[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

BTW, I am taken with Searles Chinese box argument, but a fully virtualised brain could by-pass the question of intentionality.

I've had a brief look at this issue, and I'm struck by two of its ideological starting points:a) brain = mind;b) the 'individualist' context of the interactions.Discussions about thinking, intelligence, consciousness and intentionality are related to 'mind'. 'Mind' is a social category, not a biological one, so searching for those characteristics in a 'brain' would be like searching for 'speed' in a statue of the spirit of ecstacy on the bonnet of a stationary rolls-royce.Only a society that values 'individuals' and 'geniuses' would see 'a brain' as a starting point for these researches. For this type of society, 'intelligence' is some phenomenon in individuals, rather than a social product.If, however, 'intelligence' is regarded as seated in society, the only way to create artificial intelligence would be to create a suitable society, rather than a 'brain'.In this sense, we could regard humanity's creation of a communist society as the supreme act of producing an artificial intelligence ('artificial' in the sense of something which doesn't exist 'naturally', but which must be consciously crafted by humans).If this line is taken, an AI scientist must be a communist to conduct serious research, regarding its materials, theories, purposes, aims, etc.If an AI scientist uses bourgeois science, with its ideological assumptions, in my opinion they might as well be making mud pies and be trying to converse with them.This is all off my head – what do other comrades think?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Well, it's a philosophical problem that might be solved by computing methods.

The 'techies' answer!

YMS wrote:

Though the computer tech response is to say that the question of whether a computer can think is as uninteresting as asking whether a submarine can swim.

Isn't it just!

YMS wrote:

After all, Bertrand Russell after 350+ pages didn't manage to prove 1+1=2 (he got to a partial proof, but never managed to define addition), but that doesn't stop us using maths in any case.

Ahh, 'using'! The instrumental key to the universe!

YMS wrote:

A computer beat Gary Kasparov at chess (with, yes, the help of human programmers),…

With the 'help' of what? A 'computer' needing help? Strange concept, with them being so 'intelligent'…

YMS wrote:

…so we know that 'intelligence-like' capabilities can be produced by computers…

Riiiiight… so 'intelligence' is… 'playing chess'…     with… the… help… of… humans……hmmm… seems to be 'humans' involved in all the definitions, so far…

YMS wrote:

…up to the point where we may get computer designers producing schematics of cars for robot factories to build.

So,… the human 'designers' produce… and the robots do the donkey work…Obviously, these 'robots' have even less 'intelligence' than the 'computers'!

YMS wrote:

BTW, I am taken with Searles Chinese box argument, but a fully virtualised brain could by-pass the question of intentionality.

You'll have to bring out the relevance of this for communists, comrade. I'm in the dark.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

…we create greater than human intelligence, and brain simulation…

Isn't this really a philosophical problem, rather than a computing problem?That is, we humans can't yet define 'intelligence', never mind 'duplicate' it!And surely 'brain simulation' is not simply the same as 'consciousness'?

YMS wrote:

Of course, this opens up the door to concepts such as advanced computers planning the economy, and using artificial minds for all sorts of expert systems…

The bourgeois dream! Expert systems!Then they can remove the brains out of those pesky proletarians, who have needs and desires that 'advanced computers' with their 'artificial minds' cannot even dream of!Oops… we need dreams for production… damn…

[LBird]

Alf wrote:

If you want to call these factors 'objective', OK. There is never a total separation between subjective and objective. But if you call everything objective, where does that leave the subjective factor?

[my bold]The 'subjective' factor is class-conscious action.From what I can tell, comrades here are arguing that, to have that form of subjective action, requires the pre-existence of the objective factor of 'class-consciousness'.On the contrary, if 'consciousness' is defined as a subjective factor, and thus doesn't need to be in existence at the point of action, it only requires someone else with the necessary consciousness to provide it to the still unconscious proletariat, which will, during that process, learn it from the 'someone else'.As I've said to you (and the ICC) before, I'm not a Leninist, and I think that the proletariat has to have a class consciousness before it can take this subjective action. I don't think this can be acquired during the process itself, because the process will be driven by the existing level of consciousness that obtains at the point of action. If the proletariat is still dominated by ruling class ideas, this backwardness will shape the course of events, to our detriment.Unless, that is, the unconscious proletariat has a willing and helpful teacher to hold its hand whilst it develops itself, and to scold it if it doesn't pay attention.Seems an unlikely series of events to me, comrade.The proletariat must have come to teach.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

That is, until the workers become conscious … Which is an objective condition …

Seems to be another vote for the notion that 'class consciousness' is an objective requirement, and that it doesn't yet exist.The ICC's theory of 'decadence' seems to be based on the assumption that the objective conditions for communism already exist, and have existed for 100 years, and that 'consciousness', being defined as a subjective factor, can be brought into existence by an effort of revolutionary will.Can Alf comment further on the links between decadence, consciousness, object/subject and voluntarism?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

If we can't get your membership, will still gladly take your money !!!

My 'money'? Whatever happened to 'Free access communism'?I know, I know… the 'objective' conditions don't yet exist… Hoisted by my own petard!

[LBird]

gnome wrote:

LBird wrote:

Anyway, I'm glad to hear it, and it only moves me closer to the SPGB.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/membership-application

I think that I'm with Marx on this one.Groucho, that is.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I thought we'd cleared up that the SPGB does not advocate "elite specialist control" of science in a socialist society.

LBird wrote:

…if…

I was indulging alanjjohnstone's desire to return that thread to focus on his initial question.But since you've raised the issue, again, quite frankly it took some time to reach the conclusion that the SPGB is in favour of the complete democratic control of the entire process of science, no 'ifs or buts', and many posters didn't seem to be aware of that stance before I raised the issue.Anyway, I'm glad to hear it, and it only moves me closer to the SPGB.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Of course everything that happens is objective…

Hmmm… surely the 'objective' exists before the 'happening', and the 'subjective' causes the 'happening', thus creating a new 'objective'?In short, humans change reality. But an existing reality must exist first. That is, the material conditions of the economic and ideological (industry and consciousness) are objective, and then the subjective act of the proletariat changes the political structure.I think defining what we consider to be the 'objective' conditions is at the heart of the issue with Alf and the ICC. I think that this definition of what conditions exactly are 'objective' has political implications about the timing, nature, extent and purposes of the revolution.PS. I think I agree with the rest of the political points that you make.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

An ever present part of the SPGB case is the necessity of socialists for the establishment of socialism, so LBird i guess you are correct about consciouness being an objective requirement for ourselves.

[my italics and bold]Do I get a gold star?Well, it serves the didactic purpose of throwing the SPGB's and the ICC's positions into sharp relief.The perspective follows from that theoretical base.The ICC thinks that all the proletariat needs is a party, now, at present. Objectively, the class is ready. This gives a shorter perspective.The SPGB (and I) thinks that all the proletariat needs is consciousness, then, in the future. Objectively, the class is not ready. This gives a longer perspective.

[LBird]

pfbcarlisle wrote:

B.t.w. LBird, I agree with your point about class consciousness being an objective factor – ideas constituting a material reality, being a material factor in society.

Yeah, ideas are 'real'. Only the mechanical materialists, that Marx thought he'd gone beyond, see any mention of 'ideas' as constituting 'idealism'. I was accused of that for stressing Marx's 'active side' on the other thread.

pfbcarlisle wrote:

But as someone who has spent decades avoiding philosophy and science – and the science of philosophy, and the philosophy of science – I daren't say owt else about these matters

It's the job of communists who've studied these issues to explain them in clearer language than the academics, who make a career (and salaries) out of making it all seem too complicated for us thickoes to understand.Comrades asking questions, and demanding simpler explanations, are the key to the process – being forced to explain properly also teaches the 'teacher'. Learners teach 'teachers'. I learn everytime I try to explain.Pity I can't do it properly, yet.

[LBird]

Hello, again, Alf!

Alf wrote:

It seems to me that LBird and the SPGB do share a lot in their conception of how the majority become communist, even if the former sees this taking place through elections to the workers' councils and the latter primarily through elections to parliament.

Yeah, I'm still not too sure about the SPGB approach, perhaps its difference from mine is only one of emphasis.I'd expect the proletariat to begin to set up its own institutions (on a growing scale, educational circles, district co-ordinations, etc., preparing for, through experience, organisation and spirit, and leading to, workers' councils). But this could take place in conjunction with a parliamentary campaign, used as a 'thermometer' of class consciousness of the even wider proletariat. The taking of power in this scenario would be a conjunction of autonomous physical power of the councils combined with the ideological power of 'winning a democratic vote' in the eyes of those waverers still hamstrung by 'parliamentarism', including other classes like the petit-bourgeosie and state employees, like soldiers, police and civil servants.I'm not too clear on all this, and can only learn from a discussion, here.But don't forget, neither Lenin nor Luxembourg were successful revolutionaries, so while of course we should read their ideas, we are now a century later and have ourselves learned a thing or two since they lived, thought and fought.Not least, mass consciousness is a pre-requisite, otherwise the 'leaders' have to do the 'thinking' for a mass who don't fully understand what they are doing.The 'benighted' proletariat won't 'stumble into' communism, by the grace of 'revolutionaries'.This is why I'd argue that 'class consciousness' is an objective factor, which doesn't yet exist.

[LBird]

Socialist Standard, 1906, wrote:

Socialism is possible when the workers, organised in the Socialist Party, proceed to establish it.

[my bold]Sounds like the SPGB agree with me, that 'class consciousness' is an objective requirement for communism, and that this objective requirement does not yet exist (or didn't in 1906, and the SPGB still thinks that this is the case). This puts us at odds with Alf.

Alf wrote:

On the 'maturity' of conditions. We think that decadence implies that the 'objective' conditions for communism have existed for a long time – about 100 years.

[my bold]Is this the essential difference between 'Leninists' and 'Marxists'? Leninists think that the objective conditions already exist, and so their party can introduce communism by subjective action; ie. they are voluntarists?Whereas Marxists put the emphasis on the class having consciousness before communism, and so we, as a class, are clearly not yet ripe for communism, whatever actions a party takes to 'introduce' it?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

As i said when i began the thread , my purpose was to use a criticism of an ex-member of the ICC who share a certain amount of similarity to ourselves as an organisation and it was intended to be more an inward looking thread. … But discussion list threads take on a life of their own.

Well, to focus on your starting point…

alanjjohnstone wrote:

To start off a discussion, my first question is …Has the SPGB made any mistakes? If so , what were or are they?

What is the SPGB 'line' on 'class consciousness', related to this thread? Is it 'subjective' as Alf suggests, or 'objective', as I've suggested.Further, related to our discussions on the 'free access' thread, what is the SPGB position on the 'democratic control of science'?I would argue that if the SPGB's answers are, respectively, 'subjective' and 'elite specialist control', then I think that 'the SPGB has made mistakes'.I could be wrong, of course…

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

This may be of interest http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/19/big-science-little-minds/ 'science fears that if it were more honest (and humble) about such matters it would lose its social authority. They don’t want that and the people who employ them, the government and corporations, do not want that…

No mention of 'democracy' in science within the article.Reiterates the problems with 'science' within capitalist society, but misses the opportunity to label it as 'bourgeois science' and make a plea for 'communist science' and the democratic control of human science by all humans.The danger with just lambasting 'science', without picking out what we consider the rational aspects of the method, is that it leaves open the road to romantics, post-modernism, relativism, individual opinion… witches, myths, ghosts…Our criticisms of 'science' must be constructive criticisms, not the destruction of 'science' in its entirety.We can afford to be 'more honest (and humble) about such matters' because our communist science would locate 'its social authority' in humanity, not specialists (or 'the people who employ them, the government and corporations').We need to build a case for 'science' that current scientists, disaffected by their experience of current 'science', can support.'Free access communism' would embrace the sort of blue-sky research that today's scientists can only dream about. Plus, scientific education available to all, freely available publications, etc., would show scientists that the only way of achieving their own dream of what science should be about would be by f.a.c.A questioning, critical humanity.

[Author]

Posts