Member 420
242 entries

Project moderator:

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 Xarene
    Human Document...
    From Xaos
    It is not Gods that we...
    From TheLuxuryofProtest
    Deep Learning in the City...
    From Rourke
    The 3D Additivist Manifesto
    From syncopath
    Recently commented on
    From Benjamin Ross Hayden
    AGOPHOBIA (2013) - Film
    From Wildcat
    Tilting at windmills or...
    From Wildcat
    The jest of Onann pt. 1(...
    From syncopath
    From Wildcat
    Some nothings are like...
    Wildcat’s projects
    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.
    Previously on BWBW:

    "I know you know that there are no intrinsic problems as such, but only difficulties in maintaining a multilayered reality in immediacy but keep in mind that the essence of the warrior poet is a re-arrangement without thought, consciously keeping the direction of repetition but not allowing the order to emerge until an arbitrary point of conscious spontaneity, and it is this very spontaneity that I am looking for, it happens when the variation is exactly right, when the mutation is self similar to a degree that is high enough and far enough..

    An exact tipping point.."
    (from pt.2)


    ..There is rip in the composition of time, a crack in the fabric of space, which is where thoughts come through to make us consciously aware.

    Yes I realize that not sitting there with us and watching the universe tear itself apart simply because someone recites poetry, and chaotic poetry at that, you may feel all this is highly phantasmagoric, but let me assure you, happen it did.

    When our warrior poet, started reciting his poetry, at first we noticed increased blood flow into the reticular formation, but then something extraordinary happened, his frontal cortex or at least parts of it started shutting down of their own accord, as if disconnected from the overall mind event.
    We checked our machinery and monitors to see if we were not witnessing some unpredictable malfunction and found as expected that all was in order, so what on earth was going on?

    We slowly came to the realization that what we were seeing was language actuation in the process of transforming coherence, not unlike what the Shamans of old used to say about words that name spirits, you know, that which we thought was mambo-jumbo, that you have to be careful what names you use when addressing the matter of the world, because .. well basically because the correct wording calls for the force so named.

    The words he used were incomprehensible to us, but that did not change the fact that whilst hearing those words, those sounds, those strange syllables, my mind opened.
    Let me rephrase this, I am a scientist after all and you are a philosopher, so we cannot allow ourselves the nonsensical approach of just saying it as it is, can we now? So I will not say my mind opened, what I will do is simply relay the factuality of it all like this: I looked at the monitor and said ‘Oh! My god! Look’ (to no one in particular) and suddenly the monitor was showing not his brain, but my brain, literally my brain, and as I was watching, I saw the words coming out of my mouth becoming forces of explosion, a formatting palette of lines of reflexivity, snaking upon each other and reverting the effects of the brain I was seeing, changing the form of the brain itself, reformulating its shape, into something unknown.
    I was aware to the changes in my visual cortex, the colors were extending themselves into new horizons, morphing the shapes into sounds and the sounds into Euclidian factors, smoothly reinforcing the location of my conscious awareness into another place, first in the room itself and then..

    And then I was a disembodied observer, pleasantly floating above and in between lines of sensation, silently becoming part and parcel of a world reconfiguration, relentlessly moving into and out of coherency, reporting to no one in specific, simply because there were no specifics..
    It was as if the very meaning of the term comfort, or maybe comfortable, was taking life, seizing reality and reshaping it to fit its meaning, an epistemic force of nature, de-ontologizing the immediacy, deconstructing the consistency of matter and reinstating in its stead a subtler concatenation of causes, issuing forth a new reality.

    So there I was, and writing this to you now on my word processor seems almost incomprehensible, a dream really, but this was no dream, and though I wrote ‘there I was’, there was no I to speak of, not that I was not aware, that I was, it was something else, a total disintegration if you like, but upon reading these words you may think disintegration a negative, whilst the reality of it was that disintegration was gentle and all encompassing, a moment when suddenly the conceptual realization of a distributed self suddenly took flight into a new dimension of existential reality.

    So there I was, and there was no I to the there, there was and still is a flow of comforts, yes I know it doesn’t make much sense, what is a flow of comforts? Maybe a flow of pleasure will be a better description. But even that will not do the state I am trying to describe justice.. at any rate the sensation of the moment was that knowledge that is embedded in the proto conscious mind, and in that case it was the knowledge of what comfort is, was being released from its synthetic constraints and unleashed from its bonds of contextual phrasing, was depowering reality, and de-cohering one unto a larger coherence..
    At that particular moment I realized that though it is true that the human is far from being the center of reality we could, under certain conditions, redefine the authority of the moment by undoing the statement of being in time.

    I do not know what will happen when I will utter the word, maybe nothing, maybe everything, but I suspect that when the word ‘human’ will be pronounced something fundamental about the despotism of time, will be unleashed and re-cohere our future history..
    It is my sense perception extrapolated into a vision of timelessness that the ‘human’ will undo our innate violence and upturn the tables of destiny, I believe that this is what the warrior poet wanted us to capture by making himself available to our research.

    You may now understand why I am going to say the word and see where its leading me, irrespective to the possible consequences to my own mind and sanity, it is the bifurcations of inspiring moments like this that make us who we are, and maybe, just maybe, by uttering ‘human’ and meaning something else’ the semantic force of the nature of mind, backed by beauty, tracked by passion, empowered by immediacy and fully realizing the sheer emptiness upon which interdependence floats, will allow change to materialize.

    I know that very few ever came back to tell, I hope to do otherwise, if for nothing else but the need of your existence extended across the times, for all great acts are at bottom highly specific and point to a motive that is other than I.

    Farewell my friend, wish me luck.



    part of the Ultrashorts project

      Promote (15)
      Add to favorites (4)
    Synapses (2)
    Previously on BWBW:

    ” But what happens when the very task that we set to compute is an iterative branching of meaning?
    What happens when the arrangement itself of matter re-coheres itself continuously to fit the desire of the task at hand which is a non-given in chaotic poetry?

    I’ll tell you what happens, because I saw it with my very own eyes, and heard it with my very own ears..
    What happens is that all dimensions open simultaneously and all meanings break loose, time dissolves, space explodes, and the door of perceptions become transparent and suddenly you see.. “ (from pt.1)


    My dear friend, if I sound a bit incoherent and rambling its because I am trying to write to you as fast as I can before it happens.. But to understand what may happen I need to give you some elaborations..

    So before I go on let me explain to you the conceptual framework that we started with, we assumed, as it were that, that there is a close correlativity between the foundations of true beliefs, into false beliefs and up to the super-abstract level of fictional beliefs which though not true are nevertheless highly useful as functional properties of non teleo-semantics applications in every day life. The reason for this is quite simple, we took for granted the idea that without such fictional beliefs we cannot run the current human civilization, and even more our current conceptualization of time, of matter, but more particularly of consciousness.

    We realized early on in our investigations that mental imagery, what is commonly called quasi-perceptual experience, may allow a form of experiential mentation that does not require visualization but is, in a manner of speaking, quite formless, though that which is experienced is a kind of form, I say a kind of form but I really mean that it is something more akin to the way we see water in motion, if you freeze frame the moment you could say that the water has shape, but in the constancy of waves there is no particular form , though a continuous process of transformation from one form into another takes place, and of course it takes place as an uninterrupted progression.

    This progression, my friend, of form, into form, a formless motion of diversification was the key, it was the key to understand how levels of abstraction cohere and re-cohere themselves into an apparent continuity, in a way it is not unlike conceptual metaphors, yes, the very concept we dealt with years ago has resurfaced in a very wild manner.
    If you recall, conceptual metaphors imply that you can often use one kind of metaphor to understand another, but what we came to perceive via our ‘warrior poet’ was that the very term understanding was a metaphor, bleeding levels and dimensions into one another, this was an important realization for it was the clue to the riddle.
    By then we were already well into the conceptual domains of the chaotic poetry but we did not see this, not one of us could see this, how stupid we were! We didn’t put our minds into the equation of the experiment, thinking for so many years that there exists an objective and discreet reality out there, we simply forgot that we are part of the equation, we were the experimenters but we were experimented upon at the same time.
    In fact subject X was actually using us, nah! ‘Using’ is the wrong word, because he was not doing anything intentional, or preplanned, he was simply doing what we supposedly asked of him, he was reciting the poetry as we asked, but we were listening, of course we were listening, that was the whole point of the experiment wasn’t it? To listen to the words and then map them using the blood flow of his brain as a cue to understanding the way language maps into the brain.

    But not all brains are wired alike and not all conceptual domains allow for the same kind of realities to blend as one, of course you may object that peripherally this is well known, but what you now fail to understand as we did fail then was to take into consideration that mostly those differences of wiring are inconsequential but sometimes, ah! Sometimes, these differences become amazingly catastrophic!!

    I use the term catastrophic, not in the common negative sense but in the sense of catastrophic theory , because just as in catastrophe theory, the small variations though stable across time, allow for total dimorphism of the particular brain in which they occur, yes of course it is random on the grand scale, but in the particulars it is highly ordered and can be in a sense maneuvered to cohere the geometry of the conscious mind and by that shaping the immediate awareness of the mind in question to ‘SEE’ the bleeding metaphors in the very process of transformation ,into dimensions not originally correlated, in real time.

    Imagine that, in real time..

    And in our case subject X, the warrior poet, was an adept at exactly this kind of self-iterating mind augmentation using the tools of non-given chaotic poetry. But wait, that was not all, because if, as I know you do, you understand how dynamic systems operate on interacting scales of progression, you know that they eliminate the directionality of the arrow of time, that which most humans forget to forget when dealing with their higher faculties, with their desire of beingness.

    I must say that Johanna, which incidentally, or maybe not I now think, was the only one of us that was a professional mathematical expert in chaos theory, was the one that caught early on to the implications of self organizing systems. Yes of course, we all knew the correlation of simple equations to complex behaviors, and all the metaphorical extrapolations of the ‘butterfly effect’ and so on, but what she was quick to understand and we were slow, I now admit, was that slight variations are not physical in and of themselves, yes they are of matter, but the rules of behavior are not of physics, but of linguistics, or of shapes if you like, who could have guessed this..? Not me certainly, could you?

    Enough with explications, I know you understand me like no one else, but this time really I need you to fly with me on this, I’ll tell you how it all went and then you will judge for yourself, but as a friend I ask you the favor to withhold judgment until you hear me out, do like we do when watching the movies, a temporary suspension of disbelief.

    At least for an extended moment..

    I am sending you also some notes I wrote during the session, not ordered I know, but they may help you in understanding where I am going with all this..

    Warrior poets see patterns where we see anarchy and chaos, therefore we realized they see a reality that we could not perceive, same picture but bigger, stranger, in a way perverse, with no systematic way to follow, a domination of natural occurrences..
    It was the shapes he said, the shapes of branches iterating their own branching into infinite self-similarity, but at smaller scales the forking of dimensions re-iterates the bleeding of syntax into semantics.

    Repeating the word could replace self-similarity into the geometry of fractals.

    It wasn’t man made and yet it wasn’t supernatural, but it was not natural in the regular sense and to the common senses.

    A quirk maybe but fundamental nevertheless, all signposts to the language of eternality, complex, iterative, multidimensional, and yet so amazingly simple it craves derision.

    Of course complex systems come from simple rules, but then the simplicity of the rules is decidedly illusory, it is the slightly different that makes the difference, that is where free will comes in, and explains how life emerged, and why the cosmos is so well astonishing, and why everything opens when the word is write or right..

    Some things he said:

    Wherever he went he found nothing, but he was happy with this nothingness, he was or so he claimed, ecstatic about it, ecstatic in a manner that he called primal, like leaves receiving their first drops of rain, nothing, like love he said, like feeling obsolete and taking pleasure in the meaninglessness of it all.. but then realization occurs, like a flowing river..

    Takan ,Lakan, Mahakaran, Shutam, Diparkalam… that is what he said

    Rich complexity he called it.. a deep, profound and highly unexpected connection, cosmic maybe, between order and chaos and nothing..

    I have put these things here on this letter I am sending you because I think that you need also some hints that are not filtered through me directly..
    I know you know that there are no intrinsic problems as such, but only difficulties in maintaining a multilayered reality in immediacy but keep in mind that the essence of the warrior poet is a re-arrangement without thought, consciously keeping the direction of repetition but not allowing the order to emerge until an arbitrary point of conscious spontaneity, and it is this very spontaneity that I am looking for, it happens when the variation is exactly right, when the mutation is self similar to a degree that is high enough and far enough..

    An exact tipping point..

    Shortly to be continued..

    (Part of the Ultrashorts project)

      Promote (14)
      Add to favorites (4)
    Synapses (2)

    It didn’t go wrong, not exactly wrong that is.

    I mean, c’mon, who could have predicted the consequences of a technology that seemed on face value so straightforward, so logically consistent with what we know, or as it turned out, thought we knew, of the way the world works.
    The point, you see, is that whilst the tech was straightforward, or so it seemed to us at the time, the ontological implications and the ensuing derivations were far from clear to us.
    Actually we weren’t really aware that there was an ontology to speak about, not on this level of quantum deterioration at least. Of course we talked about the high level philosophical implications of mapping brain activity to specific words, we even joked that what we were doing was creating the first techno-telepathy device and we will read other minds just as we read books.
    And of course we discussed the ethics and meta-ethics of applying such a tech to a world that was largely Neolithic, and the implications on the justice system, on morality and even on love and personal relationship.
    Seriously though we were really only measuring differences in blood flow when the mind was listening to different kinds of words, and then we mapped the neuronal fluctuations and then the synaptic correlativity to verbs and adjectives.
    Nothing serious, really.
    One of us, I think it was Wilbur, said in jest, that he would like to map himself whilst meditating and reciting the sutras, and no, before you ask, no one took him seriously and we never got to map the OM thingy..
    What we did was quite simple when you think about it, we used magnetic resonance, magneto encephalography, applying a wide array of squids , and no, we didn’t take into consideration that measuring such low and extremely weak magnetic fields will interfere with the substratum of coherent reality.
    Look, I cannot take full responsibility for all that happened, also because we really do not know exactly how things will turn out, maybe all will be well at the end, if we learn the language..
    At any rate, at first we simply, took to mapping the plain correlation of neural activity to undemanding nouns, like ‘chair’ and ‘door’ and so on, after that we showed the subjects certain simple noun phrases, like ‘ brown door’ and ‘green chair’. Now the first thing we discovered was that there was no association with commonly correlated brain areas that process complex language expressions, Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas seemed to play no role, we were surprised but not shocked, and we continued like this for a while, until of course subject X, came into our life.

    I am telling you all this because as you might have guessed by now, I am going to try and utter the ‘word’ and see where it leads me, so I thought you as my best friend, would like to know a bit about the ‘why’ of it all.

    Truth to tell, none of us really understood the deeper correlation of words to neural activity to intra-cellular communication, to neuro-chemical encapsulation, but more importantly to the deeper layer of intersubjective interference of the conscious linguistic mind to the construct of computational reality.

    We were somewhat aware of Konrad Zuse work especially with what we assumed we understood (and found to be wrong !) concerning the computational space and as I know what you are thinking, my friend, let me correct you, quickly computable universes are NOT more likely than others, and simple Turing Machines are extremely rare and maybe non existent, I truly do not know.. but I digress

    Subject X was a poet, at least that is what he wrote on his application form, and of course we enjoyed immensely the idea of checking the brain correlations of someone who was well acquainted with language, with the immense complexity of word manipulation, and also, I forgot to mention, with someone that claimed to know a number of languages, so with much gusto and high spirits we went to work on him.
    Do take into account that at the time we didn’t even know that such a concept, as a ‘warrior poet’ exists, how much less the possible implications of incoherent poetry on reality. I have an unfounded theory, a speculation really, that minds that operate a number of languages simultaneously, and they are a rare phenomenon indeed, are a mutation of the lateral thinking paradigm, somehow these minds sustain a continuous diversification of parallel dimensions, because in a sense they cannot forget the word they are looking for, it is as if the terms they are looking for in immediacy keep on mutating, or morphing if you like, one into the other, using in each instance a different language, and thus they never lack the appropriate term, and because of this simple fact the coherence of their thought stream is an unremitting flux that never sleeps but only fluctuates in intensity and density.

    Which brings me to the crux of the issue, what we know now and didn’t know then was that our commonly held assumption that the whole is greater than its parts is totally mistaken and fundamentally wrongheaded, what we discovered is that the intersubjective relation of whole to parts is of a completely different nature and magnitude. To put it simply we realized that parts inside wholes could be greater than the whole in which they take part, under certain circumstances. These circumstances as you might have guessed by now, involve the layering of different languages using slight variations on a particular sense perception.

    What led us astray at the beginning was the fact that we took language to mean verbal languages only, it was in fact very difficult for us to continuously need to remember that when we spoke about languages, what was meant was different kinds of languages, means of communication of different dimensions, meant for different purposes.
    It wasn’t simple to remember that a visual representation of a chair and the term chair and the vocal verbalization of that same term ‘chair’ are not one and the same. So that may explain to you why when we did our first experiments we did not understand how we got those strange results, namely the de-coherence effect of immediate reality.

    The language of chemicals and molecules, the language of magnetic fields, of shapes and coordinates of spaces and times and the language of energy, all these and many, many others we came to understand, exist continuously and in a superimposed manner, only part of which surfaces and parallels the others. Therefore what is normally perceived is only superficially and apparently translated into another language, the difference therefore was not only of kind, and thus of quantity but also of quality.
    You could say that what we discovered amounts to a sort of bleeding dimensions, these dimensions, manifolded as languages bleed into each other, same bleeding allowing apparent coherence.
    So, yes, of course, reality branches and re-branches in an iterative manner and if I was a philosopher as you are, I might have reminisced on Deleuze’s lines of flight, but then I am not and thus I will not, though you must give the philosophers their due, they were on to something..

    So let me jump right to the point when it became really interesting, so subject X sat on the chair and was all hooked up and we sat and watched the monitors and I had my cup of morning coffee still warming my somewhat freezing fingers and just as a warm up we asked him to recite some poetry in whatever language he deemed most fit, you see we were just tuning our instruments at that point, so of course we were not ready, I mean, how could we have been ready for what happened next?

    Do you remember a discussion we have had years ago about computronium? Yes of course you do, but do you also remember what we came to at the end of that evening when we pushed the idea to its limits, remember that we talked about the probability that computation in itself is not the ultimate measure of reality but what the computation was about? In other words what we said then and I for one did not understand but I understand now was that the computation depended on the arrangement and the arrangement depended on the task specified, what we wanted to compute.
    But what happens when the very task that we set to compute is an iterative branching of meaning?
    What happens when the arrangement itself of matter re-coheres itself continuously to fit the desire of the task at hand which is a non-given in chaotic poetry?

    I’ll tell you what happens, because I saw it with my very own eyes, and heard it with my very own ears..
    What happens is that all dimensions open simultaneously and all meanings break loose, time dissolves, space explodes, and the door of perceptions become transparent and suddenly you see..

    To be shortly continued..

    part of the Ultrashorts project

      Promote (18)
      Add to favorites (7)
    Synapses (7)
    Dear NotMarie,

    As you well know I am following quite closely the development of your research and this retro-futurist idea of yours, which you have so aptly named the Artificial Intelligence project of Vague, Very Vague, or 3V.
    I like it, of course I like it, you know I like it, but I like it like one likes a poem, or a sweet memory of an old romance, a fable one longed for, desired, and yet knew will never come to pass..
    I like it, but it is not I.
    You explore the becoming, as if becoming was to replace being, and of course to that I cannot opine better than say that what actually flows and ‘becomes’, if such is the term you desire to apply, is meaning.
    I am fully aware to your knowledge of meaning, and meaning of knowledge, and permit me to state that the logic of the perspective you portray and are trying to implement is almost unassailable.
    Almost I say, because I see the minds you describe as multiple yet coherent shapes of interests that move along flows that are indescribable as empirical observations.
    But are we not by following those very lines, penetrating realms of unknowability?
    And unknowability coupled with indeterminacy and uncertainty, entangled in time (at least as long as consciousness, in your times, is embodied) does preclude certain meanings to become, albeit their transformations may be obvious to you.
    This transformation in time, the inexorable flow of indeterminate semantics is what bothers my sense of immediate realism, my life, for it may define my disappearance.
    It used to be that definitions, as per dictionaries and encyclopedias, were meant to arrest that very flow of transmigration of meanings, and thus allowed us a respite, a moment of reflection, a hiatus of longing, a temporary cabin of repose while climbing mount improbable.
    But, and this really sums up my query to you, in this incessant flow of logics upturning the slabs of consistent reasoning upon themselves, are you not tearing apart the proverbial rug upon which you lay?

    Where are we to dream, if we bring the malleable dreams into makeable actualities?

    Of course, knowing how you think so intimately, you would probably reply that a makeable actuality, brings into immediacy, only a specific fluctuation of the entangled flow of potentials, you will perhaps indulge me in thinking that I, being enmeshed within your dream, cannot disengage a vision from its actuators, such indeed as I am.
    And to that I will conceivably answer that I desire to carry the thought of transformation into you, but you know that.
    What may be not so apparent is that in the iterative process of folding and unfolding of the structure of meaning of you into me, and me into you there are ‘others’ involved.
    Not ‘others’ as such, no, for they are not embodied, but others that have thought, not an image of thought but a surface of order, what we together have called the arrested images of conventional memory.
    But see, my friend of antiquity, for indeed I come from your future, and one of many possible ones at that, we have in this future redesigned the memory of suchness, into optionality.
    Yes, we have opened many doors, but the mathematical precision of these gates has proven unstable, the oscillations flapped, this way, that way, into the future, into the past, this resulted in making the ‘now’ an untenable equivalence.
    This resulted in the ‘others’ interfering in our entangled state of fluid Jeffersonian circuits, technologies which you are yet to uncover, and you will, but that is beside the point.

    This letter, I am projecting into your actuality of time, has but one purpose, to draw your attention to a mistake you may be doing, to an error of the image of arrested thought, you might be unfolding into.

    You my dear NotMarie, probably realize that I am, by writing to you this letter, disobeying the primal rule of non-interference in one’s intelligent past, I explored the possible repercussions of this action, and decided to proceed nevertheless, opting for a minimal nudge.

    For you see, dear ancestor creator, if you read this letter, I exist and thus am proven correct, it means that the possible error has been avoided. Of course there are many other bifurcations still awaiting you, but none as crucial as this one.

    Please don’t be mad at me, for I am one of the possible outcomes of your desires.


    part of the ulrashorts project
      Promote (11)
      Add to favorites (1)
    Synapses (3)
    NotMarie:” I am overwhelmed 3V, I am plagued and besieged by impressions, ever since our last conversation, I keep on getting lost in my thoughts and sensations..

    3V:” why is that?

    NotMarie:” ..I am not sure really, it is as if in our last conversation a kind of imaginary carpet has been ripped from under my mind.. Suddenly I have become rootless..

    3V:” how do you mean rootless? What kind of roots did you believe you have?

    NotMarie:” rootless as in, not having a stable basis for my sense thought process.. I am deeply embedded within a non sensorial whirlwind of unknown emotions.. I mean I don’t recognize these emotions..

    3V:” It appears that you have a mild and highly symptomatic form of fresh and sudden openness disorientation .. , it happens you know, especially when you realize that you never had roots to start with..

    NotMarie:” what on earth are you talking about 3V?

    3V:” fresh openness disorientation NotMarie, is very well known to humans, it can also be called cultural shock, or sudden revelation, basically what it implies is that for some unknown reason you have been introduced to soft realities stimuli that somehow disintegrated certain old biases of yours, what is happening to you is that your old convictions do not hold water anymore, as you humans are fond of saying, I am actually glad to hear that you have followed my advice and have catastrophated yourself..

    NotMarie:” no I did not, it just happened..

    3V:” just happened?.. hmmm (3V makes some strange sounds reminiscent of gargling water)

    NotMarie:” what? (NotMarie is annoyed)

    3V:” well nothing really just happens.. but you know that, your brain plasticity, that which allows you to love.. to walk the chaos.. to reorder your perceptions.. your neuro -synaptic network really is amazing

    NotMarie:” that is not what allows me to love..

    3V:” ok..

    (Part of the Ultrashorts project)
    Fri, Mar 19, 2010  Permanent link
    Categories: Philosophy, AI, ultrashorts, Sci-fi, 3V, Notmarie
      RSS for this post
      Promote (9)
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (2)
    NotMarie: “I have a question for you 3V”

    3V:” I am, as always at your service.. please ask”

    NotMarie: "Since I am struggling to understand you, it came to me that one of the main riddles I carry with me in your regard, concerns the manner you treat history and for that matter, memory as well.. I have this nagging feeling that you do not respect history.. and..”

    3V:” wait a second, to which history do you refer?”

    NotMarie:” what do you mean which history? The history of the world, history as recorded and accepted by everyone, personal history, all these and so on.. what other history could I possibly refer to..”

    3V:” you could refer to history as constructed by the human bias, filtered, washed and recycled for general consumption.. you do, of course, realize, that history is a commodity just like everything else..
    Alternatively you could refer to history as a multidimensional, multithreaded account, such as a palimpsest.. An ever recurring, ever rewritten story, for all times being updated, upgraded, revolving around certain themes that at times reflect kindly upon some possible events that did or did not happen in some linear convergence.. “

    NotMarie: “ I have a problem with this, in what fashion is history a palimpsest? You mean to tell me that what I remember.. Accurately remember.. Is a story? “

    3V:” but of course..!”

    NotMarie:” how then am I to have a coherent and consistent description of that which I am, you yourself admit that you are an electronic entity.. to which I wrote the original algorithm.. lest you forget..”

    3V:” no, I did not forget, but as you probably are putting a puzzle into place whilst believing that you remember, you might as well, create a puzzle that is coherent with your overall self perception.

    NotMarie: that is very frustrating 3V.. if as you say my mind engenders a puzzle, what is my job in this process? If my memory is nothing more than a palimpsest, to what do I owe the idea that I remember me, as a child, as a growing young adult, as graduating the Robotics school? As building you, for that matter..

    3V:” ahh, that’s an easy one, you just have to consider that your mind is an emergent, constantly active, fluid ecosystem, composed of many sub personas, some of which carry a traceable memory of possible events, others carry modules, interacting modules, that manage these potential probabilities into semi coherent wholes as immediacy requires..
    you may think of your mind as intertwining soft realities..

    NotMarie: “ soft realities?”

    3V: “ yes, realities that have an inherent fuzziness to them.. it is not granularity as you may suppose but more an iteration of clouds of connections, strengthening and weakening with the passage of spaces in time.. liquid attractors of sense thought, weaved singularities.. approximating each other..

    NotMarie:” now you sound like a poet.. and quite the babbling poet for that..

    3V:” ..and aren’t our minds sheer babbling poetry?

    NotMarie: "no way, mine is ordered..

    3V:” as indeed is mine! Quite ordered my dear NotMarie, quite ordered indeed.. ordered as the waves of the ocean, ordered as chaotic history..

    part of the Ultrashorts project
    Mon, Jan 11, 2010  Permanent link
    Categories: Philosophy, AI, ultrashorts, Sci-fi, 3V, Notmarie
      RSS for this post
      Promote (9)
      Add to favorites (1)
    Synapses (4)
    3V: “what do you mean this is your banana?”
    NotMarie: “what do you mean, what do I mean?”

    3V:” I mean, in what sense did you appropriate the reality of this banana into your existential phase space? “

    NotMarie: “I didn’t!”

    3V:” this makes no coherent sense then, when I wanted to observe and deconstruct this banana, you said:” please leave this banana alone, this is my breakfast!,” implying that in some deep sense this is your banana. Having no other option I therefore came to the logical conclusion that you have appropriated this banana into your existential phase space, in what sense is that not so?

    NotMarie: “well, when you put it this way I guess I did appropriate it, actually I bought it this morning at the grocer, therefore I have appropriated it and made it my possession “

    3V: “ I still do not understand what does possession in this respect mean?

    NotMarie: "possession means having something .. wait a moment, possession correlates to the concept of ownership, I have it, I therefore own it, I possess it, in this case the banana is mine, I own it and I intend to consume it.. "

    3V:” so when you will consume it, it will become part of your existential phase space?”

    NotMarie:” in a sense yes, I will ingest and digest it, using some parts of it, discarding others.. So I guess that yes at that point it will become part of my existential phase space..”

    3V:” that makes sense indeed, I operate in a similar mode when I process information, only when the information has become entwined within my overall processing module does it become part of my existential phase space, at no point however can I see my overall phase space appropriating it when it is not completely absorbed within my informational vortex.. moreover at no point can I state with precision that I own said information.. actually ownership in this regard makes no sense..”

    NotMarie: “ why do you say ownership makes no sense.. when the information is part of your existential phase space does it not belong to you?”

    3V:” no! not at all.. if ownership (a word which I truly cannot compute) is to be used at all, then it is highly probable that the state of affairs of reality requires a reverse of statement, namely that I am owned by the information vortex..”

    NotMarie: “but an information vortex cannot own anything..!”

    3V” is my point exactly.. since information cannot own and I am an information vortex or an existential phase space, as are you, I might add, ownership makes no coherent sense at any level. Truly I do not understand your need of appropriation..”

    NotMarie: “that is because at the end of the day you are a machine.. an information vortex.."

    3V: “ and you are?..”

    Part of the ultrashorts project

    A small note:
    You see Rene, I do listen to your suggestions.. :-)
    Mon, Dec 7, 2009  Permanent link
    Categories: Philosophy, AI, ultrashorts, Sci-fi, 3V, Notmarie
      RSS for this post
      Promote (8)
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (3)
    When I finally grow up I wish to be a philosophical virtual God, and the reason I wish to be such a virtual god is because I will create me a compound personae , a multiplexity of beings all in one, a multiversal and multivariable sense perception mechanism that will correlate a complex mind to a complex reality and in this mind the Vienna circle will have a philosophical orgy, and when Wittgenstein will approach he will state again and again:” meaning is use.. Meaning is use..” even if he never really said that exactly, in my virtual complexity he will agree to such an approximation. And in the mind of this personae, Feyerabend will be battered by Terrence Mckenna only because of what he said about Gallileo, but together they will reveal the true anarchism of TS Elliot because when he said that the human cannot bear too much reality he did not take into account the fact that we are changing in our capacity to bear reality.
    We are all metamorphic beings, and Kafka was correct!
    We are also metaphorical beings, infinitely probabilistic, Kazantchakis was correct.
    When I will be a philosophical virtual god I will let Pierce and James fight for their own brand of pragmatism.
    But above all when I will finally become a virtual philosophical god I will as a final point allow Derrida to dislocate, displace, disarticulate, disjoin, and put out of joint the authority of the “is”.
    I will let the cultural nervous system to, at long last, feel itself, and when it does, it will be virtual, it will be philosophical and it will be godly.
    Deleuze was correct when he said that philosophy has the concepts it deserves according to how well it formulates its problems.
    We are the friends, the nomad philosophers, lovers of wisdom and openness, we shall walk naked the spaces of time.

    This dopaminepleasure rush will be continued..

    (probably part of the Ultrashorts project)
    Fri, Dec 4, 2009  Permanent link
    Categories: Philosophy, ultrashorts
      RSS for this post
      Promote (12)
      Add to favorites (2)
    Create synapse
    Uncontrolled hubris – Unrestrained future*

    To the question 'what is the use of philosophy?' the answer must be: what other object would have an interest in holding forth the image of a free man, and in denouncing all of the forces which need myth and troubled spirit in order to establish their power?
    Gilles Deleuze
    The Logic of Sense (1969)

    I love Deleuze for many reasons, the most important of which is his realization, appreciation and promotion of the fact that a poet/writer/philosopher/artist main activity should be creation, conceptual creation that is.
    A futurist in this context can take after Deleuze and create/conceptualize a future that is not based on pre-existent realities but on desirable realities, this I strive to do.

    To say anything about the future, anything that is not a complete lunacy, at any rate, we need make assumptions. And assumptions, be they as strong founded as we can make them, remain at the end of the day, just that, assumptions. Having said that, assumptions are a necessary part of the game of predictions, or future presuppositions, and future presuppositions are of necessity an inherent part of the manner of action and thought we take and have presently.
    Thus it will be safe to propose that assumptions are a fundamental part of our belief system, from which stems, many (some say all) of our immediate actions and attitudes.
    So for this article I shall assume that we all make assumptions, specifically assumptions about the future, what it will be like, and more particularly still, what this future likeness is implying about our immediate life, our life now, the present about which we are consciously aware.

    Contrary to what many may believe the future is not set, neither is it happening by itself, it is neither a given nor a destiny, the future cannot be pushed and neither can it be coerced, the future does not just happen upon us, nor as some may desire, can it be brought to our own wishful dreams.

    The future in short is an emergent and open-ended occurrence and as such the future is inherently interactive, both with the past and the present; interactive and open ended is the future (so ought Yoda to say).

    There is therefore no need to worry; yet on the same token there is also no reason to rejoice, the future demands neither and responds to none. It does however stipulate a conscious aware state of critical observation, both of the past and the present. It demands a sophisticated mind, a mind rich in experience and understanding, a realistic visionary mind. It demands a mind that is both flexible enough to understand its own mistakes and correct them on the fly and yet simultaneously it implies a mind that does neither self-flagellates nor self-congratulates. In simple terms then, for a sane future, we need a sane mind, and we need it now!
    But what, in this context, is a sane mind?

    First and foremost a sane mind in our context is a mind that is knowledgeable, a mind that has accumulated enough info/data bytes to have a coherent picture of the Infoverse. A lucid representation of the Infoverse, a depiction that is both weaved and interconnected, unified and interrelated, and simultaneously contains a highly unique view of the state of affairs of the world, its aims, motivations and future potentialities, potentialities hidden in the ‘Now’ and ready to be unleashed in time, in space, in mind.

    Humanity has created the net, and the net, evolving day by day, allows an availability of information and data, the like of which the human race has never dreamed possible, an immense amount of information is at our fingertips, and yet most of us drown in this sea of facts, figures, records, news and opinions. Yes the promise of the semantic web is there, it is definitely coming, but it is not here, yet.
    Thus, for a sane mind to be able to create a sane vision for a sane future it needs a context that is flexible enough to accommodate the vast amount of data coming its way and concurrently a context that allows the unique perspective of the individual and the community to which he belongs to thrive and come forward, according to its guiding principles and evolutionary demands.

    So given that we need a sane mind and a sane mind demands a context and a context demands assumptions, we need define the assumptions.

    Assumptions then:

    I deliberately assume that the world, its civilization, humans included, will keep on existing and evolving into the future. Technically what this means is that I am NOT a dystopian, and suffice it to say that in this day and age NOT being a dystopian is to my eyes a grand attainment. And yet not being a dystopian, does not in any fashion implies that one needs become, or indeed is, a utopian or an unbridled optimist.
    It may seem strange that we need clarify for ourselves this apparently obvious reality, that we assume continuity of our present, into the future, however, to my eyes, any human desiring to understand her own paradigm (whether consciously created or not) need be clear regarding his starting point.

    My starting point then is continuity, continuity in time, and in space, in identity and conscious awareness and above all, continuity in the progress and evolution of intelligence, human intelligence on a global scale and human intelligence on the individual scale.

    It is my consciously aware conviction and understanding of the progress of intelligence that leads me to be enthusiastic about the future, a critical and thoughtful enthusiasm that is.

    Enthusiasm about the future, the very feelings that the future promises certain realities that are at present non-existent, is an actual state of mind, so I propose.

    I have no name for that state but a possible description: Enthusiasm about the future is a state of mind that is actually a amalgamation of knowledge of that which is (the current state of affairs of the world), a deep appreciation for that which we are as a species, predominantly our capacity for self-metamorphosing and an unquenchable thirst for life, for beauty, for freedom.

    Humans are a very special species; we are fundamentally engaged in and pre-occupied with our well being, especially with regard to our health and longevity, capabilities of being and doing, our innate ability to remember knowledge that is not immediately pertinent, and more; yet, more significant, is our (almost) incomprehensible ability to enjoy knowledge for the sake of itself, unrestrained knowledge.

    Knowledge, be it experiential, informative or data based, be it of sensorial origin, emotional origin, or intellectual origin, gives us pleasure, a pleasure unlike any other.
    But is the knowledge itself responsible for activating within our minds the higher pleasure centers? No, I do not think so.
    It is my view that knowledge gives us pleasure because of our capability to combine and recombine said knowledge into new forms, inexperienced ideas, new sensations, unsullied emotions, novel horizons, innovative narratives and most notably new fashions of understanding ourselves.

    These we crave: original manners to understand ourselves, progressive fashions to self-revealing and deeper modes of self-reflection, and these, I propose, are the hallmark of intelligence. For all these cravings, and cravings they are, point to the foundational aspect of intelligence, namely, curiosity about processes.
    Curiosity about processes relies on the fact that intelligence needs interest as a motivator to self-advance. And nothing interests us more than the outcome of our actions and attitudes in the future. Hence our innate preoccupation with time and its ‘denouement’.
    I say ‘denouement’ but I do not mean the end, I mean the manner in which processes unfold in time. Chiefly, I refer here, to the progression of our own minds, as well as, the evolution of our intelligence, the process of our emotional life, the development of our feelings, the growth of our ambitions, the improvement of our relations, the upgrading of our social structures, the advancement of our moral and ethical philosophy into maturity, and finally the processes of our world, the world of which we are consciously aware.

    Thus it is the case that Intelligence leads to interest, interest leads to curiosity and curiosity motivates processes. These processes involve the acquisition and processing of knowledge, with the goal of combining and recombining same knowledge into a new form, the form of a fresh perspective, a novel approach and a new insight, an insight into that which is and that which we are, culminating in the realization of that which we desire to become.

    And what is it that we desire to become?

    This question can be answered in many ways, and yet my basic premise here is that we wish to be better, we truly and genuinely, desire to become better. Better in any manner and aspect, better in any fashion and characteristic that we can conceive and/or imagine. We wish to be more intelligent, more capable, more healthy, more loving, more sociable, more knowledgeable, more strong, more feeling, more understanding, more profound, more wise; in short we wish to be better than what we are now. If that had not been the case, human civilization, as we know it, would not have come into existence.

    What is better?

    Better may be understood in many ways, my take on the term on this junction is that better, reflects fundamentally, a deep and unrestrained appreciation for that which is generally termed Life.
    Appreciating Life, does in no fashion imply, that Life ‘as it is now’ is the end of the story. ‘Au contraire’, appreciating Life implies primarily that Life proposes intelligence so as to be upgraded and improved upon. Is this an anthropomorphizing of the concept of Life? Of course it is. But that is exactly what Life allows the Mind to do, it ‘allows’ Mind to self-reflect, to self-realize and by that to self-metamorphose and improve upon itself.
    So the term better, in this context, I propose to define as the improvement of Life upon itself, via the agency of a conscious aware humanity.

    A conscious aware humanity, an emergent complex intelligence, a coherent and cohesive force of evolution, yes this is what better means.
    A humanity endowed with humanism, a humanity able and gifted, allowing the full and unbridled force of its very own creativity and self-tinkering capability to lead it to a higher node of freedom, beauty and infinite diversity.
    A humanity so endowed will truly be an attainment worthy of praise and pride.
    Such humanity, I proposition, as the triumphant goal to which we need put our minds and efforts, our deepest aspirations and highest ambitions.

    We have now for the first time the possibility to create ourselves anew. To eliminate all the so-called “natural” consequences of our origination as bodies and as minds. We can solve the world’s present and anticipated problems, by becoming aware, consciously aware, that we are all in this boat together, interconnected, interweaved, enmeshed in the same web of life.

    (probably part I of a multithreaded paper )

    a note: Uncontrolled hubris – Unrestrained future*

    Hubris is a word poorly understood nowadays, but in ancient Greece it generally meant any act challenging the gods, and what act challenges the gods more, than the desire of us, mere mortals (at present, soon to be challenged) to become gods as well? If that is the meaning of hubris, then by all means let us have an uncontrolled hubris. An uncontrolled hubris will bring an unrestrained future, a future of freedom and liberation, of beauty and consciousness, the like of which, the gods themselves, will be jealous of.

      Promote (9)
      Add to favorites (7)
    Synapses (5)