For example - war (a social process) produces more war; war is an artificial intelligence. Do you agree with that?
-
-
the problem is that individual wars and bubbles normally come to an end, in a way that capital doesn't, so I guess my take would be that to the extent that they are intelligent, they are so as part of the larger process of capital
-
why is that a problem? are you saying that a process cannot be considered to be an artificial intelligence unless it goes on forever?
-
let me put it this way, the more it goes on, all the while self-sophisticating, the intelligenterer it obviously is or, alternatively: if it stops, it also stops being intelligent (unless its beginning and end are just part of a larger process, that is)
-
where do you fit humans into this schema? are humans intelligent beings?
-
The problem with that way of framing it imo is that it conceives of intelligence as an individual property of clearly distinguishable entities, when I'd prefer to view it as a process that operates via the complex interactions of any such identifiable things, including humans ofc
-
in other words, a process - such as a war or a financial bubble - involving humans can be intelligent (if it exhibits the escalatory, "self-enhancing" principle), but individual humans cannot
-
humans are processes too u know... and no, processes are not so much intelligent, as intelligence is itself a process, actualized through processes
-
so capital (indeed any process) is not, in the final analysis, intelligent?
- 10 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.