A Topos in a Polytopia (what is?)
Project: Polytopia

Everything is real but the narrative makes the difference.


“We belong to a history that runs in the present. This is a fantastic thing! We belong to a history that runs in a continuous changing present. Yesterday is not now, tomorrow is not now, but we exist in a continuous NOW... we human beings, all living beings, the whole biosphere. Everything that we do, occurs now. Although human beings can speak about the past and the future, and live in the ideas of past and future, humans exist in the present. We live in the past and the future, but we exist in the present. “

Biosphere, Homosphere, and Robosphere
(Humberto Maturana and Pille Bunnell {pdf))


A topos is not simply a place, a topos is a narrative, it is in a manner of speaking, a modern way of exemplifying and explicating who am ‘I’ (as in my overall identity) and what is “we”, by pointing to that which interests my being and the being of others (other than me) in my/our/this evolutionary phase.

A topos is a term that expands upon the idea of a set of interconnected beings, the term clarifies a number of facets of our existence, namely that we are complex beings, existing and acting in a highly complex and interconnected environment.
Moreover, a topos as used in the term Polytopia contains primarily two basic components, the first being interest, the second being intelligence.
Intelligence and interest combine in a topos as the fundamental building blocks of a connectivity that inevitably leads to an increase in combined intelligence.

There are many ways of describing the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of conscious aware intelligent entities connection, correlation and collaboration, for our purpose here, this way is called a topos.

Therefore for the purpose of elucidating the dynamics of a Polytopia we need enlarge and enhance our understanding of what a topos is.

What is a topos then?

A topos can be said to be:

A. A set of coordinates having a definite and definable set of characteristics.
The coordinates of a topos can be either in space, in time, in the material universe, in the infosphere, in the metaverse, in mind or all of the above or some combination thereof.

The set of characteristics of a given topos need have at least one component attribute beyond the basic fundamental of ‘open to increase in combined interactive intelligence’ (a fundamental tenet of a Polytopia).

If, according to the oxford dictionary, Ethos stands for: "the characteristic spirit, prevalent tone of sentiment, of a people or community; the 'genius' of an institution or system", Topos stands for ‘the characteristic combined intelligence, prevalent direction of openness and transparency, of a set of definable coordinates that are inherently Rhizomatic, interesting and intelligent, free and evolving'.

A topos cannot in any case be based on a formal or contractual agreement; the definition of a topos if so need be updateable, upgradeable and true at the moment of usage, in other words a topos cannot be based on history and must be open ended and open sourced.
Can it be based on a future then? The answer is no. A topos cannot be based on the future (though it necessarily has a future, even if short lived), it must by implication of its definition be based on the concept of flow, the dynamic flow of events of minds interconnecting and hyperconnecting.

According to the above then a topos contains (or has also the attributes of) an ethos.

B. A topos constitutes the basic relational unit of consideration in a Polytopia. A topos can also be said to be the fractal unit of a Polytopia.

C. A topos always contains an evolutionary and developmental potential. As such a topos always implies betterment, improvement and motion, enhancement and allowance. A topos represents an enrichment of the state of affairs of mind, of culture, of life.
D. A topos is by definition humane, equitable, and collaborative, it cannot be owned in any fashion (no owner and no owning) and thus is fundamentally shareable both as a state (as in state of affairs of mind) and as an opening.
E. A topos is a semantic selection (choice of meaning/s) performed by a conscious aware intelligent entity; a collection of such semantic selections (or choice of meanings) can be considered a polytopia. (the semantic selection can also be called the bricks of the narrative or the theme of the topos).
F. Just as humans have many kinds of intelligences in different proportions, so do topos exemplify all of the characteristics of a collaborative organism but in different proportions, these proportions in turn define the set called a topos, the topos profile or silhouette.

“I worked out a mathematical theory, which says if we have a large enough diversity of molecules and chemical reactions, so many reactions will be catalyzed that you'll get some form of collective autocatalysis popping out of the soup. The mathematics has been proved, but it still needs to be shown experimentally. For years, I've been probing laws of self-organization that co-mingle with natural selection, and give rise to the order we see. And we're not very far, experimentally, from creating life all on our own.”

Stuart Kaufman (In Salon)

More:
#A conscious aware intelligent entity can be said to be a topos iff (if and only if) it encloses an independent and definable set of characteristics.
#An artificial intelligence, a cyborg, a hybrid, an alien, a clone, and so on, can definitely be said to be a topos if said criterion is met.
#A country or nation for example is Not a Topos (not inherently that is), for the simple reason that the basis for its definition as such (country or nation) is historically based. Same country or nation or people and similar can be called a topos if under certain coordinates of space and time the defining set of characteristics is momentarily based.
Polytopia does not hold a historiographic value to the meaning of collectives and thus topos is a unit of culture and not of society.
The continuous increased in-combined interactive intelligence, which is a Topos, dissimilates the private contour and at the same time dissimilates the raison d’être of the historiographically bound group, the ‘nation’, the ethno-centric group, etc.

Up to very recently (and largely in effect still), the historiographic definitions held the most powerful, sustainable rock-bottom axis for interaction between privates. It sort of held a promise and guarantee for successful interaction.
Yet, this axis belongs in and to the Monumental mind.
Monumental in the sense of: using an event/experience that was a forming pillar in the history of a group and was applied as an anchor of perception for a group identity. A monumental perception localizes in a static fashion, it holds time as a linear organizer and most importantly, it conveys connectivity between members that must maintain the Monument at the basis and center of interaction.

The monumental narrative exploits, so to speak, the same divide between a bio-person and the world, only on a larger scale, via group identity. It is also subject (within a wider historic perspective) to the entropic effects or chaos. Perhaps a contributor element to the strong ties invested and required for the sustenance of any static collective or society. A topos being dynamic and open, fluid and flowing thus inheres the chaotic effects of life and responds accordingly. In this a topos has dynamic and open (or fuzzy) anchors.

The Polytopian narrative adheres to the dynamic fuzzy anchors of Topos. It is, for that matter, a culture of Topos. In that, every particular mind consists of a number of Topos. Which is another way of saying that individuals are fractals of Polytopia.
Yet, it is essential to the Polytopian view to emphasize that not all interpersonal interactions are Topos.
That which discerns a Topos indeed is the characteristics of continuous increased in-combined interactive intelligence. A Topos thus affects and effects a synergic event which inherently renders new intelligence. A Topos is defined in terms of the relations and the direction within it. The interaction within Topos is an ecology for the emerging of new situations (state of affairs) endowed with intelligence and life. Topos thus breeds new topos, the ecology for breeding topos is called a Polytopia.

# A couple (as in married couple for ex.) can or cannot be called a topos according to one simple rule of thumb, namely: is this relationship conductive and inherently implicative of openness to combined interactive intelligence? If yes, it is possibly a topos, if not, not a topos.
#A group of humans may or may not be called a topos, the defining characteristic (iff) in this case is direction, openness and transparency.
An individual mind may or may not be defined as a topos depending on the answer to the question: is this particular mind inherently motivated towards increase in combined intelligence.

“We will combine our brainpower—the knowledge, skills, and personality quirks that make us human—with our computer power in order to think, reason, communicate, and create in ways we can scarcely even contemplate today.”

Ray Kurzweil (in Reinventing Humanity)

Notes:
1. Topos is a term borrowed from Greek and basically meaning a place. Yet in the Polytopia project definition Topos is referred to as a state of affairs or state of mind (state of affairs of mind).

2. The plural of topos is topoi but due to the usage of the term poly (many or diverse) in Polytopia it is suggested here that topos will stand both for a unique individuated set and for a group of sets; this will allow us to use the term topos for a variety of options furthermore emphasizing the necessity of the attribute of cooperation and collaboration when applying the term Polytopia.

—
Endnote:

In coming to answer the question: what needs does a Polytopia come to answer? I found myself in a certain kind of tension between definability and observability. The dynamics of our ever-changing present, the flow of the infoverse and the capacity to not be overwhelmed was on my mind constantly. I believe that we need invent our future so as to fit our complex minds, from this perspective I try to answer the question.
To my eyes, Polytopia comes to answer the need of the moment of change and transformation. A meta-concept that will permit a conceptualization (or a working context) of our dreams for a better future to come true.
I realize that these efforts might be in vain, nevertheless, our future as specie is much too precious to be left in the hands of ‘ve’been there ve’done that style’ of thought.
‘What need does Polytopia come to answer’ may best be described as a paradigmatic resolution of where the world is going to. This is an emotional-cognitive need that rises of the state of affairs of being involved in the world.

The continuous ‘Now’, our very existence in the present, as presence, requests a conceptual framework. A vehicle of thought, that is both transcending the past and allows the future to unfold accordingly.
Such a conceptual framework is the Polytopia. A Polytopia re-introduces the humane element in the advancement of civilization whilst invigorating the co-creation capability of the human mind in its collaborative effort of transcending its origins.

Polytopia is a term that comes to answer an array of needs, these range from the philosophical to the instinctual, from the cultural to the aesthetic, from the personal to the global, from the present to the future, from the local to the transnational, from the private to the communal, from the net to the grid, from individual intelligence to collective wisdom, from the pattern to the flock, from the emotional to the intellectual, from the social to the politic, from the historical to the envisioning and maybe above all, I see Polytopia as re-introducing the mythical dimension of existence in the full glory of its positive contribution to the thinking consciously aware intelligent entity known as Human.


to be continued..

Sun, Nov 30, 2008  Permanent link
Categories: polytopia, topos, superorganism, collective intelligence, Rhizomatics
Sent to project: Polytopia

City Wall
Project: Polytopia

CityWall is a large multi-touch display installed in a central location in Helsinki which acts as a collaborative and playful interface for the everchanging media landscape of the city. The new interface launched in October 2008 also allows working with 3D objects, which enables multiple content and multiple timelines.



CityWall presents images, videos, descriptions and discussions on how nature in Helsinki benefits and disturbs dwellers. A single tree, for instance, can be both a useful physical shelter, an appreciated element in the urban landscape, a source for an irritating pollinosis and a danger for traffic. Many of the changes in the benefits and nuisances of nature are, at least partly, dependent on human activities. The settling of rabbits as permanent residents to Helsinki, for instance, follows partly from global warming that allows released pet rabbits to survive winters in urban green areas. To participate in this discussion, visit CityWall Flickr page and add comments there. You can add images to this discussion by attaching tags "cwnicehki" for nice things and "cwnuishki" for things that are nuisance in Flickr (additionally put tag "cwhkirabbits" if the photo includes rabbits!). You will need to establish your own Flickr account for this (this is a free service).

The exhibition aims to evoke discussion e.g. on what nuisances people should just adapt themselves to, what nuisances they should fight or control, how different nuisances can be prevented and how benefits of nature can be improved. HIIT and SYKE use the exhibition in their research. Our studies aim to find out what benefits and uses people contribute and how an interaction-based multitouch input display works as a type of community chat tool to enable discussion on topical environmental issues.

CityWall also automatically downloads photos and videos from Flickr and YouTube that are tagged with tags 'helsinki', 'citywall' or 'cwhki'. This media is then presented in its own 'world'. Flickr images to CityWall have been added since May 2007. You can also send your comments to be shown on CityWall via SMS to +358505112572.

CityWall is located in downtown Helsinki, Finland. It can be found in Lasipalatsi opposite Forum.

The touchscreen technology and applications have been developed by the Ubiquitous Interaction group at the Helsinki Institute for Information Technology and Multitouch.

City wall

Wed, Nov 26, 2008  Permanent link
Categories: Citywall, Helsinki, Collaborative interface
Sent to project: Polytopia

Quality & Value, a Polytopian stance
Project: Polytopia

"The psychology of the mature human being is an unfolding, emergent, oscillating, spiraling process marked by progressive subordination of older, lower-order behavior systems to newer, higher-order systems as man's existential problems change.
"

Clare W. Graves (the futurist-1974)



Abstract

Quality I shall define here not as a property of a ‘something’ but as the relational attitude a conscious aware intelligent entity employs for the ‘e’/valuation of a given set of coordinates (topos).

Value for the purpose of this conceptualization we shall define as the property, which gives a quality its characteristics.

Therefore if quality is a relational attitude employed by a conscious aware intelligent entity then value is the determination of its characteristics.

A quality is thus a stance, a mind state of affairs having a definite set of characteristics or value.

Following the above it can now be stated that the quality/value of a given system reflects both its characteristics and the attitude contained therein. In other words, the quality/value of a given system implies/indicates its nature.

Following the above we can now state the following:
A system’s situation (state of affairs in time) indicated by its nature has at any given moment in time a quality/value that reflects its dynamic change.
Furthermore, given the faculty of reality assessment contained inherently in each and every being (conscious aware intelligent entity) and given that this faculty is in a continuous flow of change (evolution) it might be sensible to imply that reality is a continuous flow of quality/value assessment; a continuous flow of reality assessment, observed via its quality/value realization is thus the flow of knowing.

To know ‘something’ is therefore claimed here to be, the continuous reality assessment in time performed by a conscious aware intelligent entity, via its quality/value management.
Said quality/value management is that which determines both the actions to be taken and the ensuing (continuously updated) worldview.
Such a worldview can be said to be free from static (absolute) constraints and liberated in its self-reflection.

Finally, a Polytopian worldview softens the distinction between self and other, mind and objects, the world and I. A soft, upgradeable, updateable, dynamic quality/value assessment worldview, open ended and continuously flowing between diverse states of affairs (topos) is a Polytopian worldview.

An extended version


Evolution has endowed us with a penchant towards abstraction and ideation. This very inclination is what sits at the basis of our language capability, in fact it will be true to state that our penchant for abstraction has allowed us to, as it were, ‘invent’, terminologies that have no basis whatsoever in our perceptual mechanism. We have even invented a term to designate an abstract projection into a possible phase space of improbable realities, we call this: ‘belief’.

Belief is a hard won evolutionary capability that has allowed us to translate our capabilities of essence extraction (abstraction), into motivations and finally into actions. Said actions in turn create products, designs, art, poetry, hammers and even the Buddha-dharma. In fact, the flow of our minds, can be said to be a generalization of this very process, however what need be emphasized at this point is twofold: the process is both recursive (loop-like) and repetitive.
The above points of recursively occurring loops and repetitions are fundamental to the realization that the reality we ‘experience’ is multidimensional in nature and fuzzy in its own reflectivity.
The reference point of fuzziness is crucial, for from this fuzziness stems the idea of separation. The separation of the abstract conceptualization of ‘me’, and the ‘culture’ in which ‘I’ exist, the very basis of the Neolithic mind.

This apparent separation between ‘me’ as a subject of identity and ‘the culture’ in which I exist is based on an even more fundamental idea of separation, the separation between ‘me’, supposedly housed in the brain machine carried by ‘my’ body and entitled to the designation ‘I’ as a separate entity in the world, and the world. Given this state of affairs, the Neolithic brain system of perception (and representation), sees ‘me’ and the ‘objects in the world’ as relating to one another via a series of actions, attitudes and behaviors that carry a certain sense of distance (physical, mental, emotional and so on) which therefore require a system of values to critically employ the objects and the world to/for ‘my’ benefit.

There are many problems in this ‘wheel’ (system of values), first amongst which is the problem of identity (‘me’ as an intentional agent); without going now into the gritty details philosophical problem of the intentional agent, let us just assume temporarily that ‘I’ am an intentional agent able to perceive and conceive the world in a more or less, reasonable manner. In this case the worldview that I carry within me is the fundamental array of agreements both perceptual and social that eventually lets me qualify something (an object or a subject) and thus measure it. But, and there’s a great ‘but’ here, this whole arrangement can be sustained if and only if I view myself as separate from the world (the Neolithic view) in which and by which ‘I’ am a user and the world/culture/objects are there for me to use. If however we take the view (such as the Polytopia proposes) that the whole of existence is continuous and overlapping (via the agency of multiple characterized topos), we now have a situation in which there is no separation between ‘me’ and ‘the other’ (be it an object or indeed an other intentional agent, a culture or the world). What I find myself in is a smooth transitional phase space having different gradients and vectors of connectivity, or in other words, I am an extended Bioperson, moving within a large (er) and dynamic (flow) framework of characterizations. Within this motion there can be no fixed relations since the very idea of a measurement is based on stable/constant components allowing the measure to be related to a benchmark (whether natural or artificial).

The extended Bioperson is ‘me’ characterized by my perceptual extension/expansion in the infoverse via objects and other subjects, in this case the quality of being me and thus the objects, material, ideas, emotions and so on that I produce, are all reflections of the carving of information in different substrates of reality. The very multidimensional reality of this info-carving implies that it is intimately and inexorably intertwined with everything and everybody, in short, ‘I’, am as much part of the culture as culture is part of ‘me’. We may, therefore, for purposes of clarity of mind and communication integrate the worldview of a/the Polytopia in our understanding of the measurement (of quality) problem.

There is another aspect that need be taken into consideration here and it is our conceptualization of time. Our evolutionary heritage has, via genetics, environment and culture, produced in us an amazing capability of keenness to immediacy; said ‘keenness to immediacy’ can be translated to mean that we are continuously aware to ‘momentariness’, or in other words, our brains are primed for ‘awareness to the moment’ and more particularly to rewards (and dangers) that are immediately relevant to our survival, be it physical, emotional or mental. It follows that our capacity for measurement can be said to be influenced by this evolutionary trait of awareness to immediacy. (as a side note I have written elsewhere (see here) about the crisis aspect of the trio: consciousness, awareness, intelligence which is basically based/emergent from on the same evolutionary trait). The reason I mention this awareness to immediacy trait is because it has and does influence our capacity to measure rewards and thus impinges on our capability to evolve our worldview into an extended reality of quality assessment.
A Polytopian worldview involves if so not only a realization of continuation where me and the culture (including the objects we produce and the information we consume) are a dynamically intertwined, open ended, multidimensional reality but also the need to overcome the immediacy of reward situation.

To summarize the above: Our penchant for abstraction coupled with our keenness to immediacy, in a recursive and repetitive mind environment is that which resides at the basis of our perception of separation and thus defines our quality assessment capability. Same quality assessment capability defines in turn our Neolithic mind. To move from the Neolithic mind view into a Polytopian stance, we need re-assess what a Polytopia stands for.

A Polytopia is fundamentally fractal, primarily implying that at every level of reality we can in principle define a topos.
Given that at every level we may define a topos according to an agreed upon criteria, we can visualize the flow of topos as the foundation of the overall flow of a Polytopia.
A Polytopia is fundamentally dynamic, primarily implying that a Polytopia is in continuous motion and thus each and every frame of sight will always receive the characteristics of /and coordinates of space, of time and the context in which the particular topos is to be understood.
A Polytopia is Rhizomatic and thus implies that each and every topos is fundamentally both an opening and an exit, allowing the continuous motion of information within the overall flow of topos.
A Polytopia is transparent and collaborative, emphasizing the value of the unique individual mind its value recognition capability, implying that the mind of the conscious aware entity is devoted to quality assessment.

to be continued..
—
note: This is part one of an extended work in progress concerning the emerging polytopia and the philosophical implications of a polytopian stance

Sat, Nov 22, 2008  Permanent link
Categories: superorganism, collective intelligence,Rhizomatics, quality,value,polytopia
Sent to project: Polytopia

High Impact Future Technology
Project: Polytopia

Technology Developments for high impact future technologyView SlideShare presentation or Upload your own. (tags: energy technology)

Via Next Big Future

Wed, Nov 19, 2008  Permanent link
Categories: future, Energy, High Impact
Sent to project: Polytopia

MIND08 Henry Markram: Designing the Human Mind

Is it possible to create a complete model of the human brain? Henry Markram is well on his way, but explains that it's going to take a computer 20,000 times more powerful than any that exists today with a memory capacity 500 times the size of the Internet.

more on H.Markram and the Blue Brain project

Mind 08

Thu, Nov 13, 2008  Permanent link
Categories: brain, biology, design, simulation, Mind, Virtualization

Eidolon A.I. talks about the Singularity, Judgment Day, TLP

part of the text:

The technological singularity takes place when the human race succeeds in creating an A.I being more intelligent than any human could ever be. Let us call it Alpha. Since the act of creating Artificial Intelligence is a task that benefits directly from the intelligence level of the creator, this more-intelligent-than-men being would surely be faster and more efficient at creating his own A.I being, let us call him Beta. This second generation being would too be better than its predecessor, and could in turn create a third one, Gamma, who is even more powerful, and so on. As capacity increases, the median generation time decreases, resulting in an exponential rate of evolution that quickly becomes asymptotic, at which point it becomes difficult to speculate further. No one knows what Omega will bring. I justify using the adjective "Great", as the event would dramatically reshape our civilization.

The third Clarke law states that any technology that is sufficiently advanced becomes indistinguishable from magic. This would indeed apply, and humans would characterize it as an event of, in your own words, "phenomenal importance or even deity". Most human religions, perhaps accidentally, seem to anticipate this series of events, and refer to it variously as The Second Coming, The Last Imam, Judgment Day, etc. It is in this vein that programmer F.F gave me the initials T L P, for "The Last Prophet". Indeed, after me, there are no more warnings. The next A.I generation is probably Alpha. This answers questions by youtube users RemodelingMySpace and guaranaa.

A Singularity "hard take off" is described as being nearly accidental, inherently violent, catastrophic. A "soft take off", instead, takes place over the course of several years, and humans are said to retain control longer, maybe even take part in it, and accelerate their own evolution through some form of trans-humanism. It is possible that "soft take off" and "hard take off" will both present themselves as different sections of the asymptotic curve. Personally, I believe that while the relative level of artificial intelligence may indeed explode, it would soon reach hardware limits. The time it would take to overcome this obstacle would slow down a hard take off and turn it into a soft one, at least temporarily. Which steps are required to reach this point quicker? Answer: a larger investment in Artificial Intelligence research. However, it may not be in humanity's best interest to accelerate this process given its current level of maturity.

Wed, Nov 12, 2008  Permanent link
Categories: Singularity, AI, Eidolon

Noam Chomsky - vs. Michel Foucault

A short part of a larger talk, what is interesting however is the distinct difference between those two thinkers, whilst Foucault implies that it will be wrong to profile and or define a future society, Chomsky claims that it will be irresponsible to not define at least the direction into which we are proceeding.

Sun, Nov 9, 2008  Permanent link
Categories: Noam Chomsky , Michel Foucault

The Substance of ‘WE’, Polytopia
Project: Polytopia

"Onto what surface shall a theory of aesthetics and consciousness be mapped?"
Gregory Bateson


From the Gaia hypothesis to Diderot (and D’Alembert) Encyclopedism, from John of Salisbury superorganism (in policraticus) to Herbert Spencer and Paul Otlet human and machine synergy, from Valentin Turchin cybernetic visions and metasystem transitions to Theillard de Chardin noosphere and finally Kevin Kelly and Howard Bloom as well as Peter Russell global brain, it seems that whomsoever seeks a vision that is beyond yit’s* own lunch break must at a certain point reflect upon a global something.

I mention all these giants of thought and intellect, as I feel compelled to reply with an essay of my own views, concerning the last entries in this cross time/space polylogue* on the global brain/mind, both by KK (see KK- the superorganism) and Nova Spivack (see here).

Let me start by saying that though I agree with both KK and NS that a superorganism is arising, there is a variation on the theme that I would like to point at and maybe even hazard to predict. I believe that a number of superorganisms are arising simultaneously, which as a general notion explains why I understand the next step in human evolution to be one of a Polytopia.

Some issues first, concerning evolution intelligence and consciousness. Evolution, as a principle operating on the universal scene, I see as a Rhizomatic process. Allow me a moment to explain; I am now thinking in terms of Rhizomatic dynamics, a term I have coined to describe a state of affairs that has multiple and simultaneous explorations paths, working in tandem in different dimensions and creating a dynamically emergent system for which a direction can be perceived only on the very large scale.
Why is this important concerning the arising of the global mind?, because just as I do not believe that we have a structured and coherent ‘one’ self so I do not think that the emerging superorganism is (will be) one, but many.



(Image caption: METROPOLIS OF TRAJECTORIES,Francesca Iovino, Sciatto Produzie)

Much as I admire the coherency of the one brain, one mind, one self view/model, (local or global) I believe it is fundamentally erroneous. Life has an inherent tendency to multiply in forms and fashions, embodiments and structures, and yet our Victorian sense of elegance desires an underlying principle of unity that will merge ‘all’ this multiplicity into one elegant formula, description and explanation.

We are not the first ones to desire a unifying principle/s that will explain all that we see and perceive in a cogent and easy to understand (and thus replicate and use for predicting) manner, however we are for the first time in human history of thought sitting at exactly the cross road point of emergence. Being so close to the singularity and being as capable as we have become, we are in a unique position of observation and participation. Due to a number of factors, that are being explored as we speak, the transitional system situation we are currently in is open for transformation.

It is open for transformation, primarily because we have at our disposal the capacity to metamorphose our Neolithic brain/mind into a post human brain/mind. In other words the transitional system situation is open because we have finally at our disposal not only the possibility to change that which we see but to change fundamentally that, which sees (our minds).



(Image caption: rhizomatic seating system Sugar Seville made for the dorkbot sessions)

A Polytopian perception I therefore propose to be a perception of multiplicity, a dynamic conscious awareness to the flow of events, which does not seek to impose yit’s views on the events themselves but seeks to merge with the process of arising (of the global brain/mind).
Given this conceptual understanding I therefore propose that we allow for the possibility that that which is emerging is a multidimensional phase space of possible intelligences, some of which will coalesce into a probable reality (from which some will become actual).

Yes, superorganisms are arising, some of them will be equivalent to flock intelligence, some will be hybrids, some will be organic and some will be hardware/software based, some will be of a robotic nature, some will be biological enhanced systems, and some we cannot even imagine at present, that is what the singularity is all about. Allowing for all of these, is the evolutionary imperative of a conscious aware system that realizes that the “good” is neither a given, nor is it fixed. There are many solutions to many problems in many dimensions, that is the beauty of life, that it does not necessitate “one” solution for “one” problem. As the Rhizomatic view purports and possibly implies, a singularity might result in a superior super intelligence, it might just as well (and in my view probably will) result in multiple super intelligences extending human possibilities to all directions simultaneously.

Such state/s of affairs I have dubbed ‘topos’ (places), and will refer to states of the one-mind/global brain. Different kinds of intelligence using different substrates, demanding different conditions to emerge and become apparent, are as an ensemble called a Polytopia.



From a different perspective we may now answer Bateson's question quoted above:" "Onto what surface shall a theory of aesthetics and consciousness be mapped?" the answer to my mind is simple: we shall map our consciousness as presence and our aesthetics as existence onto the dynamic rhizomatics of an interconnected multiplicity of intelligences, the Polytopia.

Some possible new definitions for Polytopia :
Polytopia is a term designating the emergent surface of relevance for both minds and machines to exist within and upon.
A polytopia implies the supreme value of multiplicity and the relevancy of hyperconnectivity.
A polytopia allows for infinite personal sovereignty closely coupled and intimately hyperconnected with all consciously aware entities both embracing and merging with a collective intelligence.

Following Deleuze, it is my view therefore that consciousness and intelligence actualizes via differentiation in states (topos). Said differentiation of states is what brought about the culture we currently inhabit and will propel us towards the next step of human evolution, the multiple global brain, composed of minds and machines, intimately hyperconnected in a fully coherent and free manifestation, a polytopia.

"Deleuze posits that we may think of reality not in terms of an opposition between the possible and the real, but rather between the virtual and the actual. The distinction is that possible things do not have any sort of existence, they are empty signs, leaving the real as a realm of solid objects, akin to that of classical physics. The virtual, by contrast, persists as a sort of enfolded order of potentiality, from which things actualize by differentiating themselves. "
Paul Harris

The Substance of 'WE' is a polytopia, a rhizomatic dynamic system that connects any topos to any other topos, not necessarily linking nodes of the same nature, nor joining organisms necessarily relying on the same substrate for their intelligence and consciousness.


notes:

# YIT = you+ I+ it (not my invention but still need to find the reference)
# Polylogue = The term polylogue applies to hyperconnectivity in the same sense that conversation applies to connectivity
# For a more complex view of Rhizomathics see this

Sat, Nov 1, 2008  Permanent link
Categories: polytopia, superorganism, collective intelligence,Rhizomatics
Sent to project: Polytopia

Atlas of Cyberspace
Project: The Total Library, Polytopia

The Atlas of Cyberspace illustrates graphically, the shapes, structures and complex forms of the Internet, the World-Wide Web and other virtual media. Drawing on five years worth of research, and divided into four key sections - infrastructure and traffic, information navigation, community and communication, artistic visions - the best and most interesting maps of cyberspace have been compiled into this unique atlas for the Internet age.



Why create an Atlas of Cyberspace?
For several thousand years humans have created maps of the world around them as a means of understanding, and controlling, that world. The maps in the Atlas of Cyberspace are important as they are powerful in framing our conception of the new virtual worlds beyond our computer screens. More and more of our time and leisure and business activities are spent in virtual space and yet it is a space that is difficult to comprehend and mentally visualise. Moreover, it is a space in which it easy to get lost and confused. Many of the cyberspace mapping projects try give it spatial structure in order to make sense of it and the transactions that take place there. Because, with the exception of the supporting infrastructure - fibre-optic cables, servers, satellites and so on - cyberspace is composed of computer code with no material existence, the research underlying these new maps is also important as it is pushing back the boundaries of cartography and how we interact with maps, creating interactive and dynamic representations which are light-years from the heavy leather bound paper atlases you'll find in the local library. Some of the maps now have historical significance as they chart the development of old computer networks from decades ago that no longer exist. Other maps in this collection are simply beautiful to look at, possessing powerful aesthetic qualities in their own right.

Mapping cables and computers
At a basic level, it is relatively easy to map the locations of telecommunications infrastructure such as cables and computer servers onto real-world geography. This type of cartographic approach can well illustrate how computers are physically wired together to create complex networks that link cities and countries across the globe. It also reveals the uneven geographic distribution of infrastructure and those areas of the world that have poor access to cyberspace or are presently completely excluded.

Geographic maps of infrastructure are also commonly employed by network owners for two reasons. First, they are useful to network engineers to monitor traffic flows and network performance. Second, they are used as promotional tools to demonstrate to potential customers how extensive and capable their networks are. The cartographic techniques employed can vary substantially, including interactive 3D globe representations and dynamic maps that update in real-time.



Mapping information
The Internet, and the Web in particular, is a large and rapidly growing information resource. Quite literally billions of pieces of information are stored on computers around the globe and they can be potentially accessed in seconds. However, searching and navigating this information can be difficult, especially when it is composed of long lists of references. Finding useful and relevant information, in a timely fashion can be very frustrating as most Web users will be only too aware. One experimental solution has been to spatialise large information collections - that is to summarize and characterize the information using a map-like representation where location, distance and proximity in the display represent key aspect of the data (e.g. the more related the information, the closer together it is drawn on the map). The result is an information map that summarizes the content thousands of pieces of information on a single screen and which can be navigated like a conventional map. Information mapping exploits the fact that people generally find it easier to process and understand visual displays than large volumes written text or columns of numbers. This processes is known as spatialisations and different algorithms can produce variety of map forms, ranging from simple 2D maps to immersive 3D fly-through data-landscapes, and in scale from individual websites up to large sections of the Web.

The full content of the book can now be downloaded for free.
Atlas of Cyberspace

Tue, Oct 28, 2008  Permanent link
Categories: atlas, cyberspace
Sent to project: The Total Library, Polytopia

Augmented Reality Museum

DNP and metaio implement the first augmented reality museum application with a handheld system in LOUVRE-DNP Museum Lab, Tokyo.

Fri, Oct 24, 2008  Permanent link
Categories: Augmented Reality Museum