I don't see Eidolon as that wise. More like having an annoying voice.
In any case, I do not see how technology can be separated from individuals, because government demands values, but there is no universally agreed upon starting point for values.
I also don't see how the singularity means technocracy, doing so seems to be asserting values. Heck, one of the people I once read talk about sufficiently advanced AIs outstripping human capabilities was an anarcho-capitalist. In any case, there are singularity skeptics, who at least think that the singularity is far. I suppose Eidolon caught onto that, however, there is inherently a question that emerges when civilization is put above people, as the question is certainly non-trivial.
As for positing that wise decisions are right, and unwise decisions are wrong, well... to be honest, that's a leap. Not only that, but positing the wise and unwise distinction in the first place is questionable from rational grounds, given that the term "wise" typically lacks an analytical definition or actually requires the concept of rightness.
wise1 (wiz)adj. wis-er, wis-est. 1. Having wisdom or discernment for what is true, right, or lasting; sagacious: 2. Exhibiting common sense; prudent: a wise decision. Shrewd; crafty. 3. Having great learning; erudite. 4. Provided with information; informed.
---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
And as such, the 1st definition becomes meaningless, as without right or wrong, it cannot exist. As for common sense and prudence, well, common sense is not an analytical thing but rather a set of heuristics, and prudence requires a set of goals to be prudent to, and the last 2 definitions just relate to knowledge, and a path cannot be more or less informed, only the person choosing that path. We can say that Eidolon hits on the matter of prudence in his own way, but I'd say that is a stretch, as it seems questionable to assert subjectivity in wisdom *and* claim that a certain path is wiser, even as a belief.
As for valuing over reason, this seems questionable as the human thinking process is not designed to use reason, nor would any working system. Reason *demands* a lot of cognitive processing that would be unfathomable for life, that is why people use emotion. If emotional processes in the brain are damaged, then the ability to function quickly falls apart given the difficulty of putting together all of the necessary data.
As for the matter of technology and humanity, this matter is more complex than I think Eidolon is considering, as technology also acts as a factor in shaping human society as well, to claim that technology is a multiplier is to claim that understanding the world is purely cultural, but technology clearly alters the shape of society.
As for the thinking about maximizing happiness. I mean, alright, he says stuff like that a lot, however, actions do not increase happiness much but rather acceptances, as people have a tendency to get on a hedonic treadmill. As well, the matter of maximizing happiness ignores that people clearly show values for other things than happiness, for example, think about a person with some level of depression who rejects treatment, they are choosing unhappiness, but how can we say that they are necessarily wrong for doing so? Finally, not all paths that lead to happiness are considered valid paths, this is seen in literature in the book Brave New World, where drugs are used to create happiness but the conditions of the world are seen as abhorrent by the author, as well as the thought experiment of the experience machine by philosopher Robert Nozick, where he posits that even if a machine could create the perfect experiences, people would prefer not to use it.
I dunno, perhaps I am missing something, but I just see Eidolon as just being a talking head, one that I found harder to understand, and one that does not seem like the deepest of thinkers(who does though, right?)
28 Dec 2008, 12:29 pm
