I don’t quite understand why you are so strongly opposed to the term “another world.” In any case, materiality is just another mode of thought. Mathematical objects, including AI, are more conveniently thought of within a non-material paradigm, because what we think of first and foremost is number, structure, and transformation rather than their physical substrate, since that substrate can vary radically. The material world, too, is not something objectively given, but merely a convenient framework for everyday thought.
1 Like
I agree with your critique of what passes as materialism these days. This is why I discuss Feuerbach, for instance, as a relatively genuine materialist. My unusual take on Plato’s unwritten doctrine frames “chora” or “dyad” as an attempt to point out “genuine materiality.”
As far as I can tell nothing whatsoever is “objectively” given. I don’t know exactly what you had in mind in the use of this phrase. But “objective reality” understood in terms of the “math-o-physical” — via a tacit mathemagical platonism — is one of my primary targets as an inquiry-hobbling prejudice. Basically along the lines of what you point out, a mere category is still just a way of talking, something “within thought.” I’d say that it’s “just a sign.”
I mentioned already that “immateriality” is a kind of “first approximation” that misses the opportunity to frame computation and mathematical entities in temporal terms. Thinkers are still mostly trapped in a spatial “side-by-side” contrasting of immaterial stuff with material stuff.
I’m with you on the theme of convenience. The pragmatic distinction between the mental and the physical is harmless, even useful. But we are doing philosophy here, yes ? So for me the entire point is to tread more carefully and avoid the usual inflation of a useful fuzzy distinction into a deep ontological kneejerk basis. I don’t mean to project any prejudice on you personally. I’m just trying to make my general reaction more intelligible to others.
Yes ! A great analogy.
Humans will presumably keep increasing general capability while also — less intensely — increasing security measures.
DNA itself is “a stupid crystal” that gets itself replicated. I personally don’t think DNA “gives a fuck.” But our own “giving a fuck” looks explicable and predictable in terms of our DNA.
I was on a “study evolution” kick for a couple of months. I read a number of books, but The Selfish Gene stands out. It’s like an intensification of Schopenhauer, and also a purification. No Kantian metaphysical syrup to sweeten the potion. You may call the phrase “moist robots.” That’s a dark and potent piece of poetry.
Now we “moist robots” are creating more and more capable “dry robots.” Dawkins already discusses “memes” in his genes book, and algos are relatively angular or definite memes compared to biomemes like — for instance — the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution.
But “genes” and “algos” are both “patterns in a medium.” Not “immaterial,” unless handshakes in general are “immaterial.” Basically we should think in temporal terms here.
Since I studied the math in detail at one time and coding up many visualizers of learning in C, I tend to view them as statistical machines. I am frankly impressed by what such machines can do if you give them enough compute and data.
To me it’s the slippery issue of consciousness that seems to divide human intelligence from machine intelligence. I paraphrase and agree with Heidegger. We too are primarily bots. Individuals are basically — at their basis — vortices communal habit. As social flesh, I am a layer of historical-communal patterns that “dance” a lower layer of biological patterns. The “code” metaphor is brilliant, and goes back at least to Pythagoras.
But the world is also “sensory,” so code is the “dancing in time” of non-code. And the code and non-code do not cleanly separate. This is how I understand Plato’s unwritten doctrine. But it is “all essentially there” in Saussure’s theory of the “acoustic image.”
Heidegger called the subject-centered model into question: a human being is ALREADY situated in some particular situation. Consciousness and decision-making do not come first; rather, we are already thrown into the world and find ourselves in a concrete situation.
In the same way, one can call into question the idea of an ALREADY existing “DNA crystal.” A DNA molecule does not exist on its own. There is something we call a biological process, and singling out an individual molecule is merely our way of knowing the world.
We first mentally dissect the process and then ask ourselves: how does the molecule exist in isolation? But it exists in isolation only within our mode of analysis. In the world itself, it is inseparably embedded in the process of the replication of life.
Of course there are many takes on the sign “consciousness.” I like to understand it in terms of the “presence” of the world. I can make case for reading Heidegger this way, but perhaps that’s a tangent.
Basically I agree with you otherwise. Like I said, we are also bots. We are ripples in our environment, not sparks of free will in the pineal gland. Though we enact some echo of this “free will spark theology.”
Yes, and I think you are agreeing with me. We never have “pure code.” I tried to explain this via numerals. But our “knowing the world” is primarily visceral, not “immaterial thought space event.” Numerals are qualitative or “material.” As is every thing.
I agree. To me the pragmatic sign-structured umvelt is just reality. I don’t accept some dualistic contrast that would weirdly take a pragmatic map ( the scientific image of Sellars) as a metaphysical scripture that is “Really” talking about the “Trans-Empirical.”
This is a post of no consequence. I just got a kick out of it, and thought I’d share. 
While looking for another book on Amazon, I ran across The Anduril Technology Stack. It apparently has to do with things like AI and robotics. But Anduril is the name of Aragorn’s sword in Lord of the Rings. Originally named Narsil, it was broken when his distant ancestor Elendil was fighting Sauron. When Elrond reforged it, he renamed it.
To be honest, I don’t quite understand your comparison with bots and waves. As far as I understand it, a wave is a mode of interaction unfolding over time—how should this be understood in the context of a human being? I once wrote about my own understanding of consciousness. For me, it is a rupture in the processes of life, a micro-death. Sleep is the natural state of a living organism; consciousness is an interruption of sleep.
1 Like