Comment on The Luxurious Ambiguity of Intelligence in Hyperconnectivity

Wildcat Thu, Jun 9, 2011
@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identity are very loosely correlated concepts; in fact the idea of possession or ownership of body and objects is an outdated principle that needs be upgraded to fit our modern perceptual mechanism.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.