No; I don't work for Google. I work for Alacos; We (among other things) write Windows to Linux migration software. (disclaimer: I do not speak for Alacos.)
I personally believe that Google is chivalrous, and again: It's because of the evidence. Granted: This is a point of controversy. The interpretation is difficult. But the previous actions and good character of the company cause me to believe what they say: That they are doing this because it is right, not just because it is profitable.
We all work for money, it has always been this way, and it is not bad. I believe that wealth and abundance are good things; Are they not?
I personally do not believe in censorship. But most people in the world do. I do not censor my 4 year old's web browser. But other people do. If I make technology for them, I have to include censorship for them. I believe in allowing people to disagree with me, and I do not claim to have universal understanding. (Should Google?)
I strongly doubt that Google agrees with censorship. We know for a fact that people pester Google over and over: "Censor this. Censor that. I can't believe you let people find X." People probably blame Google for anything they find objectionable on the web. Realize that you are in an environment where people are begging to censor.
If Google really wanted to make money and be Evil, they could. Think creative for a few moments, and realize all the ways they could. But they don't. Or, if they do, they are so immensely stealthy and crafty, they are completely undetectable.
You are strengthening my view that Google detractors are experiencing cognitive dissonance. "Google? Good? But... wait... that... can't... be... Does not compute... Capitalism is, by bottom-line definition,... BAD... Does... not... compute..."
Don't be a robot. Some times, there are good companies. Reward them when you see them.
I can't stop this, not sure i want to, but there are issues.
Fair enough.
I agree Google has a lot of power. I do wish they found some way to devolve the power that they have. I don't know that they actually asked for it. I'm not sure they know what to do with it themselves.
My personal theory is this: Google sees the promise of technology, and the things it can do for us. They look over at Wikipedia, and go: "Wow, this is amazing, this is exactly the sort of thing we've hoped for. Technology for Good." They see the rise of civil society, and watchdog groups, and transparency, and go: "Ah, this looks good to."
They look into the future, and see an amazing society. They see greater Democracy, of the participatory kind, not the top-down kind.
And they are religiously bent on achieving that end, and by ethical means.
That's what I see. And that's what I support.
Technology has, in many ways, mooted "communism" vs. "capitalism." Both capitalists and communists credit Wikipedia to their ideology. But it's basically a moot point now.
More and more of the world will be "computerized," as we develop the user interface to biology and matter.
I personally think this is a good thing, and will make for a safer, fairer, world.
Does that preclude me from seeing 'trends' and evolutions?
No; Just recognize that it's not necessarily reality. I mean, claiming that Google has turned Chinese Communist is just way off the mark.
Google has acted in good faith and good character throughout it's history. It will require extraordinary proof to show that Google is working against it's promise: To not be Evil. To see people shredding Google's reputation (which, like all reputations, is held in a commons) is a horrible thing, and I'm standing up to say: "Hey, that's not right."
You need more proof than a simple disagreement with a strategy decision to shred a reputation.
Google will not 'save the world' or even enhance it.
Okay, I seriously doubt that.
It's enhanced my personal world, for sure. I think they've enhanced the world in general, and that it'd be a much worse place without it.
I don't understand your criticism, except maybe if it's a criticism of technology in general, in which case I understand it, but just disagree with it.
What is a world where anyone (with means and internet and computer) may have access to "controlled" information -- even when I know, information is all man-made.
Well; You answered it yourself: It's the world we've always lived in.
My question for you, originally, was: Do you think there are situations where you will have to face a difficult question? The parent was telling you about installing Internet censorship filters, because he thought his overall presence in the place was overall a positive force? That he was being a force for good, even though he had to do this horrible thing that he doesn't believe in?
I'm trying to ask you: Do you really believe in the black and white world of purely slippery slopes that you've described, or can you see the ambiguities and complexities behind things?
And if you think things are complex, then what magic insight do you have, that allows you to cast judgement, and say: Despite Google's overwealmingly positive history of fair dealings and generosity, that you now know that it's actually Chinese Communism in disguise?
I don't think you, (and a lot of others,) are giving Google a fair shake.
I need to see actual menacing. Show me greedy business contracts, cheap tricks, all the Microsoft things. Show me those, and I'll listen to you.
But this isn't it. The ethical argument in favor of Google's decision is reasonable, and sound, if in natural tension. It's one where you could go either way, and be a sensible person.
...why would they even feel the need to debate it, unless the company was simply trying to convince itself it had enough political and legal clout to compromise it's philosophy for more money.
Well, let me venture a thought:
The parent of your post said that these kinds of decisions can be complicated and difficult to resolve, if you're commited to being moral.
If that's true- (Is it true? I want you to answer that question: Is it true that these kinds of questions can be hard to answer?)
So, the people in Google had to weigh this and think about it for a couple years before making a decision.
That is why the critics are so vocal: it is about Google violating thier own philosophy and breaking netizen trust more than the specific benefit/harm tradeoff that filtering the results entails.
I don't think Google is violating their own philosophy ("Don't be evil.") I agree critics think they are.
I think critics can't stand the idea that a company (a corporation, mind you!) says, "We're going to be moral." Because in a lot of these people's world views, there's no such thing as a moral person, or there's no such thing as a moral company.
Many people have talked about Google with hope and admiration, and it burns these critics' ears. So they've been dying to criticize google- it's been incredibly difficult! Now they have thier chance, and they're chomping as hard as they can.
I wish I knew how to turn people to really believing in goodness, to struggling for it, and for recognizing and rewarding it when they see it. Goodness doesn't have to mean simpleminded, or a simple list of commandments fit for children. It can be complicated, intricate, and perhaps even inexpressible. But I really wish I knew how to lead people to believe in it.
I wouldn't throw out "You're being Evil," when someone simply disagrees with your strategy.
If you live by "Don't be Evil," I swear to God, at some point in your life, it's going to require that you do or say things that other people are going to call "Evil," because they don't see the stories working out the same way you do. You're not even going to have the opportunity to respond to said people.
Flippant reply: "Well, the United States of America, of course."
Less flippant: Mind ye cybernetics, the science of communication & control.
All media are communication and control mechanisms.
The difference between communication and control isn't so apparent, when you study it up close.
Super-intelligent beings would have to exert incredible effort in order to not manipulate us, similar to how adults casually manipulate children without even thinking about it, into doing (or more commonly) not doing certain things.
Similar with super-organisms (corporations,) and you and I.
They've got whole divisions of people set up just to make sure you and I think "right."
The military has a mission to achieve, and psyops (otherwise known as "winning hearts and minds") is a part of that. Journalists need to grow up and take responsiblity for their jobs. The military isn't unique in doing it, they're not even uncommon.
We don't control journalists. We do control the military. (Or at least, it's supposed to work that way.) It is their responsibility to obey us, not to fool us.
If our military is manipulating us, directly or indirectly, intentionally or not, then it is our job to make sure that it does not. This is independent of whether or not "journalists are doing their job." This is a free country after all.
But if I make a request to a military website, (directly or indirectly,) and they are telling me, a US citizen, a pack of lies, misdirections, etc., then it is little different than if they report the same to congress. Because it may be a congress man, through the trail of listening to the public, through the trail of listening to their own informants, who is receiving the lies as well.
We may well have to drop our "winning hearts and minds" tactic, if the military is winning the us publics hearts and minds.
If you know of a creative solution so that we can continue to trick military targets, rather than tricking the people who are running the military, then I welcome hearing it.
Really, the only thing which is interesting is that the US national media seem to be picking up military propoganda more and more as it's distributed abroad, and then repackaging and redistributing it to the US market.
That's newsworthy in my book.
If the military is increasingly duping the organism that controls it, that's a problem. That means the military has more control than it's supposed to.
Further, our laws don't really have anything to stop this. (Suggesting action.)
In the not too distant future, we should be able to communicate with people without actually voicing our words. Just moving our mouths, and perhaps not even that, will be all that's necessary.
The concept of the soul as a religious entity, with karma, or a book of records, or as the initiator of action, or any other of these concepts, is not what I'm referring to.
I'm simply referring to: That thing that I am, that is experiencing a dream/visage/appearance/floating-sensorium, what have you.
Needing a term for such a thing, I find "soul" to be the most plainspoken way to talk about it.
"Experiencer" and "observer" seem to dry, academic, stuffy, and unnecessarily shallow.
There is then, no question, or even mystery, about why I believe in it: It's simply a name for "the type of thing that I am."
It does not include mind, mechanism, calculation, sensory device, etc., etc., etc.,. (Unless pan-psychism is true.) It is rather- the thing on the other side of the vision, the visage, the appearance. That is, experience, which exists in a sort of "timelessness," (since you can never experience the future or the past- experience always happens in immediacy, as an observation of sequence,) always has an experience, and an experienced.
This is not contra or anti scientific; This is just definition, and definition supports science. That the target of the definition exists is true. Those who deny it, are, I believe, anti-science. (That is, unless they are actually a bona fida zombie, that does not actually experience.)
What you're talking about, I do not call "soul." You're certainly talking about something, I would just personally call it "global history," or "cybernetic history," or something like that. "Memory." All our buildings and trains and airplanes and cultures and documents and computer chips can be considered to be the products of continuously developing DNA. I think "cybernetic memory" would be the best term for it, since "cyber" implies the mixture of electronics, concrete, rubber, computers, humans, dirt, and other things. If we wanted to speak more grandly, we could call it "the pattern of the world," or something like that. I've personally felt that maybe it's the "mirror of the possible," or something. It's good metaphysical territory. It's not science, though.:)
In particular, it talks about the Delphi method, and shows how Japan predicted, in the 1970's:
Possibility to a certain degree of working at home through the use of TV-telephones, telefaxes, etc. (forecast: 1998)
Acquisition of observation data from unmanned probes around Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and outside the solar system. (1999)
Development of optical communication technology that can realize substantial savings in the use of copper. (1999)
Possibility of external fertilization or artificial womb. (2001)
Widespread use of heart transplant from human being by resolving problems such as transplant immunity, rejection and donor. (2001)
Practical use of rapid-transit railway using iron rail and iron wheel, which can run at 300 km/h. (2006)
Development of artificial ear. (2007)
They were rated at 64-71% accurate, which is not bad, considering that you're jumping out 30 years into the future, and making specific and useful predictions.
This is much better than psychic's prediction, unless the psychic happened to have an article on Moore's Law hidden beneath the table.
All this said, even near-term futures are very exciting and interested, and people simply don't know about what's happening. I've personally worn a NOMAD headset, for example. Anyone can have one, for $2,000. These devices are certain to get cheaper, and will be in color, within 5 years. They're great devices, and I personally think that they'll be as common as bluetooth headsets are now. Bluetooth headsets will get cheaper, and become much more useful, as wireless networks expand, (as they are sure to,) and Internet access becomes much more pervasive.
The "Camp" phenomenonhappening right now is exploding. Investments in communications and intelligence technology is leading to this sort of thing, and the work of these sorts of things is further compounded into more communications and intelligence technology, and the spread of the technology.
Another poster here rightly said it: Even if predictions turn out false, they are still extremely useful. In many cases, we predict so we can make sure that they turn out false. To ensure that they come out false. Every single human being makes predictions about the course of their life, so that they can steer themselves in one direction, or to avoid another. It would be very surprising to me if human societies did not engage in this activity. (This is scenario planning, and used by just about every corporation and government.)
Technology prediction in some ways is the easiest thing to predict, looking into mid-range futures (the hardest territory.) If you put your money on Moore's Law, you're doing far better than (say) betting on baseball games, or who wins the presidency.
But if two things have an exact one-to-one correspondance with each other, such that if you do something to one of the things, the other thing changes accordingly, then logically, they are the same thing.
No, that's not true- our digital communication systems are about making things exactly the same on either side of the channel.
There is an exact, one-to-one relationship, between the signals coming out of your video card, and the pixels on your display. But they're clearly not the same thing.
And if so, how was it possible that you made such (you'll excuse my rudeness:) a simple mistake? Is it possible that you're mind is directing your thoughts away on the basis of undesirable conclusions? Or was it, in fact, a bona fida mistake in reasoning? (This paragraph only applies if you accept the undercut. If you have an undercut to my undercut, I'm happy to hear it out.) It seems to me that you accepted a conclusion based on trust in a belief system, and so relaxed the rigour of your arguments. I ask you to question that trust, and consider the arguments more carefully.
If you believe electrical signals are always accompanied with experience, then that means you're a panpsychist. And you believe that your computer is actually having an experience, and is aware, because there are electrical signals.
I suspect that you are actually a panpsychist. You seem to recognize the idea that there is something that it is to be having an experience. You recognize, on the other hand, that there is a 1:1 relationship between the contents of experience, and the manipulations at work in the world. If you can recognize that one did not necessarily need to entail the other, that it is conceivable (in an alternative universe, let's pretend,) that physics plays out exactly the same, but that nobody is actually aware in that universe, then you have discovered the space that is called: "the explanatory gap." That is, that we are missing an explanation for why we are aware, why there is an experience.
The easiest solution is panpsychism, weird though it may be: Wherever there is anything that seems like it would be aware, then it is aware. It is an explanation, by way of a 5th law: "Wherever matter and energy are specially arranged in space and time, there is an experience." It's just not particularly persuasive or predictive. Which is okay. We just need to recognize it in it's place: This isn't science. There can be no science amidst the unmeasurable, after all. And that's okay.
No, I'm not a panpsychist. I actually think that the world's "just a dream." No proof, just a belief- but it clearly doesn't contradict science either.
I had a dream once. In the dream, there were scientists. I told them that I was alive in another universe as well. They told me, it clearly wasn't true. In the dream, the dream scientists showed me dream books and dream microscopes, and showed me dream neurons, and I went to dream school. I learned dream physics and wrote dream papers, and learned that the dream world was the only one and that rational dream people were the only people.
But of course, we know better, and that it was only a dream. Because 100 years is an entire lifespan, and surely, any duration of time longer than 3 days is a firm ground in any universe for any purpose and for any point. Surely what seems to be 100 years must constitute proof enough of reality, for any logical mind.
I offer no proof. I do suggest that I am the deeper, more profoundly skeptical, than the people who call themselves "skeptics," and I do mean to show true limits to what is called "knowledge."
I want to briefly reaffirm for you: I believe in determinism, and I am a very strong suporter of the Enlightenment, the scientific method, and liberal thinking. I am a transhumanist. I am also an agnostic theist. I think our highest responsibilities lie
But why cannot these experiences be simply machines? When you look at a brain, there is a strong hint there this is a one-to-one correspondance between the firing of chemicals between neurons and the experiences which the person is feeling. Thus, it makes sense to say that in fact the "experience" of thought is merely what that machine is doing, and we happen to "be" that experience.
Let's not play coy: There isn't a "strong hint" of a one-to-one correspondence; There is exactly a one-to-one correspondence. Let's not pretend like we're giving something, when we're not. I'm a realist here, arguing in realistic terms. Yes, there is exactly a one-to-one correspondence. And I fully grant determinism as well. We should go with everything we understand from science.
The problem that we have here is that we have zero explanation of experience. It's completely unnecessary. The complete computation of all the world can happen perfectly fine, without anyone actually experiencing anything.
Now: There's a position called "panpsychism." It says: "Well, given that we're aware, and given that all we see around us is machinery, perhaps it's reasonable to conclude: Machinery itself is awareness. Whenever computation happens, in the world, there is also awareness, an experience, no matter how small."
There's three things I have to say about this: (1) It's plausible. I can imagine that the world works this way. (2) It's not a proof. It's an explanation, but it is not provable, and it is not "science." It's an explanation like saying "I think the world is a dream" is an explanation. It's okay, (logically consistant, somewhat reasonable,) to think this way, but it's not science. (3) I don't believe it, because it leads to some pretty wacky counter-intuitive conclusions: Is a door knob aware, even minimally so? What if I draw a loop around a portion of the doorknob, and some air around it: Does that particular arrangement of atoms bouncing off one another also have an experience? If we take an individual brain, with trillions (?) of neurons inside, does every particular subset of neurons have a particular awareness? Or does awareness come in fields, and it clusters together into a solitary experience?
Because the conclusions of panpsychism are so weird, or because it requires so much ad-hocery ("fields") to make it's conclusions match our intuitions, I end up rejecting it. But it's certainly plausible, and I can respect people who think that way.
It's weird and non-intuitive, yes. But so is the idea of Cartesian Dualism, that Experience is the result of some kind of peculiar second substance completely distinct from the material world but which interacts with it through the brain.
Uh, well, let's see: Part of my job is to help bury the dead. I actually don't do Cartesian Dualism, though I'm often accused of it. It's a couple centuries too late, and all. The whole "mind-body" distinction is a problem. What it really needs to be, is an "awareness-substance" distinction, where "awareness" is experience, the dream, the visage in front of the soul, etc., etc., and where "substance" is every thing substantial and mental. Just treat "thoughts" as "things," similar to how the programmer: The programmer has to think: "I'm making machines inside of the computer." In a very real sense, that is what the programmer is doing. Just because they're sets of instructions (incarnate) within a computer, and they're really small, it doesn't mean that they aren't substantial. The same thing with thoughts in the head.
One consequence of this is that: When Dennett & other brain analysts are studying how programs work within the brain, they really aren't doing anything to help explain consciousness. I mean, you may as well be explaining how car doors open and close, or how venetian blinds work, or how airplanes fly: The operations and motions of mental phenomenon are just as external as the motions of cars and airplane
That may well be, but these questions are basically uninteresting to me.
I mean, I'm as enthusiastic about TransHumanism and simulation as Kurzweili, but as for the hard problems of consciousness, this is about as enlightening as an explanation about how doors open and close: It sheds no light.
I've read Dennett's book; I just don't find it very persuasive. Do a google search for "Consciousness Explained Away."
I'm quite capable of thinking like a programmer; I've been doing it for 20+ years now.
I believe very strongly that there are already "self-aware computers." I mean: Doesn't "top" list itself?
But that's not the interesting problem, now is it.
What you have is a model of the universe that's complex enough to include the modeler inside itself. This model is the awareness, and the model of itself within the model is self-awareness. (There is likely to actually be a third level of awareness required to be aware of self-awareness...but then I think the levels loop.)
Yes, and you see: That does absolutely nothing to do with consciousness. At least the consciousness that we're interested in.
It could all work, just perfectly well, without any soul experiencing a visage.
There is no need for experience.
The only way you can avoid this, is to pretend to not understand. Which is exactly what you will proceed to do.
You will just pretend to not know what experience is. Because the moment you accept it, you must also recognize that there's an explanatory gap, between your model, which does not explain experience, and experience itself.
Your model only explains the contents of experience. But there's no actual reason anybody needs to experience anything. Sure, their brains need to crank, and sure, they make intelligent responses, and sure, their computer minds recognize their own running, and yadda yadda yadda. But there's absolutely zero need for there to be any actual experience of it all.
That there is, is a shocking mystery, and one that science will never be able to explain. Like those problems: "Why is there a Universe, How did Fundamental Laws of the Universe come to be."
You're merely going to pretend like you have answers to these questions, and you'll live content in the (false) knowledge that, somewhere in your pile of books and experts, there's someone who can answer that question for you.
But if you ask me, (and you're not,) I'll tell you the truth: Nobody really knows. And we may well never know.
Your problem is that you don't know the limits of science. Because of your indoctrination process, you think that anything that looks like religion is guaranteed to be wrong. Saying that there's a Soul, or that there's something that's not explained by science, seems religious to you. So you feel comfortable discarding this observation.
It's fashionable, these days, I guess, amongst some scientists, to believe that they aren't really aware, or that they are a computer program. I don't understand quite how they disconnect it from their day to day experience, which is clearly available. What I understand is that they somehow (intentionally?) confuse the experience of experience, with the computation that is the contents of experience.
It's like confusing paper for ink. Someone says, "Everything is ink." And you say: "But look at the paper!" And they say: "Yeah. Ink. What's your problem?" And everywhere you show a white space of paper, they say, "Ink, ink, and ink. There is no paper."
Similar, we who understand that there's a Soul, go: "Look, everywhere, there's experience. I mean, ust look around you." And the anti-rationalist goes, "No, no, it's all computation, see." And we go, "but look, Light, Sound, this constant experience." And the anti-rationalist goes: "No, you see- that's photons, hitting eyes, generating neural signal, and then going into an abstract model running on the brain's neural net, and..." etc., etc., etc.,.
Your kind may never see the paper. Just because it doesn't fit your view of the world.
Ah well; We can keep trying to explain it to you.
But Jaron said it best: You can't waken a man who's pretending to be asleep.
Go cower behind Dennett or something, I've got work to do.
Dude, the amount of data you need for a program to reach self-awareness is like,... 10 bytes. Whatever.
Just something to make sure the instruction pointer is still cranking.
I'm severely underwhelmed whenever someone talks as if they know how much data is required to reach self-awareness, much more even just claiming to know what self-awareness is.
If we actually define it, it is (A) easy to implement, or understand how someone could implement, and (B) not profound.
The crucial problem of self-awareness isn't awareness, it's awareness period, and not awareness in the sense that a chemical camera is aware of the light in front of it, or the sense that a computer, no matter how sophisticated, can model the world, and take appropriate reactions in response.
The crucial problem of awareness is that there's a dream made of light and sound floating in front of a soul, an unnecessary soul and an unnecessary dream, when it could all equally crank away inside of a big computer planet somewhere, with noone actually experiencing anything.
That's the big mystery.
If I may pontificate for a moment.
Re:Extremely easy to disable, and more info
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 1
The goal is to not have companies collect information on your computer and send it to their servers without specifically asking you first. The strategy is to publicly expose companies that do and boycott their software until they change their ways.
That seems like an unnecessarily hard line, to me. My concern is that you may be overreaching, and alienating people from what is essentially a good argument.
I would focus more on solid cases, where public opinion would clearly be set against something, rather than these cases, where the public doesn't really care, and in many ways, accepts and expects that the data is sent.
iTunes is an acknowledged marketplace. It's a store front. Of course they're tracking you, just like the cameras in the stores elsewhere.
Windows Media Player, on the other hand, is not understood that way. People think they are watching what they want to watch, in their DVD player, at home. If WMP is sending data every time you look at something, you have a much stronger case- people would not like that.
At least, that's how it seems to me, for what it's worth. Maybe it's nothing to you.
I guess I just want to say: A communities comments have consequences. If a community rails against something that everyone else thinks is more or less innoculous, it loses that community some points. So, pick battles carefully.
I have tried to do as much research as possible myself, but it seems that everyone I ask just woke up one morning, and found themselves to be able to program three or more languages (in other words, they do not remember how they started out).
Ha!
Insightful.
Yes, yes, true.
I skilled up when young, by typing in programs from the back of Family Computing.
I don't know what to tell "kids these days."
Entering computer programs, by hand, worked well for me.
Re:Extremely easy to disable, and more info
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 1
Giving up, indeed, is lame.
What are your goals, and what is your strategy?
Re:Extremely easy to disable, and more info
on
iTunes is Malware?
·
· Score: 1
Since when was spying on people just because they utilize your software something that people found acceptable?
Ah,... let's see... It's kind of hard to pin a date on it.
If I had to pick a date, I'd say,... (scribble scribble scribble...)
I'd say April the 14th, 2003.
But it's more likely a curve. It's presently at 73%.
I guess you have to define "spying" more specificly. Most people don't accept keeping a microphone recording, and sending it back, or spying at you through your cameras, even if it's written in the license agreement.
But most do accept tracking what you're listening to, as long as there's an opt-out. There's more tolerance if there's something in the license agreement. And offering a free song REALLY increases tolerance.
It may infuriate you, but that's just the state of things, I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
The people who hate Google aren't business customers. Business customers are quite happy.
The people who hate Google are the people who's businesses are obsolete by the information age. Who's target number one, in their mind? Google.
No; I don't work for Google. I work for Alacos; We (among other things) write Windows to Linux migration software. (disclaimer: I do not speak for Alacos.)
I personally believe that Google is chivalrous, and again: It's because of the evidence. Granted: This is a point of controversy. The interpretation is difficult. But the previous actions and good character of the company cause me to believe what they say: That they are doing this because it is right, not just because it is profitable.
We all work for money, it has always been this way, and it is not bad. I believe that wealth and abundance are good things; Are they not?
And I believe that the true goal of socialism is universal brotherhood, and I think that Google is working with that sort of motive as well. Their actions are in line with this.
I personally do not believe in censorship. But most people in the world do. I do not censor my 4 year old's web browser. But other people do. If I make technology for them, I have to include censorship for them. I believe in allowing people to disagree with me, and I do not claim to have universal understanding. (Should Google?)
I strongly doubt that Google agrees with censorship. We know for a fact that people pester Google over and over: "Censor this. Censor that. I can't believe you let people find X." People probably blame Google for anything they find objectionable on the web. Realize that you are in an environment where people are begging to censor.
If Google really wanted to make money and be Evil, they could. Think creative for a few moments, and realize all the ways they could. But they don't. Or, if they do, they are so immensely stealthy and crafty, they are completely undetectable.
You are strengthening my view that Google detractors are experiencing cognitive dissonance. "Google? Good? But... wait... that... can't... be... Does not compute... Capitalism is, by bottom-line definition,... BAD... Does... not... compute..."
Don't be a robot. Some times, there are good companies. Reward them when you see them.
I can't stop this, not sure i want to, but there are issues.
Fair enough.
I agree Google has a lot of power. I do wish they found some way to devolve the power that they have. I don't know that they actually asked for it. I'm not sure they know what to do with it themselves.
My personal theory is this: Google sees the promise of technology, and the things it can do for us. They look over at Wikipedia, and go: "Wow, this is amazing, this is exactly the sort of thing we've hoped for. Technology for Good." They see the rise of civil society, and watchdog groups, and transparency, and go: "Ah, this looks good to."
They look into the future, and see an amazing society. They see greater Democracy, of the participatory kind, not the top-down kind.
And they are religiously bent on achieving that end, and by ethical means.
That's what I see. And that's what I support.
Technology has, in many ways, mooted "communism" vs. "capitalism." Both capitalists and communists credit Wikipedia to their ideology. But it's basically a moot point now.
More and more of the world will be "computerized," as we develop the user interface to biology and matter.
I personally think this is a good thing, and will make for a safer, fairer, world.
Does that preclude me from seeing 'trends' and evolutions?
No; Just recognize that it's not necessarily reality. I mean, claiming that Google has turned Chinese Communist is just way off the mark.
Google has acted in good faith and good character throughout it's history. It will require extraordinary proof to show that Google is working against it's promise: To not be Evil. To see people shredding Google's reputation (which, like all reputations, is held in a commons) is a horrible thing, and I'm standing up to say: "Hey, that's not right."
You need more proof than a simple disagreement with a strategy decision to shred a reputation.
Google will not 'save the world' or even enhance it.
Okay, I seriously doubt that.
It's enhanced my personal world, for sure. I think they've enhanced the world in general, and that it'd be a much worse place without it.
I don't understand your criticism, except maybe if it's a criticism of technology in general, in which case I understand it, but just disagree with it.
What is a world where anyone (with means and internet and computer) may have access to "controlled" information -- even when I know, information is all man-made.
Well; You answered it yourself: It's the world we've always lived in.
My question for you, originally, was: Do you think there are situations where you will have to face a difficult question? The parent was telling you about installing Internet censorship filters, because he thought his overall presence in the place was overall a positive force? That he was being a force for good, even though he had to do this horrible thing that he doesn't believe in?
I'm trying to ask you: Do you really believe in the black and white world of purely slippery slopes that you've described, or can you see the ambiguities and complexities behind things?
And if you think things are complex, then what magic insight do you have, that allows you to cast judgement, and say: Despite Google's overwealmingly positive history of fair dealings and generosity, that you now know that it's actually Chinese Communism in disguise?
I don't think you, (and a lot of others,) are giving Google a fair shake.
I need to see actual menacing. Show me greedy business contracts, cheap tricks, all the Microsoft things. Show me those, and I'll listen to you.
But this isn't it. The ethical argument in favor of Google's decision is reasonable, and sound, if in natural tension. It's one where you could go either way, and be a sensible person.
...why would they even feel the need to debate it, unless the company was simply trying to convince itself it had enough political and legal clout to compromise it's philosophy for more money.
Well, let me venture a thought:
The parent of your post said that these kinds of decisions can be complicated and difficult to resolve, if you're commited to being moral.
If that's true- (Is it true? I want you to answer that question: Is it true that these kinds of questions can be hard to answer?)
So, the people in Google had to weigh this and think about it for a couple years before making a decision.
Pleased to answer your question.
That is why the critics are so vocal: it is about Google violating thier own philosophy and breaking netizen trust more than the specific benefit/harm tradeoff that filtering the results entails.
I don't think Google is violating their own philosophy ("Don't be evil.") I agree critics think they are.
I think critics can't stand the idea that a company (a corporation, mind you!) says, "We're going to be moral." Because in a lot of these people's world views, there's no such thing as a moral person, or there's no such thing as a moral company.
Many people have talked about Google with hope and admiration, and it burns these critics' ears. So they've been dying to criticize google- it's been incredibly difficult! Now they have thier chance, and they're chomping as hard as they can.
I wish I knew how to turn people to really believing in goodness, to struggling for it, and for recognizing and rewarding it when they see it. Goodness doesn't have to mean simpleminded, or a simple list of commandments fit for children. It can be complicated, intricate, and perhaps even inexpressible. But I really wish I knew how to lead people to believe in it.
Things sure are complicated, aren't they?
Not so cut and dry, I mean.
I wouldn't throw out "You're being Evil," when someone simply disagrees with your strategy.
If you live by "Don't be Evil," I swear to God, at some point in your life, it's going to require that you do or say things that other people are going to call "Evil," because they don't see the stories working out the same way you do. You're not even going to have the opportunity to respond to said people.
I have gained control of you.
Are you reading these words?
Why not some other words?
"Google."
See, I just made you think "Google."
Flippant reply: "Well, the United States of America, of course."
Less flippant: Mind ye cybernetics, the science of communication & control.
All media are communication and control mechanisms.
The difference between communication and control isn't so apparent, when you study it up close.
Super-intelligent beings would have to exert incredible effort in order to not manipulate us, similar to how adults casually manipulate children without even thinking about it, into doing (or more commonly) not doing certain things.
Similar with super-organisms (corporations,) and you and I.
They've got whole divisions of people set up just to make sure you and I think "right."
The military has a mission to achieve, and psyops (otherwise known as "winning hearts and minds") is a part of that. Journalists need to grow up and take responsiblity for their jobs. The military isn't unique in doing it, they're not even uncommon.
We don't control journalists. We do control the military. (Or at least, it's supposed to work that way.) It is their responsibility to obey us, not to fool us.
If our military is manipulating us, directly or indirectly, intentionally or not, then it is our job to make sure that it does not. This is independent of whether or not "journalists are doing their job." This is a free country after all.
But if I make a request to a military website, (directly or indirectly,) and they are telling me, a US citizen, a pack of lies, misdirections, etc., then it is little different than if they report the same to congress. Because it may be a congress man, through the trail of listening to the public, through the trail of listening to their own informants, who is receiving the lies as well.
We may well have to drop our "winning hearts and minds" tactic, if the military is winning the us publics hearts and minds.
If you know of a creative solution so that we can continue to trick military targets, rather than tricking the people who are running the military, then I welcome hearing it.
Really, the only thing which is interesting is that the US national media seem to be picking up military propoganda more and more as it's distributed abroad, and then repackaging and redistributing it to the US market.
That's newsworthy in my book.
If the military is increasingly duping the organism that controls it, that's a problem. That means the military has more control than it's supposed to.
Further, our laws don't really have anything to stop this. (Suggesting action.)
That's like those ads in the paper in 2002: "REQUIRED: 5 years solid experience C#..."
When do we reach that point when the public is too wired?
The problem isn't being "wired," the problem is that you're picking up cross talk.
This technology, then, should interest you: Subvocal speech recognition.
In the not too distant future, we should be able to communicate with people without actually voicing our words. Just moving our mouths, and perhaps not even that, will be all that's necessary.
The concept of the soul as a religious entity, with karma, or a book of records, or as the initiator of action, or any other of these concepts, is not what I'm referring to.
:)
I'm simply referring to: That thing that I am, that is experiencing a dream/visage/appearance/floating-sensorium, what have you.
Needing a term for such a thing, I find "soul" to be the most plainspoken way to talk about it.
"Experiencer" and "observer" seem to dry, academic, stuffy, and unnecessarily shallow.
There is then, no question, or even mystery, about why I believe in it: It's simply a name for "the type of thing that I am."
It does not include mind, mechanism, calculation, sensory device, etc., etc., etc.,. (Unless pan-psychism is true.) It is rather- the thing on the other side of the vision, the visage, the appearance. That is, experience, which exists in a sort of "timelessness," (since you can never experience the future or the past- experience always happens in immediacy, as an observation of sequence,) always has an experience, and an experienced.
This is not contra or anti scientific; This is just definition, and definition supports science. That the target of the definition exists is true. Those who deny it, are, I believe, anti-science. (That is, unless they are actually a bona fida zombie, that does not actually experience.)
What you're talking about, I do not call "soul." You're certainly talking about something, I would just personally call it "global history," or "cybernetic history," or something like that. "Memory." All our buildings and trains and airplanes and cultures and documents and computer chips can be considered to be the products of continuously developing DNA. I think "cybernetic memory" would be the best term for it, since "cyber" implies the mixture of electronics, concrete, rubber, computers, humans, dirt, and other things. If we wanted to speak more grandly, we could call it "the pattern of the world," or something like that. I've personally felt that maybe it's the "mirror of the possible," or something. It's good metaphysical territory. It's not science, though.
In particular, it talks about the Delphi method, and shows how Japan predicted, in the 1970's:
They were rated at 64-71% accurate, which is not bad, considering that you're jumping out 30 years into the future, and making specific and useful predictions.
This is much better than psychic's prediction, unless the psychic happened to have an article on Moore's Law hidden beneath the table.
While there are a lot of well-reported predictions that are basically bunk, and even though the public has fixated on images that make no sense, there are also sources that are doing their homework, and are actually well researched. It's sad that the good stuff goes unreported.
All this said, even near-term futures are very exciting and interested, and people simply don't know about what's happening. I've personally worn a NOMAD headset, for example. Anyone can have one, for $2,000. These devices are certain to get cheaper, and will be in color, within 5 years. They're great devices, and I personally think that they'll be as common as bluetooth headsets are now. Bluetooth headsets will get cheaper, and become much more useful, as wireless networks expand, (as they are sure to,) and Internet access becomes much more pervasive.
The "Camp" phenomenon happening right now is exploding. Investments in communications and intelligence technology is leading to this sort of thing, and the work of these sorts of things is further compounded into more communications and intelligence technology, and the spread of the technology.
Another poster here rightly said it: Even if predictions turn out false, they are still extremely useful. In many cases, we predict so we can make sure that they turn out false. To ensure that they come out false. Every single human being makes predictions about the course of their life, so that they can steer themselves in one direction, or to avoid another. It would be very surprising to me if human societies did not engage in this activity. (This is scenario planning, and used by just about every corporation and government.)
Technology prediction in some ways is the easiest thing to predict, looking into mid-range futures (the hardest territory.) If you put your money on Moore's Law, you're doing far better than (say) betting on baseball games, or who wins the presidency.
But if two things have an exact one-to-one correspondance with each other, such that if you do something to one of the things, the other thing changes accordingly, then logically, they are the same thing.
No, that's not true- our digital communication systems are about making things exactly the same on either side of the channel.
There is an exact, one-to-one relationship, between the signals coming out of your video card, and the pixels on your display. But they're clearly not the same thing.
Do you accept my undercut?
And if so, how was it possible that you made such (you'll excuse my rudeness:) a simple mistake? Is it possible that you're mind is directing your thoughts away on the basis of undesirable conclusions? Or was it, in fact, a bona fida mistake in reasoning? (This paragraph only applies if you accept the undercut. If you have an undercut to my undercut, I'm happy to hear it out.) It seems to me that you accepted a conclusion based on trust in a belief system, and so relaxed the rigour of your arguments. I ask you to question that trust, and consider the arguments more carefully.
If you believe electrical signals are always accompanied with experience, then that means you're a panpsychist. And you believe that your computer is actually having an experience, and is aware, because there are electrical signals.
I suspect that you are actually a panpsychist. You seem to recognize the idea that there is something that it is to be having an experience. You recognize, on the other hand, that there is a 1:1 relationship between the contents of experience, and the manipulations at work in the world. If you can recognize that one did not necessarily need to entail the other, that it is conceivable (in an alternative universe, let's pretend,) that physics plays out exactly the same, but that nobody is actually aware in that universe, then you have discovered the space that is called: "the explanatory gap." That is, that we are missing an explanation for why we are aware, why there is an experience.
The easiest solution is panpsychism, weird though it may be: Wherever there is anything that seems like it would be aware, then it is aware. It is an explanation, by way of a 5th law: "Wherever matter and energy are specially arranged in space and time, there is an experience." It's just not particularly persuasive or predictive. Which is okay. We just need to recognize it in it's place: This isn't science. There can be no science amidst the unmeasurable, after all. And that's okay.
No, I'm not a panpsychist. I actually think that the world's "just a dream." No proof, just a belief- but it clearly doesn't contradict science either.
I had a dream once. In the dream, there were scientists. I told them that I was alive in another universe as well. They told me, it clearly wasn't true. In the dream, the dream scientists showed me dream books and dream microscopes, and showed me dream neurons, and I went to dream school. I learned dream physics and wrote dream papers, and learned that the dream world was the only one and that rational dream people were the only people.
But of course, we know better, and that it was only a dream. Because 100 years is an entire lifespan, and surely, any duration of time longer than 3 days is a firm ground in any universe for any purpose and for any point. Surely what seems to be 100 years must constitute proof enough of reality, for any logical mind.
I offer no proof. I do suggest that I am the deeper, more profoundly skeptical, than the people who call themselves "skeptics," and I do mean to show true limits to what is called "knowledge."
I want to briefly reaffirm for you: I believe in determinism, and I am a very strong suporter of the Enlightenment, the scientific method, and liberal thinking. I am a transhumanist. I am also an agnostic theist. I think our highest responsibilities lie
But why cannot these experiences be simply machines? When you look at a brain, there is a strong hint there this is a one-to-one correspondance between the firing of chemicals between neurons and the experiences which the person is feeling. Thus, it makes sense to say that in fact the "experience" of thought is merely what that machine is doing, and we happen to "be" that experience.
Let's not play coy: There isn't a "strong hint" of a one-to-one correspondence; There is exactly a one-to-one correspondence. Let's not pretend like we're giving something, when we're not. I'm a realist here, arguing in realistic terms. Yes, there is exactly a one-to-one correspondence. And I fully grant determinism as well. We should go with everything we understand from science.
The problem that we have here is that we have zero explanation of experience. It's completely unnecessary. The complete computation of all the world can happen perfectly fine, without anyone actually experiencing anything.
Now: There's a position called "panpsychism." It says: "Well, given that we're aware, and given that all we see around us is machinery, perhaps it's reasonable to conclude: Machinery itself is awareness. Whenever computation happens, in the world, there is also awareness, an experience, no matter how small."
There's three things I have to say about this: (1) It's plausible. I can imagine that the world works this way. (2) It's not a proof. It's an explanation, but it is not provable, and it is not "science." It's an explanation like saying "I think the world is a dream" is an explanation. It's okay, (logically consistant, somewhat reasonable,) to think this way, but it's not science. (3) I don't believe it, because it leads to some pretty wacky counter-intuitive conclusions: Is a door knob aware, even minimally so? What if I draw a loop around a portion of the doorknob, and some air around it: Does that particular arrangement of atoms bouncing off one another also have an experience? If we take an individual brain, with trillions (?) of neurons inside, does every particular subset of neurons have a particular awareness? Or does awareness come in fields, and it clusters together into a solitary experience?
Because the conclusions of panpsychism are so weird, or because it requires so much ad-hocery ("fields") to make it's conclusions match our intuitions, I end up rejecting it. But it's certainly plausible, and I can respect people who think that way.
It's weird and non-intuitive, yes. But so is the idea of Cartesian Dualism, that Experience is the result of some kind of peculiar second substance completely distinct from the material world but which interacts with it through the brain.
Uh, well, let's see: Part of my job is to help bury the dead. I actually don't do Cartesian Dualism, though I'm often accused of it. It's a couple centuries too late, and all. The whole "mind-body" distinction is a problem. What it really needs to be, is an "awareness-substance" distinction, where "awareness" is experience, the dream, the visage in front of the soul, etc., etc., and where "substance" is every thing substantial and mental. Just treat "thoughts" as "things," similar to how the programmer: The programmer has to think: "I'm making machines inside of the computer." In a very real sense, that is what the programmer is doing. Just because they're sets of instructions (incarnate) within a computer, and they're really small, it doesn't mean that they aren't substantial. The same thing with thoughts in the head.
One consequence of this is that: When Dennett & other brain analysts are studying how programs work within the brain, they really aren't doing anything to help explain consciousness. I mean, you may as well be explaining how car doors open and close, or how venetian blinds work, or how airplanes fly: The operations and motions of mental phenomenon are just as external as the motions of cars and airplane
That may well be, but these questions are basically uninteresting to me.
I mean, I'm as enthusiastic about TransHumanism and simulation as Kurzweili, but as for the hard problems of consciousness, this is about as enlightening as an explanation about how doors open and close: It sheds no light.
I've read Dennett's book; I just don't find it very persuasive. Do a google search for "Consciousness Explained Away."
..." etc., etc., etc.,.
I'm quite capable of thinking like a programmer; I've been doing it for 20+ years now.
I believe very strongly that there are already "self-aware computers." I mean: Doesn't "top" list itself?
But that's not the interesting problem, now is it.
What you have is a model of the universe that's complex enough to include the modeler inside itself. This model is the awareness, and the model of itself within the model is self-awareness. (There is likely to actually be a third level of awareness required to be aware of self-awareness...but then I think the levels loop.)
Yes, and you see: That does absolutely nothing to do with consciousness. At least the consciousness that we're interested in.
It could all work, just perfectly well, without any soul experiencing a visage.
There is no need for experience.
The only way you can avoid this, is to pretend to not understand. Which is exactly what you will proceed to do.
You will just pretend to not know what experience is. Because the moment you accept it, you must also recognize that there's an explanatory gap, between your model, which does not explain experience, and experience itself.
Your model only explains the contents of experience. But there's no actual reason anybody needs to experience anything. Sure, their brains need to crank, and sure, they make intelligent responses, and sure, their computer minds recognize their own running, and yadda yadda yadda. But there's absolutely zero need for there to be any actual experience of it all.
That there is, is a shocking mystery, and one that science will never be able to explain. Like those problems: "Why is there a Universe, How did Fundamental Laws of the Universe come to be."
You're merely going to pretend like you have answers to these questions, and you'll live content in the (false) knowledge that, somewhere in your pile of books and experts, there's someone who can answer that question for you.
But if you ask me, (and you're not,) I'll tell you the truth: Nobody really knows. And we may well never know.
Your problem is that you don't know the limits of science. Because of your indoctrination process, you think that anything that looks like religion is guaranteed to be wrong. Saying that there's a Soul, or that there's something that's not explained by science, seems religious to you. So you feel comfortable discarding this observation.
It's fashionable, these days, I guess, amongst some scientists, to believe that they aren't really aware, or that they are a computer program. I don't understand quite how they disconnect it from their day to day experience, which is clearly available. What I understand is that they somehow (intentionally?) confuse the experience of experience, with the computation that is the contents of experience.
It's like confusing paper for ink. Someone says, "Everything is ink." And you say: "But look at the paper!" And they say: "Yeah. Ink. What's your problem?" And everywhere you show a white space of paper, they say, "Ink, ink, and ink. There is no paper."
Similar, we who understand that there's a Soul, go: "Look, everywhere, there's experience. I mean, ust look around you." And the anti-rationalist goes, "No, no, it's all computation, see." And we go, "but look, Light, Sound, this constant experience." And the anti-rationalist goes: "No, you see- that's photons, hitting eyes, generating neural signal, and then going into an abstract model running on the brain's neural net, and
Your kind may never see the paper. Just because it doesn't fit your view of the world.
Ah well; We can keep trying to explain it to you.
But Jaron said it best: You can't waken a man who's pretending to be asleep.
Go cower behind Dennett or something, I've got work to do.
Spread Your Wings and Fly, Google.
Spread Your Wings and Fly.
God be with you.
Dude, the amount of data you need for a program to reach self-awareness is like, ... 10 bytes. Whatever.
Just something to make sure the instruction pointer is still cranking.
I'm severely underwhelmed whenever someone talks as if they know how much data is required to reach self-awareness, much more even just claiming to know what self-awareness is.
If we actually define it, it is (A) easy to implement, or understand how someone could implement, and (B) not profound.
The crucial problem of self-awareness isn't awareness, it's awareness period, and not awareness in the sense that a chemical camera is aware of the light in front of it, or the sense that a computer, no matter how sophisticated, can model the world, and take appropriate reactions in response.
The crucial problem of awareness is that there's a dream made of light and sound floating in front of a soul, an unnecessary soul and an unnecessary dream, when it could all equally crank away inside of a big computer planet somewhere, with noone actually experiencing anything.
That's the big mystery.
If I may pontificate for a moment.
The goal is to not have companies collect information on your computer and send it to their servers without specifically asking you first. The strategy is to publicly expose companies that do and boycott their software until they change their ways.
That seems like an unnecessarily hard line, to me. My concern is that you may be overreaching, and alienating people from what is essentially a good argument.
I would focus more on solid cases, where public opinion would clearly be set against something, rather than these cases, where the public doesn't really care, and in many ways, accepts and expects that the data is sent.
iTunes is an acknowledged marketplace. It's a store front. Of course they're tracking you, just like the cameras in the stores elsewhere.
Windows Media Player, on the other hand, is not understood that way. People think they are watching what they want to watch, in their DVD player, at home. If WMP is sending data every time you look at something, you have a much stronger case- people would not like that.
At least, that's how it seems to me, for what it's worth. Maybe it's nothing to you.
I guess I just want to say: A communities comments have consequences. If a community rails against something that everyone else thinks is more or less innoculous, it loses that community some points. So, pick battles carefully.
Sure, sure, but:
You do that, I don't think you're really getting the meat out of it.
What I mean is: If it's just Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, then it may as well just be "cp" or "copy".
When you do it by hand, it forces you to review everything. And you make mistakes, and have to figure out where it went wrong, and how to fix it..!
But I think the value, really, is seeing out the program works on the inside.
I have tried to do as much research as possible myself, but it seems that everyone I ask just woke up one morning, and found themselves to be able to program three or more languages (in other words, they do not remember how they started out).
Ha!
Insightful.
Yes, yes, true.
I skilled up when young, by typing in programs from the back of Family Computing.
I don't know what to tell "kids these days."
Entering computer programs, by hand, worked well for me.
Giving up, indeed, is lame.
What are your goals, and what is your strategy?
Since when was spying on people just because they utilize your software something that people found acceptable?
Ah,... let's see... It's kind of hard to pin a date on it.
If I had to pick a date, I'd say,... (scribble scribble scribble...)
I'd say April the 14th, 2003.
But it's more likely a curve. It's presently at 73%.
I guess you have to define "spying" more specificly. Most people don't accept keeping a microphone recording, and sending it back, or spying at you through your cameras, even if it's written in the license agreement.
But most do accept tracking what you're listening to, as long as there's an opt-out. There's more tolerance if there's something in the license agreement. And offering a free song REALLY increases tolerance.
It may infuriate you, but that's just the state of things, I guess.