Philosophy
Connections
Selflearning
Miscellaneous
Two words about myself:
I am author of the book "Autodidactic"(ritten and published in Russian
in Moscow in
1994) and many others (novels, poetry, philosophy). When invited to,
I can to play on violin during a single performance all 24 capriccios by
N.Paganini, because I have graduated from the conservatory in Kiev (Ukraine).
Also I compose music with help of "Cakewalk" (more than 200symfony
are already saved) and draw with help of "Picture-publisher","Adobe" etc.
Valery A.Kourinsky,
member of:
International Pedagogic Academy;
National Intellectual and Social Technologies Academy (Russia);
Russian People Academy of Sciences;
International Informatization Academy;
Ukrainian National Progress Academy of Sciences;
and president
of International Autodidactic Academy.
Path we have had chosen once upon a time for computerization is too
self-sufficiently intuitive. If we breed a new descendant of mankind
would
be not bad to have a bit more care about our mission.
It is not late to correct some features in this chaotic area. And the
first
and most important item in the correction-program has to be humanization
of
the whole our electronic enterprise' essence.
In one word the selection of computers is a kind of work giving out
a lot
of countless additive and abruptly appearing tasks, or, more precisely,
their silhouettes discovered in future.
Now we have the problem of would-be-parents. Using another words, we
are
living through the prenatal period of our AI-"child". And his life
(and
lives) is (are) predestined by our today's behavior. If so, we must
clearer
define the space of the best-for-our breed.
And this is a teacher's question, that of pedagogy and education.
Who has any doubts about "importance to earnest" as much
before the
appearing of a kid as after that?
Too much intuition is the charlatanry.
And too much sureness laid upon the arithmetic is the dangerous daydream.
Because of that I assume that AI-sciences must be more human &humanitarian.
Naturally, it is a merry thing to maintain the condition for life-long
abstract reverie, but our consciousness has a strictness of the GENERAL
LAW
OF BEING of which It is a private part if not all then of most people.
It
is not Id. It is evidently a chief part
of Self .And we say leaving apart all old and even not too much old
definitions that such a Self is not instrumental. It is commanding
everything we must do in non-biological life (i.e.in mental one, that
is
may be teleologically predestined by just mentioned Law), soundlessly
whispering always as if aside but yet from the very center of our entity.
And how are the things with future AI generation of...us?
It could not bother to allow intruding of simple modesty in the day
and
works of AI demiurges! We shall, then, create a list of preferences
for the
computerization itself, not being afraid of the our own common but
still
scientific sense deafness.
Thus, we must construct not the optional machine but mental system
of the
ever optimal choice between evil and boon. And which has to exist (live?)
in the space of mankind's feeling-thought evolution. Especially if
its
biological one, as we admit, will be successfully finished.
So we may else for a half of a century quote the wise passages from
classics as well as from each other and not to use the notion of the
beautiful, confusing mistakenly civilization with culture, IQ with
morals,
and life with death.
A single way to solve not for everyone attainable and achievable problem
is
creation of an electronic filter to eliminate the senses that are not
the
analogies of human experiences of Beauty (=Love). And that is
the first
preference at level of a commandment.
Now we have the case when similarity between creator (computerizing
humans) and created (hand-and-brain-made heir of them). It is,
naturally,
going about internal resemblance. And here the "creator" has opportunity
with help of his "kid" to meliorate his (man?)-Kind. In any case he
may to
keep trying that as much as possible.
And this is second preference.
AI-"parent" is "collective personality" that has the deep feeling of
conditionally eternal cultural space as a work apparatus of first-rate
importance.
So is the preference number three.
Psychic over-tension and often mental exhausting, psychosthenic and
neurotic states, neurosis and psychosis all are contra-indications
for
further activity in creation of a new "post-human" generation. A man
with
anorexia to the life may be only the author of a monster-misanthrope.
AI-"dad-and-mom" must be a wights with a stormy spirit and (therefore?)
calm soul.
And that all is the forth preference.
Otherwise the lady Computerization is a priori a great philosopher.
Everyone without acute and constant sensations of unite of opposites
is an
intellectually poor ancestor for such a strikingly brilliant child
as we
imagine him in romantic clouds of virtual space.
Such is the fifth preference.
Vanity in general is a bad girl-friend, but being a too long while
side by
side with the computerizing people it becomes a kind of poison, which
that
people unfortunately are ready transmit into blood and thought of future.
The beauty of compu-landscape does not abolish the charm of all former
and
still living views belonging to our common thesaurus forever.
We count further: on queue the sixth item...
But moreover there is such a stuff as individuality. We remember-"die
Persoenlichkeit". That means that everyone of our AI-progeny must be
unique. Otherwise our job will be much worse than that of God. And
it will
be better to return to Him his evolutionary care...
Thus appears else one preference, the temporarily last.
NEW PHILOSOPHY? I DON’T KNOW...
Almost Scherzo diabolico
Everyday we are getting some internal task to solve by very intimate
internal means.
Everyday we are born as a live bulk of questions that we too often
hide from
ourselves. That is not connected with so called Knowledge, it is wholly
consecrated to
the all-penetrating our tiny knowledge.
The our problem is workoholism.
And else— that of not having acknowledged it.
We even do not dream to rebel and overthrow the now only seemingly
good tradition.
Now we do not feel so much respect using the word “to work” as it did
our ancestors.
They more loved the work as such and we love (from time to time) in
the best case a
”good job”, a “fine job” or in general “our job”. Or may be the
money that we receive
for it.
The community of humans is wishing to repose.
The rest is idée fixe of modernity.
It is not bad and not good as well. It simply ’is’.
The (X) of regard or esteem to today is imaginative. We
compose this little
problem of evaluation of the evil and the boon. And all we need is
to answer
requirements of deep wishes. They are indispensable only when are answered.
And my vague dream about AI-wishes is at the level of co-feeling with
them which are
penetrated by senseless tiredness.
I would like AI were transfusingly joined with the NS (Natural Soul).
With the same
NS that we as it seems to me have. Namely NS I need to have in my descendant
made
from another than I am material.
The formula NS (I repeat decoding of the abbreviation: Natural Soul),
neverthe-more,
still remains unknown. And formula of pleasure. Or, for instance, that
of the "dolce far
niente", which often confuse with actual relaxation. And the latter
is
A (Activity) that one chose between MOA (many others activities) using
his E
(essence) and {......}(something). Thus we have:
A = MOA - [(MOA - E){......}].
But if very seriously, I sympathize with super-sciencelikefullness of
my
trans-scholar-sheeped and over-electronized hyper-colleagues.
With very much regards
Valery Kourinsky
PLANNING A COMPUTER-PHILISTINE?
The difference between two chief types of people
is evident. The unconditionally bigger portion of humans inclines towards
existence in its own “horizontal” history. But that least prefers to live
having in its heart the history of mankind. And it takes part in
actually human evolution, which exists physically as our second evolution.
Notwithstanding with the traditional view at this side of being we have
two paths of AI development.
If we participate in creating of our heir in
evolutionary process, that participation must be more carefully weighed
and thought over.
The Turing machine can’t to be responsible for
our future. And we are, when transplanting our ideals into iron mother-womb.
In a leapfrog state of mind, which is provoked by the philosophical blunders
and even by the physical blindness. Out of our formally clever but in the
depth bosh-like traditionalistic and cold pseudo-thinking.
Today’s AI professionals risk to make “J.R.Oppenheimer
lapse” that is inevitable in the space of total
rationalism. Too
self-confident intellectualism is nowadays obsolete.
But it is
not something neutral and passive. In the contrary,
its
influence is harmful for us in the same grade
as absence of
finest mental and uniquely human experiences.
Without them
we’ll construct defective chop- logic-reasoning-monster
instead of a creature that is may-be-higher than
contemporaneous human.
“ Now the mass of mankind are evidently quite slavish in their tastes,
preferring a life suitable to beasts, but they get some ground for their
view from the fact that many of those in high places share the tastes of
Sardanapallus.”
Aristotle “Nicomachean Ethics”,Chapter 5.
And now is the difference so great?.. Characteristics
of the
culture of “Santa-Barbara”-like serials isn’t
opposite to just
quoted. And in “high places” are
not only politicians but also
scholars. As much as they generate, they say,
the AI-phase of
our development.
IQ AND NATURAL CLEVERNESS
The humans are prisoners of pseudo-clearness. They assume the priority
of the well-known intelligence.
And it is received apodictically. So dictates the common sense.
So thinks everybody.
And only the microscopic part of us realizes the degree of mental conformism
that is present in that case.
The so-called INTELLECTUAL ACTIVITY is as a rule only the way to obtain
the known answer. Are supposed the solutions in the end of a book of problems.
And the stream of fallacies begins.
The lie is situated in those places of our discourse where we
don’t remember of principal unrepeatedness of perception phenomena.
Modern common logic is Euclid geometry of mentality. The existence
of space-curves is for it a kind of myth. The curves are for it somewhere,
not here and now, not in me, not always. Everything happens on the
straight line. That is on the line of lie.
The mental conformism prohibits creativeness automatically and unobservably.
Instead of creativeness we have IQ. The executioner in chamois gloves of
commendations...
On the wall of our being are hung the pollsters, whose text is:
“Wanted thinking naturally!”
But what does it mean: to think naturally?..
First of all it means not to know answer every time someone is going
to think. Not to know there and especially there, where there is “I know
this” (W. Shakespeare “King Henry Fifth”).
Then it means to be beautifully suspicious about the near discovery.
And revelations in form of scientific insights.
The natural cleverness equals to liberation. In first turn from paralysis
of own intellect. And from fear to be clever. And from poisoned
sureness. And from many IQ-specters.
The real thought are nearest relatives of sensations. The nearer the
more thoughts they are...
The uncommonly and at first sight barbaric turns to be precious. But
the community appreciates at once a depth that it morphologically knows
about. And a genuine depth is always another namely as a landscape, never
seen before. The genuine depth is unprofessable *timescape* where
you feel happiness.
The natural cleverness gains opposite side of sense. Dialectic
really rules it.
Today the possibilities to construct non-specious mind become gradually
broader. Step by step humans will understand that their minds are truly
artificial. Man therefore demiurgically creates after his similarity
whatsoever he’d like to. Among his last great successes we observe
AI, which is, naturally, more artificial than our artificialness
is artificial...
Our main problem to solve is:
how to become drunk in the moral and legal and non-alcoholic
and non-external way?
Only then, that is when we are awfully sober without constant
touch to a string of creative awareness, we are completely and awfully
normal = empty = dehumanized = decreativized.
And what can I in this state? Only passionately want to narcotize me
as soon as possible. And if I don’t *rook* the endogene opiates, I have
to swallow something from a bottle. And everything’s great! And I
am in own eyes “a good sport” (F. S. Fitzgerald “The Great Gatsby”)...
We, whose convictions are poetological, can answer the question
emerged. And namely: where can I take the above string from?
In the area of natural cleverness. Only there one looks at ever changing
world, only there he can be always drunk in the better meaning of word,
i.e. by means of self-produced with help of new philosophy of life
awarding material particles of vitality, different peptides, endorphins
fir example etc.
Socrates said:
“Wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder”.
Thus in wonder begins and our thought that is impossible to imagine without
philosophy.
But today’s philosophy inevitably moves forward to more humanity and
high psychic experience.
How to make real what is said about? That’s enough to become acquainted
with psychopoetology, autodidactics that is basically different from all
existing old and modern pedagogical systems. Future belongs to them who
enforces himself with realities of natural clevereness.
PRINCIPLE OF UNSTRAIGHTFORWARDNESS