Sunday, January 3, 2010

Is there anybody in there?

Why should it be so difficult to write for machines then write for humans? I can hear it now, some techno-fobe will say, "Silly boy, humans are a special case. If you stoop to writing to your machines you have lost the essence of what it is to be conscious. You have lowered yourself to the level of the machine."

I have to admit there is something to that argument ... as far as it goes. But isn't there an element of lying to the mirror? That is to say, deliberately misrepresenting 'the truth' played back in real-time exposes one to the substance of communication. It is a choice. Is so-called truth that much different than a lie when told to a mirror?

And so it goes, analysis of values requires that we go to where the absurd ostensibly lies as a matter of course. Because all we perceive is infused with values? It is the way the information we remember manifests as relevant?

Anomalies take on an implicit urgency that is sometimes unjustified. What a quaint term for it, overreaction. By whose measure? When should it be applied? What if there is not sufficient time to carefully consider an anomaly's relevance?

Conceptually now, juxtaposition the man-machine and friend-not friend interfaces. Most of the world we live in has analog characteristics - phenomena are on a continuum. It really has a feel like, zero vs. one and two but not two.

Are we any closer? That I could write this now does give me hope. Let's see if the journey back to the language of those 'lesser' entities is as easy ...

No comments:

Post a Comment