[Critique Group 2] Tomorrow is sub due day for the following Thursday

[tuchyner5 at aol.com]

Below is my sub.  I think my messages are getting too wordy.

Leonard
860  words

Overcoming Our Old Programming

 

 

I recently read, in a science fiction story involvingartificial intelligence, that “intelligence”is defined as the ability to override one’s programming. I was blown awayby the implications of that definition. The story was not just talking about AI(artificial intelligence), but also of organic intelligence. 

 

All creatures are pre-programmed. For example, some animals areprogrammed to run away when confronted with certain kinds of danger. Whencircumstances don’t leave the option of flight, these same animals switch to adifferent program track, which is one directing them to attack the source ofdanger such as a predator.  Possums areprogrammed to play dead. It is an automatic response, once the possum isconvinced there are no other options. 

 

In the book Red Badge of Courage, a young soldier isforced to flee when his fear overtakes him. However, given time to absorb thisinitial bout with fear, he chooses to override his natural fear programming andrespond with fight instead of flight, even though the fear remains.  On the other hand, he could have chosen tojump programming tracks and switch from fear to anger. Or maybe he could havecome to understand that living as a coward was more threatening to his survivalas a worthwhile human being than dying. Did he decide that self esteem was worth dying for? Whether his choicewas right or wrong is really not the issue. The point is that he had toovercome his natural reflex programming to make the decision, and that processtook real intelligence.  

 

Even among the same species, programming can be specific tothe individual. For some humans, anger is the go-to emotion when faced with danger.They are natural berserkers. Flying into a rage can be very effective in abattle for one’s life.  Nevertheless, thebetter choice is to remain calm and maintain control in a battle.  Maintaining control means monitoring one’sreflex programming in order to exercise intelligence.

 

The issue goes deep. There are biological imperatives uponwhich much of evolution is based. The old programming requires that one needsto respond to aggression with a greater amount of aggression, if he or she hasthe capacity to do so. The choice of turning the other cheek is not our firstprogrammed reaction to someone who is trying to hurt us, at least not if we arebigger, stronger, faster, richer, or if we have a gun. Ants, chimpanzees, baboonsand many other animals go to war.  I amnot sure that ants have any choice about it. Chimps will run away if they don’tthink they can win.  Whatever the choice,it is always the one that seems to provide the best outcome for one’s physical preservationor, self aggrandizement. 

 

Those options, which have served us well in the past, arethe same ones that are leading to our degradation. How we respond to globalwarming is an example to illustrate my point. The old programming tells us toget all we can in the short run and not deprive ourselves of physical bounty.  After all, in our gatherer-hunter era we werein no danger of overindulgence.  Gettingall we could get while the getting was good was probably the most effectivealgorithm. If we used up the resources in any given place, we could always moveon. There were plenty of places to move on to. By the time we got back to aused- up place, it most likely would have recovered. Even if we killed off themastodons, there were still plenty of deer and moose. Some groups of peoplelearned how to live within their resources, by respecting their environments,but there were always the others who did not, and who were willing to take fromthose who tried to live a more balanced way of life. The takers took and therest of the world gave, whether they wanted to or not.  From the takers’ point of view, there wasalways more to be taken. The land and oceans were, to their limitedperspective, limitless.

 

We tend to be in denial when faced with evidence that selfrestraint is to our advantage, in the long run. We have the capacity to seebeyond the short run, and through this ability we can override the old directives.Sometimes we do. Most of the time, we don’t. We allow ourselves to be controlledby these ancient programs. When we fail to overcome these old habits, weultimately suffer for it. History is filled with examples of this truth.

 

The question is, can we rise above our antiquated,evolutionary programming, and re-write our code?  Just knowing that this is an option provesthat the code can be re-written. In fact, I believe that the alternative programsare already written and are a part of natural evolution, even if it seems to goagainst the grain. Old habits are hard to break, despite the fact that newer patternsare accessible to us.  Will we, as aspecies, choose these new patterns which are required in our new, evolvingenvironment?

 

If so, this would be a good time to do it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bluegrasspals.com/pipermail/group2/attachments/20180919/5eaaaa7c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 9 15 18 overcoming programing.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 31232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://bluegrasspals.com/pipermail/group2/attachments/20180919/5eaaaa7c/attachment-0001.doc>