Philosophy 101 Unit 1

I do not recall whether Clarke addresses this, but I was thinking about it.  I like to think about what some might call ‘utopias’ and devise ideology and mechanisms, and all the stuff that would make it work on paper.

Here’s a thought (I think it is original, and it crosses quite a few threads):

Clarke sees human as a collection of tools, right? That is to say, each one of us is nothing more than the collection and application of tools biological, synthetic, or otherwise.  Expanding this in both directions arrives at an interesting result (backfeeds into a thought I’d had before discussing Clark): every ‘tool’ is made of ‘tools’ below it–some of them are physically present, but some of them were only used in making the final result.  For instance, if not for the wrench and torch which tighten the bolts and weld the joints, and the bolts themselves, the structure would not exist.  The wrench is just as much a part of the structures it builds as the bolts it tightened.

Expanding in the other direction, if we are a collection of tools, what keeps us from taking a look at us (or maybe the ‘executor’ or ‘organizing’ tool within for a given task–I am not calling this a privelidged user, merely a collector/organizer) and considering ourselves at any given moment as a single tool.  If we consider this the case, then does that not mean we could all be part of a greater ‘tool’ or device?

If this is the case, why don’t we just throw it all together in a soup, considering all we’ve talked about in class–AI, technology, extended self, etc.–and see just what we might be capable of?  I’m thinking, imagine each person as a component, a switch, within a greater computer–it’s already like this.  Every person is unique and different, but so is every neutron, but all neutrons behave in roughly the same way when seen from the macro scale.  This is what science does for us–it let’s us see the bigger picture, instead of just a mashup of first-hand experiences.

Consider the qualities which are usually assigned to people.  A person could be a mother, brother, father, son, sister, black, white, African, Irish, Arab, scientist, aestheticist, Christian, vegetarian, activist of any form, etc. etc.  The plethora of descriptors which apply to people will apply in combination, as any one person falls into so many different ‘categories’.  Some may call it stereo-typing, but when a trend fits effectively, and real thought is used to categorize, a ’society’ turns into little more than a computer.  This machine is quite nearly a discrete state machine from the largest scale, and this machine had to be self-programmed throughout our existence, however the ‘classes’ which exist–not just economic classes, but societal, career, political, etc. etc.–have become so segmented and discrete (even if we try to draw blurry boundaries) ‘priveledged users’ have come into existence.  These priveledged users hold the concentrated power of will of a class or populous as a whole.  Examples include representatives in government, corporate heads, large religious institutions, media (which falls under corporate and a hybrid between corporate and government).

What I propose is an effort to increase self awareness–even if you disagree with the initial premise–to program the machine ourselves.  Let’s see just what we are capable of, as a people, united in intellectual capability.  If we build machines evidently capable of similar mental activity, let them join us.  In short, let’s try infinite recursion with the most powerful, emotional, loving, respectable, yet dispicable, but oh so wonderful machine in the universe (so far as we know).