There is a vocal (and very small) minority of electoral college delegates proclaiming their intent to not vote as directed by the election results. Is this more noise perpetuated by the media or something that may actually happen? Denzel Washington made an interesting observation the other day (not an exact quote), "If you don't read newspapers you are uninformed. If you do read newspapers you are misinformed." Kind of hits the nail on the head, don't you think?
-----
Nobody expects the Beaglesonian Inquisition! Having an idea condemned as heresy is quite an achievement in this day and age. I am not dismissing objective reality out of hand; it's a valid concept, but not the only one. Based upon my readings it seems a little fuzzy at the edges, hence the statement about it becoming subjective. Then again, a case can be made for subjective reality becoming more objective. So, there we are. I'm still reading up on this stuff and have to relearn a lot of terms like tautology, solipsism, and semiotics, not to mention the philosophies of Spinoza, Descartes, and Marxist epistemology. This is not a trivial endeavor, and probably not worth the effort. Can we be simultaneously right and wrong, or is that more heresy?
Enlighten me, gents. How did you arrive at such a strong opinion of objective reality? Should the notion of "consensus reality" factor into any of these discussions?
-----
The subject of redistribution of wealth has been popping up in some strange places. I was listening to a recent podcast devoted to comedy albums on vinyl and the discussion somehow veered to the economic changes that followed the two world wars, a long way from the topic of Allan Sherman's second album. It was only mentioned in passing, but I thought it odd.
-----
I don't see a "little orange Send feedbag rectangle" anywhere on the Beaglesonian page with any common browser (Firefox, Chrome, Internet Explorer). Maybe it has something to do with the settings regarding pop-up menus or your OS version.
-----
It's not a question of if but when non-human devices become self-aware and develop consciousness, if my understanding of the technological singularity is correct. There is a lot on the Wikipedia page and the general consensus of smart folk is that it's unlikely, but still, I don't think it's impossible.
But suppose it does happen, and there is a network with the intelligence and consciousness of a newborn baby. It may be quite insane. It takes a while for an infant to learn to cope with it's limited set of sensory inputs, such as sight, hearing, touch, etc. Because of the interconnected nature of sensors, the AI might have thousands of visual or auditory inputs, along with temperature sensors, seismographs, etc., to say nothing of the contents of your refrigerator (the "Internet of Things, or IOT) and millions of Twitter feeds. How could it learn to deal with such a torrent of information without going crazy?
The HAL 9000 didn't go crazy when it tried killing the humans. According to it's programming, the humans threatened successful completion of the mission and they weren't really needed. That's one interpretation, anyhow, of that enigmatic movie.
-----
That cartoon I posted the other day reminded me of something, the old Warner Brothers cartoon with Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck arguing about whether it was duck season or rabbit season, while Elmer Fudd stood by, shotgun at the ready...just another idle thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment