Using Technology to Deepen Democracy, Using Democracy to Ensure Technology Benefits Us All

Monday, May 04, 2009

Ridiculing the Ridiculous


Giulio Prisco has called me out again on his blog, and has accused me (not for the first time, probably not for the thousandth time) of name-calling without any substance and then accuses me of being a "bioluddite." I leave the delineation of the self-referential hilarities of this gambit as an exercise for the reader.

On a side note, compare Singularitarian Ben Goertzel's assessment of the post and thread in question, "bizarrely retarded luddite ranting," where again from the vantage of superlativity it seems apt to decry demurral from membership in the Robot Cult as tantamount to luddism, despite pesky little things like, you know, the actual history of the term, the actual meaning of words, and the actual views that tend to be espoused by those who presently take up that term -- I suppose, John Zerzan? Kirkpatrick Sale? -- with which I importantly disagree. I do wonder how many champions of consensus science, boosters of medical r & d funding, accountability, and science education, and advocates of informed, nonduressed consensual prosthetic self-determination, whether it is normativizing or not, throng the ranks of "the bioluddites" after all?

In any case, here is my response to His High Holy Pontifex of the Order of Cosmic Engineers, Robot Cultist Giulio Prisco, of whom I expect Ben Goertzel approves far more than he does the likes of me:
Transhumanism is a discourse, and so it can be analyzed as a discourse; transhumanism is a movement, self-described, with members, self-identified, and so it can be analyzed as a movement. Any criticism at the level of generality of the discourse or the movement you disapprove of you then declare to be defamation of individuals because each individual differs (obviously, however minutely) in her deployment of the discourse and in her affiliation as a member.

But that’s not the way it works. In deploying the discourse, in assuming the membership you open yourself to scrutiny vis-a-vis the general discourse, as a self-identified member of the movement or sub(cult)ure -- just as, presumably, you gain the unique pleasures of that deployment and membership that attract you to it -- just as, in publishing opinions you open yourself to critical scrutiny.

When a discourse with which you are affiliated -- especially a marginal one you assume very conspicuously by choice -- is criticized you should first determine if the shoe fits and then, if it does, wear it or not, but if you find the criticism inapplicable to you the question remains whether or not it is applicable more generally and if it is whether your own disapproval of it creates a special obligation for you resist it as someone who still affirms the affiliation despite the disagreement.

As anybody with the meanest intelligence who reads my critique will discover soon enough, I argue not that all transhumanist-identified individuals (most of whom I don’t know after all, and few of whom I know at all well) are explicitly fulminating Nazis but simply that there is a structural endorsement of parochial visions of optimality that trump consent in “enhancement” discourses like transhumanism, sometimes against the grain of actually expressed convictions (which can mean hypocrisy, incomprehension, skewed priorities, any number of things), and also that the True Believer/Would-be Authority circuit most pronounced in cult formations is also exhibited in marginal and hence defensive transhumanist sub(cult)ure, as a movement defined by affiliation based less on arguments than on shared identification with idealized and marginal technodevelopmental outcomes (and you can whine all you want, the distinctive views and aspirations of transhumanism are indeed flabbergastingly marginal from scientific consensus and mainstream progressivity, and that marginality is a factual question for which the evidences are legion).

I think superlative futurology is ridiculous and dangerous and symptomatic and all that shows in my writing about it and I cheerfully stand by that. I don’t mince words nor do I dissemble my views. I’m not trying to persuade you, Giulio, heaven knows, because it is my honest assessment after literally years and years of sparring with you, that you are unavailable to such persuasion. Instead, not to put too fine a point on it, I’m trying to expose you, and thereby to warn others from being taken in, so as to limit the very real damage I think you do to sensible public technodevelopmental deliberation at the worst possible historical moment.

You needn’t worry, I don’t feel particularly “insulted” by your clumsy misapplication of the term "bioluddite" to me -- I am simply pointing to the obvious stupidity of the assignment, given the things words actually mean, the histories and dispute actually in play around such designations, and given my positions on relevant issues actually easily available to be read by anybody who cares to do.

I eagerly await your scintillating reply. Some variation of I know you are but what am I usually seems to suit you. Go with what you know.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

What's this guys problem? Sounds like you two need to just fuck and get it over with. Seriously.

Dale Carrico said...

Who knew Maureen Dowd reads Amor Mundi?

jimf said...

> Singularitarian Ben Goertzel's assessment of the post and
> thread in question ["Let's Be Mean To Giulio Prisco":]
> "bizarrely retarded luddite ranting" . . .

Dr. [so claims Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Future_and_You ]
Prisco may in fact simply be intellectually incapable of following the
discussions here, and not just bluffing and blustering his
way out of a tight corner. I've never seen Prisco argue on any
higher plane than he's exhibited here.

Dr. Goertzel, on the other hand, is not a stupid man. He knows
better than to label well-reasoned reservations about transhumanism
(and particularly about the singularitarian variety) as merely "bizarrely
retarded luddite ranting". He is certainly, based on my reading of him,
capable of understanding the arguments presented on this blog. And he's
never struck me as being as outright, well, nuts as some of the
other SL4-ians. OTOH, he's thrown his lot in with SIAI, and
he's been trying to finance his own approach to AI for many
years now, so he's hardly an impartial observer.

So it goes.

-- Your faithful disciple

JM Inc. said...

You know I find comments like this, "... Prisco may in fact simply be intellectually incapable of following the discussions here ... I've never seen Prisco argue on any higher plane than he's exhibited here", deeply problematic. Not that I disagree with the sentiment expressed, it's just that you've expressed it in terms I find problematic for their hard-and-fast-distinctionism. Certainly I have no disagrement with, for instance, "bluffing and blustering", but, come now, let's not implicitly blow the triangle of our own "intellectual" "higherness".

As for Goertzel, I know less of him than some of the others, but wasn't he the one who said something like, ten years to robotic super deity if we really, really clap our hands*ahem-hem!* --I mean, really try? It strikes me to be missing the point of the point here, to describe the players in this farce in terms of their "intelligence" or their "stupidity" (a bit more hard-and-fast-ism?), when the issue is entirely, as Dale so assiduously points out, that the point of the point is that this is a movementarian discourse, and that it needs to be treated as such. Ben Goertzel could legitimately be the biggest, most turgid*AHEM!* --the smartest supergenius of them all, but that rather misses the point, wouldn't you say?

jimf said...

"JM, Inc." wrote:

> As for Goertzel. . . wasn't he the one who said something like,
> ten years to robotic super deity if we really, really clap our
> hands*ahem-hem!* --I mean, really try? . . . Ben Goertzel could
> legitimately be the biggest, most turgid*AHEM!* --the smartest
> supergenius of them all, but that rather misses the point, wouldn't
> you say?

Well, Goertzel did say the following (two and a half years ago):

> $5M . . . is a fair estimate of what I think it would
> take to create Singularity based on further developing
> the current Novamente technology and design.

( http://www.mail-archive.com/singularity@v2.listbox.com/msg00269.html )

But the point I was trying to make was simply that Goertzel has
demonstrated himself capable of writing articles as measured
and sophisticated as the following:

The Extropian Creed: Can High Technology and Libertarian Politics
Lead us to a Transhuman Golden Age?
Ben Goertzel
September 2000
http://www.goertzel.org/benzine/extropians.htm

I could at least imagine (in contrast to his brusque dismissal quoted
above) Goertzel engaging in a discussion of issues raised by Dale
and others on this blog with a considerable degree of understanding
and appreciation of the subtleties and shades of meaning
involved in the arguments. (Not that Goertzel would ever **deign**
to participate in such a discussion. On the contrary, he
has rather tended to stay out of such controversies, perhaps
because he is non-confrontational by temperament -- that has in
fact been my impression of the man -- or perhaps because he's
too politically savvy to tip his hand so blatantly.)

Prisco, on the other hand, has never struck me as anything better than
a buffoon. He is, as has been pointed out by others, simply
deaf to the arguments presented here, which means that either
1) the lack of motivation entailed by his deafness results in
his intellectual capacity, such as it is, never being usefully
engaged in his comments here or 2) there isn't much intellectual
capacity to be engaged in the first place. OK, so let's give
him the benefit of the doubt and call it 1).