>I think both Bruce Buchanan's reaction ..., and the previous reaction
>from J. Weldon to which my first reply was addressed, are completely off
>the mark with respect to my proposal. Both seem to think I am proposing
>some grand technological project for which I need a lot of money to start
>implementing it. My proposal was not a project or plan, i.e. something I
>believe must be done, but a description of something I believe *is already
>happening*.
First let me say that I appreciate Francis's courteous response to what he
may well see as gratuitous comments which are really not related to the
main issues. While I think I understand his reponse, I also think that it
illustrates the problem which I was trying to point out. And his response
lets me be more specific.
I was pointing out aspects of these developments, which I am quite aware
are currently under way, not because they are part of anybody's intended
plans but because they will involve _unintended_ consequences. A
technological approach may make headway in the earilier stages when it can
isolate the field i.e. define relevant variables and deal with them quite
specifically. But the consequences of the developments are multilevel -
psychological, sociological, economic, etc., as well as technological - as
I am sure Francis recognizes.
>I see that Super-Brain taking form at this very instant, using the
>resources and brain-power which presently exist. . .
Another possible source of misunderstanding on my part may be in what is
meant and implied by a Super-Brain. I assumed that a Super-Brain would
imply mental functions, i.e. Mind. A mind involves purposes, some notion of
evidence or truth, of worthwhile purposes or values, etc. I assumed a
Super-brain could not be a mere logic machine, for even by the logic of
such a machine it would be incomplete (cf. Goedel, etc.) Yet I have no
reason to believe that an extrapolation of present trends, no matter how
technologically ingenious, will make any system complete, or develop
emergent criteria for truth and justice, etc., that I will have any reasons
(in advance, at any rate) to trust. To me the notion of a Super-Brain
tends to imply these things and so needs to be clarified. (If such
implications are not intended, perhaps some other word(s) might be used.)
I agree that politicians as such have not had much of a role in shaping
these developments to date, although by and large they have supported
them, for their own reasons, and not opposed them. But politicians do have
a responsibility to reflect and act upon the concerns of people, and
people sometimes may come to distrust what others in their expertise
consider technological imperatives. This has happened in some areas of
high-tech medicine, for instance, and the future in this regard must be
considered uncertain and contingent.
We do know that attempts to apply purely rational approaches to human
problems (including rationality embodied in complex technologies) while
for the most part highly successful, have also had many dubious unintended
effects and created many problems. (See John Ralson Saul's book _Voltaire's
Bastards_.) The diminishing reliability of software engineering for very
large scale projects, as described in a recent article in Scientific
American, must also give one pause.
>. . . I am convinced that once you would have experienced
>the power of these tools, all this would seem much less like science
>fiction and more like everyday reality. My own experience at the forefront
>of these developments is that things which were science fiction 5 years are
>now common. The growth, both qualitatively and quantitatively, of the
>computer networks is staggering, and cannot be stopped.
I understand this, and agree that this is the case. It is not a question of
stopping, but of shaping and perhaps helping to direct developments. Even
this is not possible unless we have ideas of what to expect and of what we
might want.
>My general impression is that very few people (if any at all) have a good
>understanding of what is going on in the networks. The public and
>politicians in particular have an almost complete lack of comprehension.
Exactly.
>Much as I applaud discussion of such developments, I believe it is
>ludicrous to suppose that without broad social discussion things will not
>get off the ground.
What I wanted to see discussed was not the current technological explosion,
which clearly is well off the ground, but the more subtle notion creeping
in, that the WWW and computer communications has begun to bridge the gulf
to Mind, i.e. the functions of a Super-Brain. What I thought should be
discussed would be the implications of a Super-Brain in relation to human
purposes and benefits. (But I am repeating myself.)
I wrote:
>>At any rate, if there is genuine interest in this kind of technological
>>advance, are such factors as policies and values not worth serious
>>consideration?
>
>Yes, they very much are. My point was that *even without explicit policies*
>these developments will take place, and much faster than you would expect.
>The value problem is very much at the heart of my vision of the
>super-brain. I will discuss that problem in a later mail, as it is too
>complex to expound here.
I will look forward to this with interest. (It is certainly not part of my
wish or intention to bog you down in a discussion which is longer than a
simple exchange at this time.)
>The societal impact at any rate will be enormous, but I don't believe it
>can be in any way controlled by politicians. In order to control some
>development, you first need to understand it and have some idea of where it
>might be heading. Nobody has such understanding at the moment, and
>politicians perhaps least of all.
Yes, I agree completely.
>If that understanding is to come from somewhere, it will be from us,
>cyberneticians, who try to integrate a grasp of basic principles with
>practical use of the newest communication technologies. It was with that in
>mind, that I wanted to initiate a debate on PRNCYB-L, starting from my
>"from WWW to super-brain" proposal. I would be interested to hear the
>opinion of some people who are experienced with WWW and related
>technologies.
And I would be interested in the views of philosophers and political
scientists, as well as psychologists with special expertise in Artificial
Intelligence (which I take it would be requisite for a Super-Brain) to help
clarify what may be at stake. We know that all new technologies have
unintended consequences and it is part of a cybernetic approach to seek
evaluative feedback concerning these at every stage, to try to avoid being
blindsided. This is really what I am interested in.
Cheers!
Bruce B.
Bruce Buchanan