit of straw-man grandstanding. Seems to me that you are quite intentionally misrepresenting and misunderstanding what I said and meant. It may be fruitless to clarify, but here goes.

The problem is definitional. If you define a robot as "that mechanical copy which we build currently" then clearly the human body is not a robot. Furthermore, to say that it was would be to call the copy the original since robot=copy, non-robot=original. But as you well know, that wasn't the definition of Robot I used in my comment. Under that definition I never called the copy the original.

If you define a robot as a mechanical device with perceptors, actuators, and a processing unit to determine the best actions given the perceptions (as I did in my post, and as most robotics researchers do by the way), then the human body is definitely a type of robot. It has actuators, and preceptors. It is a mechanical device. Our cells are each a type of molecular manufacturing machine. They combine together to create eyes, levers, muscles, support structure (bones), hands (actuators), etc. Taken as a whole, our bodies are what Dawkins calls a "survival machine" for our genes.

Thus, your comment is based upon a matter of mis-applied definitions. If you apply YOUR definitions to MY comments, then clearly you can make them appear as nonsensical. But that is disingenuous at best, and dishonest at worst. Your comments are equally nonsensical if I were to apply my definitions to your comments. How about we TRY to understand each other, and apply our own definitions to our own comments? (I am assuming that you do really want to have an intelligent discussion of the issues involved here, but perhaps that was a mistake on my part).

You wrote: "If we are already robots, Carroll goes on to insist, then the REAL "question with regard to transhumanism is only about whether we [who are robots, recall –-d] can make them [also robots, but somehow different enough not to be us though there is no real difference --d] better or not [yes, indeed, robots better than the original us who he said were already just robots anyway in the last sentence, but that was the last sentence, stop living in the past, this is the FUTURE we're talking about, man! --d]." And about that REAL question, the question of whether "we" Robots will ever be able to make "them" Robots better than the Robots we already are."

While containing a remarkably witty set of prose, this comment also does not represent an accurate appraisal of my thoughts and comments.

Obviously there is a difference between the type of robots we currently build, and the type which are currently built by our genes and which we currently are. Your comment "also robots, but somehow different enough not to be us though there is no real difference" pretends that I don't know and admit this, which you KNOW isn't true. My position always was that there is a real difference in performance, but not one of kind. Why would you purposefully mis-understand and misrepresent my position like that? Again, it is dishonest.

...

jlcarroll@gmail.com said...

Once that difference is accepted, then yes, the real question with regard to transhumanism involves whether we can eventually make the robots that WE build, better than that type of robots built by our DNA that we already are. Reasonable people might disagree with the proper answer to that question, as you do when you write: "Despite the actual evidence remarkably obviously being an infinitely creepy and dysfunctional mountain of landfill-destined FAIL, one suspects, being a Robot Cultist, he thinks what is remarkably obvious is indeed the opposite." As far as I can tell, that was the only part of your witty monologue that was honest in its engagement with my ideas. So I would like to respond to it in some detail.

I can understand why my position on this point doesn't APPEAR obvious at first look. But I believe that it is obvious that one day our creations will out-perform our current bodies, the creations of our DNA, because our current bodies are a proof by example that a machine as good as our bodies can be built (they build it after all). And there appears to be no reason to suppose that evolution has produced our bodies at some optimum of performance that can't be improved upon. After all, our current bodies are an improvement upon the bodies of our distant ancestors. Why would we suppose that the bodies of our descendants wouldn't be better than our current bodies? That would make no sense. Nor would it make sense to suppose that we won't begin to tinker with this process to speed it up.

My body (for example) has a genetic defect, that is causing me to have very bad eyesight as my corneas thin with time. How long do you honestly think that it will be before we can take my genome and fix this one bad sequence, and then produce and embryo that comes to term without this defect? At that moment, we have produced a body (robot if you must) that is superior to the original. How long do you honestly think that it will be before someone does that? How long before they do more? Yes, indeed, it does seem "obvious" that this will happen one day. And that is why the answer I gave was indeed quite "obvious" despite the initial impression to the contrary. In fact, some of our creations already ARE better than we are (at certain limited things). The more you think about it, the more obvious it becomes.

Your comparison to the junk heap of our current robotic creations is mostly another straw-man. Yes, we occasionally build some ridiculously bad robots. But have you paid any attention to how quickly they are improving? Just 200 years ago, the best car we had was a horse. A car is a type of robot that is already better than us at locomotion over an even smooth surface. What type of robots do you honestly think that we will build 1000 years from now? Especially as the difference between technology and biology continues to blur as we explore genetics and nanotechnology further?

Dale Carrico said...

You tell us that human beings are robots and then accuse me of torching a straw man? Obviously, the rhetorical force of reducing humans to robots is to prepare the ground for the subsequent claim that robots can be made that will be indistinguishable from or superior to humans. Maybe you don't think that is what you are doing, maybe you are not aware that is what you are doing, hell, maybe I am wrong to say that is what you are doing. I am saying that language being what it is, words meaning what they do, to re-define humans as robots when the common usage denies that identity especially when you happen to want to believe robots can be made to be tantamount to humans is a matter of rhetorical hanky-panky verging on the fallacious, begging the question. If you cannot follow that reasoning it isn't actually proof that I am proposing a straw man, it may be proof instead that you are stupid, or so caught up in delusive True Belief that you cannot entertain posibilities that challenge your views, or, to be more generous, we may simply have more disagreements on definitions even than initially appear. Definitely it is not true that the only kind of honest disagreement with you will be the sort that makes you feel good about yourself.

You go on to pretend that because I ridicule the fancy that technodevelopment is a rocketship to quasi-theological sooper-intelligence sooper-powers sooper-longevity and sooper-abundance that therefore I must embrace the status quo as some kind of optimality. On the contrary, I am a defender of consensus science and research, and so long as technoscientific costs risks and benefits are all made to be distributed equitably to all their stakeholders science and research are progressive. Nobody has to join a Robot Cult to notice that medicine can make things better, that infrastructure can make things better, that convivial cultural adaptation can trump evolutionary adaptation for the better. Duh.

jimf said...

> You tell us that human beings are robots and then
> accuse me of torching a straw man? Obviously, the rhetorical
> force of reducing humans to robots is to prepare the ground
> for the subsequent claim that robots can be made that will
> be indistinguishable from or superior to humans...

This is an equivocation sometimes encountered among >Hists.

The usual understanding of the word "robot" in >Hist discussions
is in fact the usual SF construal --
"Robbie" from _Forbidden Planet_ or his more sophisticated
literary descendants -- the "mechas" from Kubrick/Spielberg _A.I._
movie, or the ship Minds and drones in Iain Banks' Culture books,
or the polis software simulations (sometimes inhabiting "gleisner"
bodies) in Greg Egan's _Diaspora_.

In this literary tradition, robots are (or at least the
earliest ones have been) **designed** by human beings and **manufactured** --
in a manner explicitly or implicitly analogous to the way
airplanes or automobiles or microprocessor chips are designed
and manufactured today. (Though let's give Egan credit for spending
the opening pages of _Diaspora_ describing the birth of a polis
inhabitant by analogy to the development of a human embryo.)

But if you venture to point out that any analogy between biological
systems and anything ever put together by General Electric or
General Motors (or IBM or Intel, for that matter) is hugely
misleading -- that biology is **qualitatively** different in
terms of the principles of interaction among its "parts" (let alone
quantitatively different in the scale of its parts, by
many orders of magnitude) from human-designed and built
machines -- then you'll get the rebuttal (based on subtly
altering the construal of the word "machine") that
biological system are themselves just "machines" after all,
and that to hold otherwise is to be promoting a return
to mysticism, supersitition, and "vitalism". The force of
that argument lies in shifting, or generalizing, the implied meaning of
"machine" from its usual domain of human-designed
systems to encompass "any system of components that can be understood
using the usual principles of cause and effect and the
usual methods of science".

This rhetorical trick both begs the question and muddies
the argument (thus allowing it to be ignored), very handily.