Member 420
232 entries
986773 views

 RSS
Project moderator:
Polytopia

Contributor to projects:
The great enhancement debate
The Total Library
Every act of rebellion expresses a nostalgia for innocence and an appeal to the essence of being. (Albert Camus)
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • Wildcat’s favorites
    From syncopath
    eChoes ...
    From Xaos
    Cogitating Ferocities -...
    From Xaos
    A becoming on the line:...
    From syncopath
    4 nexT generations
    From Xaos
    Conversations With...
    Recently commented on
    From Wildcat
    Some nothings are like...
    From syncopath
    eChoes ...
    From nedzen
    Objects with Soul:...
    From Wildcat
    Of course but Maybe, (a...
    From syncopath
    Ragnarök -or- How wE...
    Wildcat’s projects
    Polytopia
    The human species is rapidly and indisputably moving towards the technological singularity. The cadence of the flow of information and innovation in...

    The Total Library
    Text that redefines...

    The great enhancement debate
    What will happen when for the first time in ages different human species will inhabit the earth at the same time? The day may be upon us when people...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    From Wildcat's personal cargo

    The Luxurious Ambiguity of Intelligence in Hyperconnectivity
    Project: Polytopia
    "For my part I know nothing with any certainty, but the sight of the stars makes me dream"
    Vincent van Gogh


    Abstract

    The cyborgization process of becoming in which we presently take part has a long history and a very likely and highly plausible future, including wide arrays of options of radically enhancing our bodies and minds, however, the cyborgization becoming of our civilization is a multilayered, multidimensional progression that can be parsed in many ways, one of which is the hyperconnected virtualized enmeshed reality already in progress.
    Here I am looking at the virtualization of identity as part of the meta-layer of the conceptual framework of cyborgization, a kind of underlying semantic infrastructure of our cyber-evolution.
    More specifically I reflect upon certain linguistic needs such as the clear distinction between rigid and flaccid designators, by which we may, if we can be mindful enough and careful enough, manage a certain ambiguity into a possible liberating procedure.

    (This essay belongs to the thread "Forays in Philotopia - exploring the possible Philosophy of a Polytopia")

    Background

    Not long ago a friend of mine came to ask my advice about an apparently simple issue which started as a local remark and became a deep philosophical conversation between her daughter and herself, and later between us, this conversation prompted this essay.
    Her daughter is a young person about to celebrate her 15th birthday and needed to fill some forms for a coming exam, in the form as is common, she needed to fill the box of gender and almost did, when she stopped and asked her mother:” why do I need to fill the box of gender? Why do they care about my gender in any case? And also what does my gender have to do with my exam, my knowledge and my understanding of the subject matter? (Before you raise your highbrows, yes she is a very bright young person).
    My friend, her mother, answered, that this was the norm and she needn’t make a fuss of it, it is probably used only as an indicator for statistical purposes and in any case it is the norm and accepted form of identification of the person involved and therefore one should completely disregard the meaning of the question and simply ‘get-on’ with it.
    She did ‘get-on’ with it, and proceeded to fill the form, but later that evening the conversation between them resumed to the deeper aspects of the personal identity issue to which ‘gender’ relates as a defining characteristic, and apparently the issue of personhood and its derivative functions in society.
    However the issue became complicated when said young person mentioned that in her online world she plays certain games and uses avatars that are predominantly considered male ‘just for fun’ (her words) she said, but really ‘it doesn’t matter, I don’t care if I play as a male or female, my character in the online game has no ‘real’ gender and even if it does, I don’t play as if I have a gender, I play as ‘me’ and I don’t want to have a gender in the game, its about my know how, my capability as a player and my knowledge, none of which should be correlated to my biology”.

    That is the point when I was asked to give my view of the issue, in light of my working on the Polytopia project.
    It is not my intention in writing this essay to deal with the issue of gender specifically but with the issue of transference (or indeed transposition) of identity designators between the actual and the virtual in general, an issue which I deem paramount for the sane evolution of our intersubjective cyborgization process.



    Rigid Designators vs. Flaccid Designators

    The Polytopian stance assumes a richness of mind that applies the distinction between rigid designators (Kripke) and flaccid designators (wiki) for different configurations of speech and thus dimensions of semantics.
    Rigid designators (rigid designation is a property of the way terms are used, not a property of the terms themselves, - wiki) imply that the same object carries the same identity and thus the same characteristics in all possible worlds. Flaccid designators are fluid and allow for multiple options of descriptions in different worlds. The aim here is not to confront the one with the other but to propose that rigid designators should be left to conventional speech only, for purposes of efficient communication and quick look-up taxonomies. Moreover, rigid designators should not be allowed to imply ontology and / or metaphysics but to remain on the normative dimension with no necessary traceable memory (see endnotes #2). This will assume that proper names have meaning application only in as much as they reflect the necessity of accurate empirical representation. Switching to flaccid designators it is proposed here that fluid terminologies are the way to go when dealing with hyper complex systems such as identity and more particularly identity as represented in virtualities and the inter relation between said identities, especially in hyperconnectivity.

    Within the motion of cyborgization in which we take part we can discern the advent of a semantic transposition from the actual to the virtual. A motion of transference of historical notions into a domain of existential realism to which those notions are not adapted and are factually obsolete. Such is the movement between terms pertaining to the conceptual category of rigid designators based on habitual ontologies that a sense of conflict rises and can be perceived when parsed in a virtual environments. No longer are we able to detect common indicators of identity, manners of representation, and styles of recognition for the simple reason that the virtual does not yield to fixed indicators. It is thus for example impossible solely by the fact of perceiving a given avatar to determine its gender, orientation, age, morphology, race and so on. In fact on first appearance it may seem that due to the motion from the actual to the virtual much information is lost and thus our capability of discernment and discrimination is the poorer for it. However, it is the Polytopian stance that this apparent paucity is in fact a false impression due to an analysis based on rigid designators not flexible enough to allow the creative value of the virtual to come into play.



    At present the fact that our minds are embodied in a particular physical configuration stands as the main culprit in our habitual usage of identity indicators as rigid designators. Irrespective to the future technological possibility of mind uploads and similar post physical existences we need see that already at this stage the networked infocology in which each and every one of us to different extents exists, is already a form of non physical existence. In perceiving virtual existence as a dimension separated from traditional actuality we need assume a different set of contextual representations and thus epistemic structures that though can be bridged to regular style embodiment cannot be fully mapped to said body. This distinction if clarified allows us now to embed a re-definition of the concept of identity on the net that is distinct, different and only partially co-extensive with our physical embodiment. The issue here that we need reflect upon is that certain of our identities in virtuality are not extensions of our physicalities but have as it were, an independent or semi-independent as the case may be (such as an avatar in an online game, or SL ) existence to which, a contextual state of affairs need be defined.

    No longer can we assume a central locus indicated rigidly by our bodily location to which all our identities are bound. Moreover, from a different perspective no longer can we assume that the motion of intelligence is still, in all cases, directed from the actual to the virtual. In fact, in many cases (“you are what you pretend to be … you are what you play (Turkle, 1997)#3) we will discern quite the opposite, a motion of intelligence from the virtual to the actual. And let us remember that though it is an interplay of flows, in no fashion is symmetry implied, quite the contrary in fact, in the relation between the virtual to the actual and the actual to the virtual, asymmetry reigns supreme. In some instances the flow of actuality into virtuality will gain the upper hand whilst in others the opposite will be the case. Nevertheless our effort here must emphasize the tension between those two motions and the clarification of directionality.

    Whilst embodied identities maintain a formal highly structural and therefore rigid set of indicators, defined primarily as body, gender etc., our virtual identities are factually indicated in a fluid manner and thus pertain to the flaccid designators category. The initial condition of the human thus has changed and can no longer be theorized based on immovable objects of identity. What the Polytopian stance suggests is that our virtual identities are in fact social entities in and of themselves allowing a co-present, inter-subjective, hyper-connected, state of affairs, radically rewriting the codes of social encounters.

    A number of different perspectives exist as of today desiring different application of the correlation actual-virtual. Some of these would like to maintain a rigid continuity of identification assuming wrongly that only such rigid continuity will allow valid confirmation of identity and thus trustworthiness (see Obama's-internet passport). Whilst there are certain domains to which such view is applicable (banking for example) in most cases pertaining to the evolution of our cyborgization this will be untrue. Same goes for the opposite view that the virtual domain should be totally and uncompromisingly free and detached from any rigid correlation and continuity to actual embodied identity. In fact most of the social entities considered as domains of interest extended in time in the infosphere pertain to neither perspective but to a middle ground grey area which is, to use the old adage, neither this nor that. Most of our cyborgization process of becoming, manifested primarily via the networked hyper-connected infocological state of affairs is fundamentally: ambiguous, uncertain, oscillating and fluctuating, and should be considered as a flow of in-betweens. The flow of in-betweens is actually comprised of multiple domains of interests, passions and relations, but more importantly perhaps, of radical creative encounters. This is the domain where the cross-pollination, cross-fertilization of human endeavor finds its home. This home, at present a fragile realm, fuzzy in its orientation yet passionate in its desire to explode into new forms of life, contains a fundamental structural instability. Though it may seem that this structural instability also called inherent approximation, is a fault line indicating a potential problem possibly degenerating into the chaos of indeterminacy, it is in my view a feature rather than a bug.



    Indeterminacy is a feature not a bug

    I submit to you the idea, that there is no direct continuity between an avatar and its originator, or for that matter the possibility of fully mapping an avatar, as a ‘stand-in’ symbol of representation, to the person that originated that same avatar. (And though at present it probably is possible to trace back an avatar to its originator, it is highly likely that given enough time and diversification, including mutations, alterations and transformations, none such will be possible or indeed desired.)
    An avatar has a quasi-infinite variety of possible interpretations depending on context, on semantics and syntax, but more importantly at this stage is the understanding that the relationship between the avatar and its originator is an indeterminate relationship that inherently exhibits the characteristics of ambiguity and fuzziness.

    Not only do I think that the relationship Avatar-Originator, is inherently ambiguous I propose to make this particular ambiguity, a kind of benchmark reflection on the concept of identity. A radical motion towards a possible liberating procedure, in which our consciously aware usage of the ambiguity of relationship Avatar-Originator, replaces the closely coupled, rigid designations, we still transpose from the actual to the virtual.

    The indeterminacy of our identities in the hyperconnected infocologies we are presently enmeshed in, is, I believe, only an indication or the beginning, if you like, of a much greater fuzziness that is waiting for us in the process of cyborgization, to which the virtualization of identity is a crucial step.

    It is my view that the evolution of intelligence, is currently undergoing a dramatic shift towards a greater uncertainty and openness, a deeper ambiguity and larger indeterminacy, a new state of affairs of mind, through which we may, if sensibly and wisely managed, become more free.

    There are many ways to understand intelligence, and in many contexts, issues of problem solving, capacity of reasoning, adaptability to new environments, learning from experience, pattern recognition, judgment exercising, imagination, originality, artistic and abstract perception, complex interpretation and so on, are all possible interpretations, definitions and usages of the concept.

    However for the purpose of this essay I am using a semi-poetic interpretation of the term intelligence. Here I refer to intelligence as a luxury of mind, a bonus if you like, that I use in a very specific manner. I refer to intelligence as a luxury here because I see the capacity to exist in ambiguous situations, to extract relevant information from fuzzy circumstances as non-linear and highly relevant to the new state of affairs we have co-created.

    The hyperconnected virtually enmeshed infocologies, upon which we are projecting our newly minted avatars, are oscillating representations that slowly but surely are disengaging from their points of origination.
    This disengagement process, itself part of our cyborgization becoming, opens new options, fresh possibilities and a wide array of potentials for the evolution of our self-descriptions into new horizons of freedom.

    Issues of gender (such as the one mentioned in the little anecdote above), of race, of creed, of ethnicity, of status, of age and any other rigid designators, ought to be relegated to the conventional, indeed to the material, as it is now, to the actual. The hyperconnected virtually enmeshed infocologies, present no inherent necessity for such, unless highly specified in functionality (as in the banking example) or so chosen (as in creating an avatar with specifically chosen characteristics). In every other context the disengagement process of an ambiguous identity, is the luxury of intelligence we can finally afford, and to my eyes should passionately apply.

    Finally, whether we are hard core Singularitarian, futurists, Transhuman or Extropians, philosophers, artists, AI designers or just any modern day person, using the mediums of our currently available technologies to hyperconnect we are factually performing acts of luxurious intelligence application.
    It does not so much matter what exactly it is that we believe concerning the coming future of our civilization and our very nature, what matters is the manner we understand the process of becoming a better specie, a better human, a more empathic mind, rational, passionate and conscious, open to the beauty of the great uncertainty that is life.

    “The only thing that makes life possible is permanent, intolerable uncertainty; not knowing what comes next.”

    Ursula K. LeGuin

    shortly to be continued..


    Endnotes :

    # 1. Let me be clear here, whilst I advocate a total freedom of self-representation on the net, there are certain kinds of social interaction in which gender representation, as an example, are fundamental for the purpose of the designated interaction. Though a dating site might require the knowledge of your gender, there is no inherent reason for a requirement of gender identification in an online game. Moreover, as I see it, it is high time that we put into question most of our assumptions about identity representation and their correlated implications especially in situations where common sense dictates that no such identification is indeed necessary. This goes far deeper than the privacy versus transparency debate, this goes to the very root of the personhood perception mechanisms that we have put into place, millennia ago and need be upgraded to fit our modern day hyperconnected interfaced minds.

    # 2. No necessary traceable memory I use here to designate the rigid factuality of designation of a particular individual in the original dimension of the actual that does not transpose into other possible worlds especially as refers to the virtual hyperconnected dimension. Hence though it will be true to state that person P is a female in actuality this description may not necessarily be transposed unto the virtual, and thus does not carry traceable memory.

    # 3. Turkle, S. (1997). Constructions and Reconstructions of Self in Virtual Reality. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    # 4. second image in text: Double Pendulum with LEDs by Michael G Devereux

    # 5. third image Succulus by Robert Pepperell


    5 comments
      Promote (12)
      
      Add to favorites (4)
    Synapses (14)
     
    Comments:


    klaitner     Mon, May 30, 2011  Permanent link
    I find the idea that plastic identity is a stepping stone to virtual minds very much worth exploring. I am of the opinion that the singularity (the version where we upload our brains) is not likely to be successful, as minds without an embodiment constraint to force them to stay integrated would disintegrate - a post singularity insanity, if you will. If we are to survive the transition it will require that we gain skills in managing multiple sub and supra-identities. We must become comfortable being a somewhat redundant aggregation and randomization function.

    When considering platform design for identity systems or systems which depend on identity, it is advisable to think carefully about the emergent properties of the structures underpinning the system. In this regard I completely agree that the designs should specifically avoid rigid designators wherever they are unnecessary. I don't agree that banking is a good example of appropriate use of rigid designators, though the dating site example is valid re gender (though gender on a spectrum, a slider if you will rather than a checkbox). Banking requires a stable, verifiable identity, not a bio person linked one. It is rather governments that require bio person identities for the purposes of taxation and control. It is also my shared concern with yours that identity cards for the internet are extraordinary inappropriate for the medium, and that increasingly the old institutions will criminalize new behaviors until a revolution ushers in the new age (see debates around bitcoin, internet anonymity).

    Rigid designators should not be allowed to imply ontology and / or metaphysics. .. reflect the necessity of accurate empirical representation


    This is a nice thought, but I am unsure of the ability to enforce, except through moral suasion. I expect human beings in general are not capable of using designators purely empirically. This is why, including in your project, it is often necessary to use esoteric language to be very specific about meaning, avoiding common vernacular is it is overloaded. This naturally makes the exercise more exclusive and less capable of viral spread. The ties between language and thought (causal or not) imply word coinage may be necessary to combine the virtues of simplicity and non-traceability.

    There's a degree of transference of historical notions into a domain of existential realism to which those notions are not adapted and are factually obsolete


    This is the theme of any new conceptual context, that the old metaphors are recreated in the new medium, until such time as the new medium finds its own 'true' expression. Witness documents and folders on computers. The key is to introduce the new metaphors in a way that can catch on, such that we do not become limited in an essentially free medium to the constraints that exist only in our collective conciousness.

    In fact, on first appearance it may seem that due to the motion from the actual to the virtual, much information is lost and thus our capabilities of discernment and discrimination are the poorer for it.. this apparent paucity is in fact a false impression .. based on rigid identifiers


    This is a beautifully made point. Again it is based on trying to represent old metaphors in the new medium. Having paper on your computer screen and wondering why you cannot tear it or dog ear the corners, missing entirely the new affordances of the medium.

    .. certain identities in virtuality are not extensions of our physicality but have, as it were, an independent or semi-independent existence ..


    it's highly likely that given enough time and diversification, including mutations, alterations and transformations no [mapping of avatar to originator] will be possible or desirable.. the relationship between the avatar and its originator is an indeterminate one that inherently exhibits the characteristics of ambiguity and fuzziness.


    I wonder whether you are making the obvious point of intelligent agents being extensions of their creators but existing in a context unknown or even unknowable by their creators, and the responsibility tracing back to the originator (say a virus and its author), or a rather broader implication that even simple representation in the virtual space has an element of indeterminacy about it - that the context and interactions the avatar has with its surroundings make it something other than an extension of self - I also wonder about the responsibility attached to the butterfly that flaps its wings for the hurricane half way around the world, not all emergence is unknowable - please comment

    I do very much like the use of originator rather than owner as it reflects the fluid interests in a particular avatar or representation that become more distributed with time and interaction. This is another design feature of interest for a social platform.

    .. we can no longer assume that the motion of intelligence is still, in all cases, directed from the actual to the virtual.. it is an interplay of flows, symmetry is not implied .. asymmetry reigns supreme ..


    This is a fascinating theme and intuitively satisfying. What is the intelligence you are referring to here? The projection of identity? Directed causation? how does this definition

    There are many ways to understand intelligence, and in many contexts, issues of problem solving, capacity of reasoning, adaptability to new environments, learning from experience, pattern recognition, judgment exercising, imagination, originality, artistic and abstract perception, complex interpretation and so on, are all possible interpretations, definitions and usages of the concept


    map to your flows?

    .. our cyborgization processes of becoming .. is fundamentally ambiguous .. and should be considered as a flow of in-betweens .. domains of interests, passions and relations.. a fundamental structural instability .. [an] inherent approximation


    A lovely softening of the hard lines of object centric sociality, a gestalt figure and background swapping from traditional social networking models.

    I propose to make this particular ambiguity [the Avatar-Originator relationship] a kind of benchmark reflection on the concept of identity. I want to see a radical motion towards a possible liberating procedures in which our concious usage of the ambiguity of this relationship replaces the closely coupled, rigid designations we still transpose from the actual to the virtual


    So you think facebook sucks a priori :) I would agree this would be a fascinating design for a social network. Certainly it can merely be a usage, but as a meta layer of semantics, much more powerful / dangerous .. do you dare to eat a peach?

    The indeterminacy of our identities in the hyperconnected infocologies we are presently enmeshed in, is, I believe, only an indication or the beginning, if you like, of a much greater fuzziness that is waiting for us in the process of cyborgization, to which the virtualization of identity is a crucial step.


    This is a key point, that our acceptance of greater degrees of ambiguity through the virtualization of identity is the training ground for cyborgization / mind upload is compelling.

    It is my view that the evolution of intelligence, is currently undergoing a dramatic shift towards a greater uncertainty and openness, a deeper ambiguity and larger indeterminacy, a new state of affairs of mind, through which we may, if sensibly and wisely managed, become more free.


    Indeterminacy and ambiguity leads not only to greater freedom but to more natural action. Perhaps this also implies a movement towards the now, disengagement from the past and future, a simple engagement with the present not cluttered by temporal norms of identity behavior (ie consistency, alignment).

    There seems to be a theme of intelligence and identity being closely linked, I wonder if you could elaborate on the nature of this relationship. Moreover, once the imperative grouping function of the body is no longer a constraint, and for example minds are all uploaded (as an extreme example) whither this relationship? Are stable forms now more akin to attractors in a chaotic flow than the bio-stabilized identities we now employ?

    Thank you as always for the stimulation.



























    Wildcat     Thu, Jun 2, 2011  Permanent link
    thank you Kurt, as always your comments bring a sharp eye to difficult subjects which demand of me an effort of clarification.

    K:”I find the idea that plastic identity is a stepping-stone to virtual minds very much worth exploring. I am of the opinion that the singularity (the version where we upload our brains) is not likely to be successful, as minds without an embodiment constraint to force them to stay integrated would disintegrate - a post singularity insanity, if you will. If we are to survive the transition it will require that we gain skills in managing multiple sub and supra-identities. We must become comfortable being a somewhat redundant aggregation and randomization function.”

    W: I really like this definition of yours:” somewhat redundant aggregation and randomization function” though I do believe that we will be able to create such a function I am not certain that the redundancy will be an inherent factor, as I see it we already contain such a skill, though admittedly in most cases we are quite unaware to the fact that we ‘narrate’ a fragmented sense thought state of mind into an ‘apparent whole’. I think that to a very large extent we are comfortable (at least in private ‘mind talk’) with containing a multiple, or a multitude to follow Whitman’s usage in ‘song of myself’. I definitely am with you on the peril of disintegration without embodiments, however it may be the case that the function you alluded to is the new kind of embodiment we are creating.

    K: ” When considering platform design for identity systems or systems which depend on identity, it is advisable to think carefully about the emergent properties of the structures underpinning the system. In this regard I completely agree that the designs should specifically avoid rigid designators wherever they are unnecessary. I don't agree that banking is a good example of appropriate use of rigid designators, though the dating site example is valid re gender (though gender on a spectrum, a slider if you will rather than a checkbox). Banking requires a stable, verifiable identity, not a bio person linked one. It is rather governments that require bio person identities for the purposes of taxation and control. It is also my shared concern with yours that identity cards for the internet are extraordinary inappropriate for the medium, and that increasingly the old institutions will criminalize new behaviors until a revolution ushers in the new age (see debates around bitcoin, internet anonymity).”

    W: rethinking the example I gave of banking I agree with you that the necessity is for the ‘stable, verifiable identity’ however I think that this will be much harder a nut to crack than it seems on face value. There are so many crucial factors that need be taken into consideration, unless of course the whole banking system changes radically. I am quite uncertain as concerns bitcoin and other future of money project, before a fundamental metamorphosis of our self described agency, as in ‘intentional agency’ has happened, which is partially what I am trying to advocate here.


    K:"w:Rigid designators should not be allowed to imply ontology and / or metaphysics. .. reflect the necessity of accurate empirical representation


    K:"This is a nice thought, but I am unsure of the ability to enforce, except through moral suasion. I expect human beings in general are not capable of using designators purely empirically. This is why, including in your project, it is often necessary to use esoteric language to be very specific about meaning, avoiding common vernacular is it is overloaded. This naturally makes the exercise more exclusive and less capable of viral spread. The ties between language and thought (causal or not) imply word coinage may be necessary to combine the virtues of simplicity and non-traceability.

    W: yes I am quite aware to the difficulties involved in creating an adequate language that will encompass the needed plasticity, though it may be argued that the hyperconnected reality we are enmeshed in supplies a kind of linguistic ground to which at least part of the new generation of young adults are subject, and are factually subscribing to. (There’s some new research in this respect, especially by Danah Boyd at MS, I’ll try to find the relevant pdf). Nevertheless I believe that many minds are changing their usage of certain terms without even noticing, and though it may not seem so at present since we are still at a very early stage of the transit period of virtualization, the motion I think has already set in.


    K: “ w:”There's a degree of transference of historical notions into a domain of existential realism to which those notions are not adapted and are factually obsolete”


    K:”This is the theme of any new conceptual context, that the old metaphors are recreated in the new medium, until such time as the new medium finds its own 'true' expression. Witness documents and folders on computers. The key is to introduce the new metaphors in a way that can catch on, such that we do not become limited in an essentially free medium to the constraints that exist only in our collective consciousness.

    W:” of course that is what I am trying to do here but any advice as pertains introducing new metaphors in a way that can catch on is more than welcome. Also in this respect I am not sure the constraints exist as such in our collective consciousness, maybe if we substitute ‘constraints exist’ with ‘ habits have been formed’

    K:” w:”In fact, on first appearance it may seem that due to the motion from the actual to the virtual, much information is lost and thus our capabilities of discernment and discrimination are the poorer for it.. this apparent paucity is in fact a false impression .. based on rigid identifiers”


    K:"This is a beautifully made point. Again it is based on trying to represent old metaphors in the new medium. Having paper on your computer screen and wondering why you cannot tear it or dog ear the corners, missing entirely the new affordances of the medium.



    k:"w:.. certain identities in virtuality are not extensions of our physicality but have, as it were, an independent or semi-independent existence ..


    it's highly likely that given enough time and diversification, including mutations, alterations and transformations no [mapping of avatar to originator] will be possible or desirable.. the relationship between the avatar and its originator is an indeterminate one that inherently exhibits the characteristics of ambiguity and fuzziness.


    K:"I wonder whether you are making the obvious point of intelligent agents being extensions of their creators but existing in a context unknown or even unknowable by their creators, and the responsibility tracing back to the originator (say a virus and its author), or a rather broader implication that even simple representation in the virtual space has an element of indeterminacy about it - that the context and interactions the avatar has with its surroundings make it something other than an extension of self - I also wonder about the responsibility attached to the butterfly that flaps its wings for the hurricane half way around the world, not all emergence is unknowable - please comment

    W: if these are the options I would rather side with the broader implication in which even simple representations in virtual space are fundamentally ambiguous, which is much more than to say they have an element of indeterminacy about them. As I see it the relation avatar-originator is a newly born realm of exploration that is truly only a prelude to the next step in the evolution of human civilization. To my eyes the revolution of mind extended via technologies of hyperconnectivity resides exactly in this domain of intersubjectivity (in the case I am trying to elaborate here the avatar has as much subjectivity as the originator, creating a new tension, or existence that I term an event. Actually it may not be untrue to posit that sooner or later the conscious aware state of mind will change location from being supervenient on the brain to being supervenient, not on the avatar, but to the tension field of avatar-originator. Eventually re-describing the whole of human experience via a new set of characteristics, which I am in the process of unfolding.
    In a way the above is highly controversial and radical, but I think that as some of our sensory data is already mediated via electronic devices and augmented to a form that some call surreal, or hyperrealism, some of that which previously was called ‘a thing, or object’ is increasingly becoming ‘informatized’ (receiving a kind of new background or infocology previously lacking to our immediate observation). Given this new state of affairs I think that the whole issue of responsibility will need be re-evaluated, for in the case that I perceive a new basin of attraction (the tension avatar-originator may be seen as a strange attractor) will be considered as the new reflective point from which agency and intentionality arise.

    (divided my answers into multiple for ease of reading..)
    starwalker     Sun, Jun 5, 2011  Permanent link
    Thank you for the wide and absorbing view, the implanted lines of thought are many and active. Pausing a moment on the mechanics at play in this open redefinition of identity.

    One of the reflections the essay brings to my mind is correlated to the kind of bias commonly at play while extracting order from information, the bias that brings one to locate rigidity - or constant order - before fluidity – or flow of variation, not necessarily a hard-wired bias.

    From a different standpoint, a recent lecture of Metzinger on the illusion of self, presents some experiments around the ability of a human to recognize something as part of her - as herself. In the specific example the subject is as if tricked through her perception to perceive a rubber hand as hers and thus react when witnessing the stimulation of it.
    What in my eyes is striking in this instance, and which connects me with the above reflection blown open in the present essay, is that the operation of recognizing something as part of one-self is, compared to what one would expect to experience or describe, surprisingly flexible and quick enough to recall an almost fluid quality. I would say even that ‘the system’ seems as if it is pre-disposed, if rightly stimulated, to acquire/internalize/recognize different items, whether items of description, impressions or objects, as parts of itself.

    writing ‘the system’ because in this context it is not relevant, nor currently possible, to clearly define what it is, but at the moment looking at a multidimensional complex network of connected nodes out of which the ‘sense' of existing, or, the ‘subjective' experience emerges, the sense that somewhere along the last centuries we learned to call ‘self’.
    The impression is as if this sense of “self” is pre-disposed to expand and include relevant items that participate/filter or augment ‘self’ presence and expression. And one of the way we use the physical body is to discipline this expansion back to the contours of a specific identity and form (thus the need for the rigid designators) unless in very special circumstances or unique cases.

    Within the paradigm of self, this tendency to expand and internalize is described both in language and attitude through ‘possession’ or ‘ownership’. Said otherwise the overall phenomena of ownership can be looked at as a smaller case of a naturally expanding sense of self, a ‘network’ constantly creating new connections, which acquires and owns indiscriminately ideas, objects and personas, creating between them an emotional communication for as long as they are connected.

    Yet when correlating this surprising ability of subjects with the concept of possession we sharply back off and take our distance, and one can clearly understand why, in actuality it is very easy to see how this representation can make co-existence of more than one sense of self (two or more conscious agents) in a room either impossible, or futile (either a war of ownership or a virtual split of universes)

    Yet what brought to light by the process of virtualization of identity brings a new and fundamental difference into view

    W: Whilst embodied identities maintain a formal highly structural and therefore rigid set of indicators, defined primarily as body, gender etc., our virtual identities are factually indicated in a fluid manner and thus pertain to the flaccid designators category. The initial condition of the human thus has changed and can no longer be theorized based on immovable objects of identity. What the Polytopian stance suggests is that our virtual identities are in fact social entities in and of themselves allowing a co-present, inter-subjective, hyper-connected, state of affairs, radically rewriting the codes of social encounters.


    Part of what am reading in it is that appreciating the change in paradigm brought about by the virtualization of identity, and thus allowing a gradual release of the aspect of ownership from a centralized self within the equation of who/what we are, situate the tendency of a multidimensional complex network to dynamically include and internalize, once allowed the necessary ambiguity to operate, as yielding some very new properties and begging a re-definition of both individual and interaction.

    Possibly what we mostly need is not enacted codes of confinement and contouring (though this seems the current ‘natural’ reaction present everywhere in our interactions), as much as to re-engineer the description of the emerging subjective "sense”, building a corridor from the paradigm of ‘self’ having a loci and a center, towards an iterative landscape of intelligence allowing to know by processes of simultaneous overlapping – in interaction – via fluid affinity, as opposed to via ownership.

    Would you correlate the process of simultaneous overlapping to what you point to as intersubjective?

    looking forward to further elaborations on this line.

    Wildcat     Thu, Jun 9, 2011  Permanent link
    @Starwalker : "Would you correlate the process of simultaneous overlapping to what you point to as intersubjective?"


    Thank you for the elaborate comment Starwalker, and yes I see what you are pointing at, indeed Metzinger has paved the way for a larger comprehension of the acquisition of possession by the ‘self’ model of representation.

    However, and this is my main proposal, I think that one of the fundamental issues of the evolution of mind that is continuously being either derided as ‘bad’ or alternatively completely disregarded as actually happening, concerns the very real modification in our meta models of reality of that which we consider as ‘me’, ‘us’, ‘mine’ and so on.
    If we were to take the old models of perceptual realism, fundamentally recognizing only that which extends from ‘me’ as ‘mine’, creating as it were, a concatenation of concentric circles of possession we would have been still in the Neolithic phase of our civilization evolution.
    Before extending into the virtual, consider some very simple extensions of ‘you’ that do not correlate to any physical manifestation, how do you think about your phone number? Does it belong to you? In certain senses it was given to you by your phone company, and in this sense belongs to them, in another sense it is part of your extended identity in that this particular number represents a sequence of procedures that can lead me to you, in other words, ‘you’ are at the end of your phone number, and if nothing else by this sole fact I could with fair certainty conclude and rightly so, that this particular sequence ‘belongs’ to you. Though it is highly probable that you do not ‘own’ the number it is actually a part of you that you reflect upon as an extension of you. This is only a small example to try and emphasize the idea that possession and identity are very loosely correlated concepts; in fact the idea of possession or ownership of body and objects is an outdated principle that needs be upgraded to fit our modern perceptual mechanism.
    What I am pointing to is the fact that our identities and by implication all that correlates to said identity should be looked upon as a field being continuously extended in the world outside our bodies, into a larger and larger framework of contexts, some of which can be objectified, as in the phone number example and others which cannot, as of yet, but still operate according to the same principle.

    Our bodies at present (and for the currently perceived future) are still the main source of identity recognition under the term rigid designators, however as the field of senses extends into the virtual, more and more of our lives are extrapolated via devices that broaden us and widen our arena of positioning.
    Put in the context of the above essay the continuity of overlapping processes and extensions in hyperconnectivity creates more and more nodes of subjectivity (granted that their level of subjectivity differs per mind, per usage ,per time etc.) the most important of which is the hyperconnected avatar as an extensible and highly dynamic form of possession. So what is it that we possess? My take at present is that we possess the field (again the term possess here is inaccurate, we do not possess the field as much as we curate it) and by that operate a highly complex management procedure of meanings and attributes all of which eventually imply upon our process of subjectification and thus identity.
    As the process increases in depth and optionality, parts or fragments of this field call in more and more of our subject, when said fragments of the process of subjectification encounter other such fragments the development of intersubjectivity enters a new phase.

    I think that this process is at its very initial phase of evolution but I can see where it may lead us, and without holding an initial qualification and value judgment I think it is a good that we do not yet recognize as such.

    I will write more extensively on this subject on my next post.
    Thanks for eliciting such a thought.


    starwalker     Tue, Jun 14, 2011  Permanent link
    Thank you for the response.


    Find the concept of ‘nodes of subjectivity’ extremely interesting. In the attempt to clarify my understanding further. When using it, are you referring to it as if metaphorically speaking of different nodes in a network? the network that dynamically yields the process of subjectification?


    Thus what you describe as the field would be the overall 'set of dynamics' generated upon the network by shifting connections among nodes of subjectivity; the field that defines in time configurations of possible trajectories. Thus curating the one would yield the other.


    My next question would be, if this opens as the description of subjects / identities, how does such a subject compute the interaction with ‘the other’; I know it categorically does not belong to the same language but what I mean is how does a process of subjectification interact with parallel processes of subjectification, other than including them and internalizing them as part of itself. In my mind at the moment it is part of a paradox in bridging between descriptions.

    On one side of the spectrum the concept of Individual has relations with entities that are clearly separated and contoured from it, yet moving along the spectrum, at the moment through the process of virtualization of identity, to an area where separation is not the prime defining parameter, how are the dynamics between subjects recognized and played, or are they?

    I believe there is something profoundly new in this aspect of the process, touched upon by the concept of fluid affinities, that takes a clear line of flight from the limit extrapolation of one meta subject, and yet does not base itself upon rigid separation for interaction.


    As a first articulation,
     
          Cancel