Beware of What Appears as an Obstacle (Week 53 of Wisdom)

In the last few decades, the possibility of downloading our thoughts into machines has been widely discussed. And just as with the internet, and computers, the people who first talked about cyborgs were small in number, and eccentric in character. But now, the idea of human-machine intelligence has entered into the mainstream.

Especially with people like Ray Kurzweil predicting that this day will come before the year 2030, and Elon Musk warning the world of what would happen if the human-machine merger does not take place. Musk tweeted, “If you can’t beat them, join them.” The idea is that failure to ramp up our capacities would spell disaster for the human race. AI would be far too powerful for us to keep up.

Neuralink was established in 2016. The company is aiming to establish the first neural implant, called the Link, that will allow people to control a computer or mobile anywhere they go. The Link works by inserting “micron-scale threads” into areas of the brain that control movement. In turn, these threads connect to the implant.

Musk constantly has created hype for Neuralink, at one point saying that monkeys have already been able to use this technology to control a computer. And according to Zizek, researchers have been using this technology on rats for decades.

But interestingly, Musk thinks that in the future, language will become obsolete.

On the Joe Rogan Podcast, he said that you wouldn’t need to talk, but could choose to do it for sentimental reasons. Without the obstruction of language, you could communicate your ideas far more quickly and precisely. And if you wanted to speak a different language, all you need to do is download a program.

But is he right? The question is not merely a technical one, but a philosophical one. First, is it possible to think without language? Second, is it possible to be free without language?

Communication Without Language

Can you communicate without the imposition of a culturally shared language like English? Yes, that’s what programmers do for a living. But is it possible to think without language?

Writing is clearly a form of thinking, and the difficulty of writing is not merely in communicating what you think, but doing so in a way that other people can understand. In other words, language is a social game, or more precisely, it is a relational game.

It is not necessarily social because I could theoretically create a language that only I could understand. The relation here would be between myself in the past and myself in the future.

The relation can also be between a human and a machine. So, language does not have to be social, but it must be relational.

In the future, if you wanted to communicate with other people, the question would be twofold: Can you think without language? Can you communicate ideas that can be understood by others without language?

It is not clear that thought is possible without language. Again, let’s be more precise. It is not clear what *kind *of thought is possible without language. To illustrate why, imagine a caveman that existed 5000 years ago was sitting beside Bertrand Russell in 2030.

The caveman undoubtedly has thoughts, but what is the range of these thoughts? Can he come up with speculative business ideas? Can he have a debate about philosophy or religion? Can he create melodies? Can he think about poetry?

Both Bertrand Russel and the caveman are anatomically the same, but their experiences are different, the way they relate to the world is different, and the way they express themselves are different.

Now, let us assume that Musk’s team at Neuralink have hooked the Link to Bertrand Russel’s brain, and now it can read his thoughts. What would happen if you asked him to communicate with the caveman? If you believe Elon, then it should be possible for the caveman to understand what Russel is saying. But this is not clear.

The Obstacle is a Problem Problem

The problem, according to Elon is input and output speed. Typing is too slow, language is too cumbersome. If only we can do away with language, we would be able to communicate with lightning speed. But, in reality, the obstacle (cumbersome language) is not the problem – it is the solution.

Slavoj Zizek gives a couple of light-hearted examples to make this point.

Zizek gives us an interesting example about French cuisine that was told to him by a French friend of his. Rotten cheese, which is now considered a delicacy, had its roots in a failure. It was because farmers were too lazy, that the cheese rot, and it was because of this mistake, that a new product was created and sold to the market. The same can be said about champagne, which is the same laziness that was applied towards wine. A perceived error or mistake can lead to a solution. One would usually perceive “laziness” as a problem to be overcome, but it was laziness that created a new product that made the farmers a lot of money.

Another example. Zizek’s friend (a female) said that her last lover who saw her naked told her that she would have have a perfect body if she only lost 2 or 3 pounds. So what did he do? He instantly advised her to not lose the 2 or 3 pounds. If she succeeds, then she gets the body, but then she realizes it is just an ordinary body. In other words, it is the mirage of a perfect body keeps her motivated. If she loses the 3 pounds and realizes she has a normal body, she will lose motivation. Here is another example of how a perceived obstacle is actually a good thing.

So, Elon Musk perceives language as an obstacle, because it is slow and cumbersome. If only we did away with it, the same way we should do away with laziness and with the 2 or 3 extra pounds, the problem would be solved. What he is missing is to see the value of dialectics, which is what Hegel talked about.

Leave always something to be desired, so that you always have an ideal to aim towards. With knowledge, the same trick must be played. If, for example, you convince yourself that reading these 5 classic will perfect your knowledge of Greek philosophy. The trick here is to not read them. Because when, after you have read them, you have not achieved perfect knowledge, you will be discouraged.

The reason this is counter-intuitive is because what we automatically do is the opposite. We set a reasonable goal, and once we have achieved it, we realize that we have nothing else to motivate us. That is why the goal you set cannot be too ambitious that you can ever achieve it, and it can also not be too easy, so that you achieve it too quickly. The trick is to figure out a goal that is ultimately challenging enough to keep you motivated, and at the same time, allows for increments of progress that give you the impression that you are getting closer to your goal.

The problem is that our brains evolved through language, and we relate to each other through language. So unless our brain becomes anatomically different, and the way we communicate with each other changes.

Elon Musk in Neuralink is doing the same. He famously said that a “sexual experience” can eventually be saved and shared.

Our thoughts will be directly socialized without the mediation of language.

But Zizek notes that words are not a material obstacle. You cannot think without words.

Hegel said beware

In Lost, the Struggle

**Locke : ***[to teach Charlie, who is struggling through heroin withdraw, a lesson]  What do you suppose is in that cocoon, Charlie?

**Charlie : **I don’t know. A – a – a butterfly, I guess.

**Locke : **No, it’s much more beautiful than that. That’s a moth cocoon. It’s ironic – butterflies get all the attention, but moths, they spin silk. They’re stronger. They’re faster.

**Charlie : **That’s wonderful, but…

**Locke : **You see this little hole? This moth’s just about to emerge. It’s in there right now, struggling. It’s digging it’s way through the thick hide of the cocoon. Now, I could help it – take my knife, gently widen the opening, and the moth would be free – but it would be too weak to survive. Struggle is nature’s way of strengthening it. Now this is the second time you’ve asked me for your drugs back… ask me again, and it’s yours

So why does it seem as if the world is in decline? Largely because we are much less willing to tolerate misfortune and misery. Even though the amount of violence in the world has greatly decreased, we focus on the number of people who die each year in wars because our outrage at injustice has grown. As it should.

Here’s another worry that Harari deals with: In an increasingly complex world, how can any of us have enough information to make educated decisions? It’s tempting to turn to experts, but how do you know they’re not just following the herd? “The problem of groupthink and individual ignorance besets not just ordinary voters and customers,” he writes, “but also presidents and CEOs.” That rang true to me from my experience at both Microsoft and the Gates Foundation. I have to be careful not to fool myself into thinking things are better—or worse—than they actually are.

Language-Writing-Internet – what is lost?

Individuality – what happens to our free will if we plugged into a social consciousness and we have no control of what thoughts are shared, and the illusion that we are in control of our own behavior?

YARPP List

Related posts:

1. What I Learned From Losing a Million Dollars Summary (8/10)
2. The Divided Mind: The Epidemic of Mind-body Disorders (8.7/10)
3. The Good Gut Summary (7/10)
4. The Grammarian and the Dervish (Tales of the Dervishes)