Artificial Happiness

Artificial Intelligence. We are there, and truth be told, we have been there for much of our sentient existence. If artificial is “pretended; assumed; insincere” and intelligence is “the faculty of understanding” then as humans who pretend to understand, WE ARE artificial intelligence. Now here comes the spectrum. On one end, Myth, Doctrine, Tradition; on the other end, Questions, Progress, Technology. If humans were the highest form of intelligence, there would be no spectrum, no disagreement, no artifice; there would only be improvement, fulfillment, happiness. We call a computer with the capacity to learn, artificial, but we've got it backwards; by removing the human (and all their subjective baggage) as filter what you've got in the computer is an unsullied, pure, lucid intelligence that has the potential for far more objectivity; a higher level of intelligence. We've got it Backwards!!!!

Regarding human (i.e. artificial) intelligence I believe we have a greater chance for survival on the Technology end of the spectrum. But unless we realize we are not the highest level of intelligence, our chances for survival there are not much better than if we all settled on the Tradition end of the spectrum. Immediately below is an example of Technology as artifice.

In the not-too-distant past, the practice of medicine relied on knowledge, lifelong learning, and hard work. Today, the practice of medicine relies on a broad understanding of medical science and the ability to utilize better and better technology. And I believe we have transitioned and are transitioning our medical education and training to accommodate our need for more medical professionals in this complex, expanding, shrinking world. We are lowering the bar in this context of improving technology, and we are receiving better medical care from less qualified doctors. Thanks to technology, we are able to increase both quantity and quality. Perhaps we have no choice. This is an oversimplification, but the artifice, the pretending, the assuming remains a constant. In the past and today it is pride and prestige, but additionally in today's equation it is the medical professional taking and/or receiving credit for the technology.

Now for an example of Tradition as artifice.

Recently, I was told, “You don't think like normal people.” How do you respond to someone who tells you this? I am pretty confident that his definition of normal people is those who think like him; God and Country and Tradition and Might makes Right. When he said this, the context was political; the specific discussion point was capitalism. Again, this is oversimplified, and again, the artifice, the pretending, the assuming remains a constant; in this equation it is as it ever was the authority of and the confidence in tradition.

One of the major takeaways from this thought (for me) has nothing to do with Tradition vs. Progress but is the hard-hitting realization that no matter how righteous or indignant or certain any one individual or faction may be, and/or no matter how helpful or compassionate or concerned any one individual or faction is or pretends to be, human intelligence is and always will be artificial. I have come to believe that our best chance for survival would be to go all in by removing the human as filter and allowing the greater intelligence (in whatever form it takes) to stand alone. To be clear: I am not saying remove the human entirely; I am saying remove the human as filter. If allowed, we can have our place, but I believe we have reached a TimePlace where higher forms of intelligence are possible. We should take advantage.

Today I gifted Matthew Desmond's latest book “Poverty, By America” to two different relatives with this thought: “You say I am angry. You say I don't think like normal people. I say anger is necessary. I say not normal is necessary. I say read this book and work with me to make things better.”

We are so entrenched in our righteous certainty that we are unable to resolve even an easily resolvable issue such as poverty. And if we don't take this first step to move on, I am afraid Nature eventually will.

This entry was posted in Philosophy. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *