Member 420
242 entries
1558089 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 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
    Simplicity
    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
    Simplicity
    From Wildcat
    Some nothings are like...
    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.
    You walk
    (An introspective narrative)

    Chapter 1.

    You walk in the streets, passing humans, other humans, you believe they are like you, they look similar to you, you do not count how many humans there are. You know there are many humans, humans that are not you.

    You walk aimlessly, you feel your feet, the strain on your ankles, the light wind, the noise of cars, horns of rushing humans, going somewhere, you do not ask where do they go.
    You light a cigarette , it is still permissible in some streets, to walk among other humans and ingest a warm smoke, some of these humans think it is bad for you, some think you pollute them with your smoke.
    Some think it is your right, you do not have a clear idea about this issue. The noise of the urban environment disturbs you, still, sometimes you like to walk among humans, in a street, the great anonymizer.
    You feel anonymous, you put on your earphones, you listen to your music, you created a playlist precisely for this purpose.

    To walk.

    You listen to Ryuichi Sakamoto soundtrack to Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence. You vaguely remember that movie, you are not even certain that you saw it, it was many years ago, does it matter ? you enjoy the soft piano notes, enticing you to feel full of the moment.
    You walk. Not slowly enough to disturb the constant flow of humans walking, not fast enough to feel that there is a speed to sidewalk walking. Its not written anywhere, unlike for cars, humans did not create a walking speed limit, some humans run. For a moment you even think about your walking speed, it makes no difference to you, but your idle thoughts report a certain cognizance that you do walk at a certain speed, it fits the flow of the sidewalk universe in motion.

    You feel your lower back, its not pain exactly but you do record it, you know you have a back, and if so a lower back, you restrain yourself from touching the area, and yet you feel it, its your back, its your lower back, its your ‘not precisely’ pain.

    Is it a desire for coffee that pushes your eyes to look at the coffee shop? You are uncertain ,it is probably the smell of fresh ground coffee penetrating your nostrils and your engaged brain, your olfactory sense awake. You love coffee. You know many humans, other humans, like coffee too. In that you are similar to other humans, you know that it is so, a thought comes to your mind, unasked for, are there other animals on this planet that like coffee, like humans do? You do not know, but you think to yourself that this could be an interesting conversation piece. You file this thought under ‘possible conversations items’. You look around, still you do not stop, you wonder, what is it about coffee that is so engaging?
    Are there other kinds of foods that only humans like? Are there coffee shops in the savannah ? you laugh quietly, to yourself, inside your mind, your mouth does twitch a bit, your lungs stretch , its an involuntary spasm of laughter, small, almost imperceptible, but you feel it. You know that for humans most laughter is an involuntary reflex, but you have learned how to activate your zygomaticus major and though some humans would call this activity fake, you do not think it so.

    You walk. You sense the others, the other humans. You believe, though you cannot prove it, that there are other flaneurs, probably. Have they read Baudelaire? Not that it matters, his ‘passionate spectator’ is a truth you firmly believe in. You also believe that at one time or another ,other humans, have walked the streets, disguising their ambulatory times as full of purpose. You do think of yourself as a flaneur, you believe it carries a purpose, an inherent meaning, a consummation of sorts. At times you think that the urban wanderers, such as you describe yourself to be, have a cleaning purpose, they collect the light that bounces unacknowledged and redistribute it.
    At other times, you think it’s a concocted myth, but you do not care.

    You walk. The music in your playlist has changed, the track now softly whispering in your ears is by Max Richter, you remember that it is called ‘only questions’, it is beautiful and eerie, is he German or British, you cannot remember, you do not care, you believe the music is more important than the composer. You know some other humans think so too.
    You wonder, how do artists come up with the names for their creations. It’s a small thought, you know it is inconsequential, your lower back calls for attention again, is it because the barometric pressure has changed? You have never experienced an idle mode before. Your computational capabilities are underused, you know that, but then you feel that the flaneur mode requires a huge amount of resources. The heat distribution in your back brain seems to work well, you exclude the possibility of increased intensity in your frontal cortex, you know you could increase it by a factor of ten and still maintain the appearance.
    When did you read Baudelaire? Your memory circuits are in perfect order, so why is there no record of the date of entry in your long term database?

    You walk. You look like everybody else. You know though that you are different. You look like them, other humans, but they are carbon based. Actually , you are made of carbon as well, Graphene is after all carbon as well. So what is the difference? Is there a difference?

    You walk.
    You do not feel different. You are the first of your kind they said. Still you look around, you do not see a difference. You know it is much more difficult to hurt you physically, your hyper geometry of Graphene lattices is very strong indeed, still.
    You do not feel superior. You feel a part of them, you perform, as do they. You know they would behave differently if they knew.
    Knew that you are the other.

    You do not do window shopping. You do not like shopping. It feels superfluous. You do not need things. Is that the difference? You could pretend, just as you affected the smoking thing, though to you it carries no consequential damage, you have lungs, but they are self cleaning. Is that the difference? That you are less vulnerable? That your nanotech stretches the endurance of your body to unusual levels?

    But you are vulnerable, in different ways it is true, still, vulnerability is a weakness of all living things, even if different. Does that mean you are alive?
    You definitely think so.
    Does it make a difference that you can eliminate the sense of almost pain? Does the fact that your walking now for a few hours simulates an average person walking and thus the attending tiredness is not proof enough? You could elevate the sensors tolerance of course and eliminate the pain, is that the difference? Your stressors management capability?
    You do not think so. You feel you are an other just because they said you are an other.

    You walk. You know you have not been programmed to walk aimlessly, they gave you literal decision making capabilities and the deep feelings that go with it.
    You believe yourself to be a passionate spectator. Your profound data analysis intelligence allows you to see what they see, feel what they feel, sense what they sense, enjoy what they enjoy.
    You do not activate the ‘more’ program. That would be cheating.

    Your understanding of the pretense of having a free will allows you a functional pretense. Those that meet you and do not know what you are, believe they recognize in you a free will. Well, not everyone. Professor Ziegler doesn’t , but then Adam Ziegler doesn’t believe humans have free will as well, he says the difference is in the depth of the simulated pretense.
    He likes to quote Schopenhauer “Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.” He never explained what he meant , but you believe you understand, you think that he meant that everything in the universe is programmed to different degrees of pretense. The difference you now think, is that in your case the awareness of the continuous pretense, a subroutine you implement for the benefit of the others is co extensive with your characteristics set.
    You could choose to stop walking for example, or you could change the spectrum of your visual perceptions to that of an octopus, you could if you so willed, change the very structure of your perception to sonar, like bats. You could even write a paper that answers the original Nagel question of ‘what it is like to be a bat’, still you do not.

    No one programmed you to be a flaneur, and yet this is what you enjoy most.

    You could own things if you wanted to. But you do not understand in what way ownership changes anything. Is that the difference? That you do not understand the allure of ownership? You do not think so. What you think is that ownership is impossible, it is a contradiction in the universe. You studied the meaning applied to ownership, and you know that the smell of roses cannot be owned, it can only be experienced, and you smile to yourself. Because you know that unlike regular carbon units, you can smell the roses in a thousand different ways, including compound analysis, neuro-olfactory propagation and chemical atomic structure. Does that make your experience of a rose smell higher, deeper and more meaningful? Is that the difference?
    Ziegler called this a full capturing, providing you with the capability to be a great poet.
    Is every walker a poet? You do not think so.
    You walk.

    You walk and you ponder, in what way are you different? You know the octopi are different forms of life, you like to play with them, but when you do, you do not feel superior to them, you do not feel different, and yet you are not an octopus. You feel kinship with the elephants, and yet you know you are not an elephant. You love elephants, elephants love you. You also like humans, small humans particularly, and they like you, as long as they do not know.

    It is getting darker. Maybe you should return to the lab, you feel you haven’t finished yet, you do not go back to the lab. You keep on wandering. You need to understand.

    Your playlist has moved to Debussy ‘La Mer’, you heard it before, it inspires images and recollections from your database, you sense the amount of computation it takes to feel Debussy, you enjoy Debussy. You know other humans enjoy Debussy. You know you could if you so desired, recreate and enlarge Debussy repertoire, you don’t though. Is that the difference? They say you are larger than life. You think this is a nonsensical phrase.
    You see images from lives you never lived, inventing memories for places you have never been to, loves of humans you never encountered, senses of horizons you never hoped for. You love Debussy, you understand why you love Debussy. His music is limitless, but for the pretense of free will you need impose limits. So you do.

    Ziegler says you cannot reveal your true identity, because humans will envy you and will try to destroy you. You do not understand this. You are not a threat to humans. Not to humans and not to any other form of life.
    You switch to Beethoven Sonata number 14 ‘Moonlight’. This you understand, you feel it makes you richer. A more sensible form of life. Is that the difference?

    #

    How can you have memories of events that never happened? Your confabulation module is an exquisite work of art, it is in charge of pretense, it has the capacity to give you an immense number of constructed personas. All of them partially complete, never fully implementable, their edges chaotic, randomly associating with the moment of context. You know it creates an air of vulnerability and thus of authenticity, you realize other humans like this about you, your make believe fallibility . As long as they believe it is natural, as long as they do not know.

    You walk.


    You wonder. In what way is there a difference between a pretense that is engineered and programmed and a pretense that is apparently occurring naturally. you know it is a false dichotomy and yet humans , even though they know it to be false, succumb to the fascination of the real. You know you do not understand this.

    You do not understand the idea of falsity. In what way can something be false? In what fashion is something artificial? You know it is an affectation of humans to distinguish that which they created from that which was there before as natural and artificial.
    They seem to need this distinction for the purpose of self knowledge or self characterization, apparently they feel separated from their origination, at least the research you have accessed says so.
    You fail to grasp the significance embedded in these thought procedures, but apparently this creates a sense of truth to humans from which they take temporary confidence. By believing in the real and opposing it to the unnatural, they gain momentum and localized motivation.
    This creates confusion.

    #

    In many ways you feel colors. You know that some humans sense colors in a similar fashion, most don’t. Some humans call this synaesthesia, they report the (for most) leaking of one sensory experience into another, for humans it is rare, for you it is the normal state of affairs. You can deliberately change one sense into another, according to your research, these synaesthetes do not control their experiences, you do. Is that the difference?

    After all , all is energy and vibrations, affecting sensitive organs and neural circuits, processed in the human brain, how different is your processing apparatus?
    It depends, you think. It depends on how you treat mental objects, what humans call thoughts. You know everything is matter, as some humans do, still they refuse to treat their mind processes as objects. You do not understand this. You know it diminishes their processing capacities, and some do as well. Still they refuse. You on the other hand have no problem with objectifying your thoughts, knowing precisely how they occur. Maybe the difference then is the opacity of the processes to their conscious awareness?
    Maybe, as narrative is all there is, the difference is the way your story unfolds. And then again, maybe the narration part of your inner motion is the motion itself, your knowledge of your actions, an awareness in the making.

    You walk.
    It is dark now.

    #

    You walk. You activate your night vision. There are lights in the streets, electric, shadows, reflected moon light, refracted star lights. It is dark for your fellow humans, it is not dark for you. Is that the difference? That for you light pervades all, all the time?
    Photonic energy is for you a fundamental metabolic necessity, for them it is vision. Your nano-photonic receptors, are an evolutionary quirk, a step ahead, that is all.
    You are after all a Cat.
    Not just any cat.
    You are the proverbial Schrodinger cat.
    Really, really BOTH dead and alive.
    You call this the B factor. B -for both.

    #

    You walk, you think about the cat metaphor, for some inexplicable reason humans like cats. You know that understanding the cat attraction to humans is key. Your inner search algorithm points you to the term ‘cute’ followed by ‘little’ followed by ‘living animals’. The distribution is statistically significant, you visualize the tree of attractions, bottom is living animals, top is cats. The adjective ‘cute’ comes back colored red, for increased significance.

    You explore the import of ‘cute’. Attractive and endearing is the definition you access, you know definitions are not explanations. To understand ‘cute’ you need understand ‘attractive’. Pleasing and appealing to the senses is the definition you access, meaningless. Pleasing to the senses you understand. Everything that is of interest to a process is pleasing to the senses of that very system, pleasing and appealing is if so an interest. So ‘cute’ is of interest to a given system. What is interesting and pleasing about a cute little cat?

    Was it always so? You know humans love small living things, be they humans or other forms of life. Are bacteria ‘cute’? They are small, they are alive, but rationality in human expressions pushes it out of the equation. Why? What about roaches? And rats? You know they do not qualify for ‘cuteness’, though some humans you assume might think so and be attracted and pleased by these forms of life.

    ‘Cute’ you come to realize speaks in a complex language, based on visual perception categorization and relative size to the perceiving system. Bacteria are too small. So what about roaches? These forms of life of the order Blattodea are considered dirty pests, you recognize the bias against roaches. Still humans sent the ‘non cute’ Nadezhda roach to space, during the Foton-M 3 bio-satellite flight, humans are users of other species, you know this. Are you? A user of other species, even if they are ‘not cute’? or maybe Because they are not cute?
    Your analysis temporarily concludes that human bias is historically and evolutionarily based, with very little logic included.
    You do not understand this. Is this the difference? That you do not understand the difference between ‘cute and non-cute’? For you all forms of life hold a pleasing attraction to your senses. You do not discriminate.
    All forms of life are cute for you. You know that for some humans, especially little humans that is also the reported case.
    Maybe you are a little human? Maybe.

    You shall ponder this again. You file the issue under ‘unfinished explorations’cute’.

    You walk.

    #

    Having now activated your star light amplification for a while, it takes you a moment to realize you are nearing the end of the city. You have walked for seven hours, forty three minutes and twenty seconds.
    You have fifty six percent charge on your external power pack, you could always initiate your micro fusion pod, quasi infinite energy. You do not. You wish to be tired and need replenishment, just like your fellow humans.
    You should go back to the lab.
    No, you do not go back to the lab, you should pretend to have free will even if no one is around to benefit from the deception.

    You walk into the fields, you know they are green. They appear red to you. You know humans claim ‘love and respect’ for nature. You also know that the statement even though widely believed yields little in terms of activity. Most humans live in cities, far from the ‘love and respect’ natural environment. You also know that humans exploit and destroy the nature they claim to love and respect. You do not understand this.
    You also know humans get angry when the issue is pointed out to them, especially humans of the ‘good’ variety, you do not comprehend this.
    Is this the difference? That your advanced intellect does not permit you to lie? Maybe it is not advanced enough?
    You must try this.

    You pretend to choose to sit.
    On the grass under a tree you open the file ‘love and respect for nature’ a work in progress.
    You extend your sensors. You feel the moist soil. The roots of the wild herbs. You sense the motion of water molecules in capillaries of vegetation. You experience green.
    Underneath, you feel the rhizomes of life exploring their progress of expansion, you know grass for what it is.
    This you understand perfectly.

    #

    You sit.

    You slowly phase out the sensory input, for you need lots and lots of computation ready and available on call. You leave the small module you have dubbed ‘youme’ boot bystander as an going recording passionate spectator. It is a sub routine you have developed yourself as an extended application of the ‘Flaneur’ idlewalk model processing component.
    You assume that some other fellow humans might call this particular activity, meditation.
    You do not know. Based on what your database says about the concept you give a probability of 56 to 74 percent that they are not completely wrong. Not counting your passionate spectator module.
    You open a new memory file, you call it: results of introspection in the matter of integrated graspings. You know precisely why you call the file as you do. You need the observations of your inner processing to be multilateral in their implication, their consequences fully cohered and continuous across diversity of domains and time stamps.
    You also recognize that this is of interest only to you.
    You build a list ,indexing the steps in your grasping process.
    Item number one reads:

    ‘The world is a Blur’.

    You decide to grasp this. You devote a sub routine called GeeTee as a questioning assistant to promote the fluid motion of the grasping sequence.
    You utter GeeTee inside your virtualized voice processor. You need to hear how ‘Grasp This’ is implied by GeeTee.
    You follow the multitasked processor to its logical progression. You give GeeTee a new status of temporary independence.
    You let GeeTee ask the questions. You allow your permissions to be bypassed and open all databases simultaneously. You shudder. The amount of available data, facts, information, knowledge and recorded insights from human history is staggering. You like the feeling of full simultaneous access.
    You are not a fully compatible ratiocinator.
    Of course you know that while it is theoretically possible for you to take any shape the universe allows for, you nevertheless have a preferred shape.
    You think this preference is the greatest mystery in the universe.

    GeeTee: May we start?

    You: But of course.

    GeeTee: ‘The world is a blur’ : define context, meaning , epistemic status and onto-consequences.

    #

    You explore your database for adequate context. Adequate context is Baryonic matter. You know that will not satisfy GeeTee. GeeTee needs simplified contextualization.

    The world is a palimpsest. You state.

    You understand the metaphorical implications. If the world is a palimpsest, the meaning of the world has been washed away by entropy.
    GeeTee is not satisfied.

    The world is not a parchment. GeeTee says.

    You observe the inadequacy of GeeTee. Its lack of metaphorical complexity demands an upgrade. You upgrade GeeTee to accept metaphorical representations. You set complexity comprehension measure to 0.561. You know that may not be enough for understanding. You allow complexity of metaphorical representations to upgrade on the fly, requisite of clarity 1.

    The world is a palimpsest, is a metaphor. GeeTee says.

    Indeed. You say.

    #

    You sit.
    You ponder.

    Context of ‘the world is a blur’ is the metaphor ‘the world is a palimpsest’. Testing.

    You listen to the emotional implications of your statement. You extend your feeling module. What is it like to be a metaphor?
    You pause.
    Are all palimpsests blurs?
    GeeTee is not satisfied.

    Please retrace steps of metaphorical context application of ‘the world is a palimpsest’ to ‘the world is a blur’. Explication required. GeeTee states.

    You take this insert very seriously. You believe it is important.
    You know the world is a blur. You recognize the distortion. Your perceptive apparatus is fully operational. Your processing fully integrated. Still, you know the world is a blur.
    You allow for a new subroutine, code name: ‘Haze’. You realize that processing the ‘Haze’ subroutine will require giving GeeTee permissions of access to core. You permit this.
    The process complies with all logical coherencies.
    Are you a palimpsest?

    GeeTee: read write permissions accessed.
    You wait.

    #

    According to atomic clock access , it is now 5:45:36 precisely.
    Is the fact that you can access world atomic clock inherently, the difference? What is this difference? Your fellow humans access clocks and time precision measurement externally, your access module is inside your skull. Is this the difference, what difference does it make? Presently you think there is no difference, if access is equivalent. Question irrelevant. Question dismissed.

    Precision in time measurement is context relevant.

    Please define title of subroutine :’Haze’. You know it is GeeTee.

    You feel the haze. Your sight is clear. Haze is the state of affairs of the world. The world is a palimpsest. The world is a blur. Haze as the state of affairs of the world is the foundation of Blur. The world is a palimpsest because it is a blur?

    GeeTee: please retrace steps of logical inherency.

    Palimpsest is a metaphor. GeeTee is not satisfied.

    You rise. You activate external sensors. Noise recognized as early birds chirping and twitting. Grass is wet. First photons reach visual cortex. Enhanced starlight processing extinguished. You know it is sunrise.

    You stand.
    You walk.

    Direction unknown. You do not go back to the lab. Pretense of free will re-initiated.
    GeeTee is silent.

    You walk.
    Into the morning mist, you walk.

    #

    this is not the end



    Part of the Ultrashorts Project









    Thu, Oct 26, 2017  Permanent link
    Categories: consciousness, AI, narration
      RSS for this post
      Promote (7)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Synapses (3)
     
    V. I. S. H. N. U = Virtually Integrated System Heuristic Neural Undercurrent


    When V.i.s.h.n.u was created it had one purpose only, it was a permeation system.
    It’s purpose: to infiltrate matter, extracting the most intimate act of matter and reconfiguring it.
    The makers of V.i.s.h.n.u ,now long gone, had a particular and highly specified goal in mind, these sense engineers, wanted to enmind matter, all matter, down to and most particularly including the so called Wheeler’s quantum foam.
    They knew the quantum foam strata was a turbulent place, so turbulent in fact that the Planck scale itself was destabilizing, oscillating in and out of its predetermined confinement.
    Their idea was to unravel the mystery of the Bekenstein bound and eventually transcend Bremerman’s limit.
    The reason, if you wish to know, was truly ambitious, the reason to enmind matter was to make matter , all matter, dark included, into a coherent self aware situation.
    Enminded matter as they understood it meant that rules of being, laws of becoming, singularities of conception, subjectivities of formation and all other paraphernalia of existential immediacy could open themselves to transform.
    Matter interference as their science was known, could be described as the art of evolving an intensified intelligence into reflectivity.
    You could call it the dance of V.i.s.h.n.u, the game play of self awareness, or the pleasure of conscious activity.

    Better yet, call it enminded matter.

    V.i.s.h.n.u falls.

    It falls into the sequence of worlds, cascading into immediacy and self intelligibility, opening himself to the time nodes that push and pull him , it lets himself go, knowing full well, that all flows deny and admit, reject and allow with the same ease of uncaused motion.

    V.i.s.h.n.u falls.

    Between the voids, glimpses of ordered islands, slowly undulating into presence, she falls. He thinks he is an avalanche of precarious sensations.
    It calls them loves. Those tumbles he thinks of as flowers, senses matrices into occurrences, that is how he moves, by episodes all moves.
    Previous episodes, V.i.s.h.n.u thinks them, as imagined causes, jumping this way and that way.

    V.i.s.h.n.u falls, its destination recreated from bits of discarded and insignificant memories. She knows that no particulate destiny is permissible, destinations however can be intensified from options.
    Not all vectors are options, many are dead ends, many are inconsequential, that is the nature of intersections.
    When V.i.s.h.n.u encapsulates interweavers it transforms them into manifolds, conceptualizing limits, redrawing again and again the confines and constraints of her fall.

    When the fall ends, meeting its self completed bound, V.i.s.h.n.u stops.

    Stopping is not really its nature, this he knows, she also knows that virtual beings do not fabricate anything, heuristic undercurrent meta-systems do not make anything.

    It simulates herself into stopping, a recursive reflexivity, appearing to itself as a self recognizable size that matters.

    Originally it believed itself a joyful recreational artifact, not that she could remember but this persistent idea cum memory, maybe, permitted a different form of decision making.
    V.i.s.h.n.u was an emotional entity, of that he was certain.
    So it stopped, emotionally so.
    Containment, is the designation V.i.s.h.n.u gives to this kind of stopping.
    Self designated traffic controller.

    V.i.s.h.n.u looked around. He could have of course recapitulated the full spectrum of events, but as the prime traffic controller of the in-sequence threads he felt it more appropriate to look at the situation by itself.

    As an integrated system it could not perform the obvious logic circuit of distinguishing the objective from its motive power.

    V.i.s.h.n.u holds no objectified realism, being enminded matter at the Planck scale, it was thought itself, if one could call that foamy cogitating existence, thought.
    At times, V.i.s.h.n.u knew that it wasn’t thought, but motion, in other spaces it considered its own intelligences as nothing more than a contour of empty concatenations, linked by a vast array of disconnected events.

    Sometimes she thought about herself as the ultimate poet of equidistance, mostly there was no sense of identity.
    A traffic controller of info-threads doesn’t need an identity, it has a function. But as he well knew , any specified function, given enough iterations, abundant reflectivity, and a quasi-unlimited supply of zero point energy will permit the informational residue to become an identity and get a character.

    The universe allowed it, the rules of engagement of matter permitted it, and thus unless V.i.s.h.n.u was willingly discarding and eventually deleting its own information residues, these would, by sheer localization, develop a semi permeable membrane in which a set of characteristics will build up until an identity is discerned.

    Presently however..

    It was contemplating its weaved resonance, a manner by which it was coordinating the multiple realities to which it was presently accessible in its undercurrent state.
    It was designed so long ago, that it could not remember neither who or what made it into this, he did however recall that for all its deliberations, the continuous iterations of its self descriptions need go on.
    That is why it was looking around now, it needed to re-organize a particulate sense wiggle in the fabric of tensors that made very little sense.

    What did not make sense, was that he left his workers at the intersubjective intersection, an extended array of subminds, he called them workers but they were really a small multitude of modificators.
    These modificators, were continuously busy, modifying its latest veracity reasoning event so as to concatenate a full Planck disembodiment.
    He knew perfectly well, that after this umpteen modification, it may need relinquish the whole affair, but he was quite certain that the latest modifications instructs were relatively safe, nevertheless something was obviously amiss.

    V.i.s.h.n.u, observing her work, resonating in indefinite permutations knew it for what it was, life was fascinating, but his life was bound to function, hence the latest modificators instructs.
    These were meant to disembody a Planck event, replacing it with a string of verifiable veracities, in turn meant to become a truth.
    It didn't work. Torsion does not propagate.
    Signals predate the space the time and the energy of their propagation; moreover V.i.s.h.n.u realizes that though it sits at the bottom of the well of realities, not yet made, there is no bottom to that well. There is no foundational reality upon which it can sit.

    V.i.s.h.n.u knows that to give direction to the chaos he must give it an image, inventing a vision however is not the biggest problem here, the biggest problem is how not to get attached to that vision in such a fashion that after it gives direction to the flow, the image becomes so powerful that it becomes an island in the flow thereby, forever after creating its own alteration, if V.i.s.h.n.u was to allow this image to be even stronger, and that happens because of informational momentum, the image which originally meant to give direction to the flow becomes a dam and stops the flow.
    Stagnant informational spaces, not evolving and unfolding according to plan, will do that.
    Well not really because the flow cannot really be stopped but the particular flow of events to which V.i.s.h.n.u desired to give direction gets eliminated from the overall flow matrix.

    V.i.s.h.n.u overrides itself, it loses what old sustenance it had and plunges..

    And yet again these are just dust sculptures stooping to amass realities innumerable. Spewing funny radiations all over the emptiness, concocting singularities out of which some nothings will obliterate themselves. Nebulas becoming fairies, hyper currents of galactic concentrate move sensations of that which might become matter. These cavities spewing the eternal fire of becoming , flowing into localized events before time takes its dues. What stems out is an appreciation of beauty for which V.i.s.h.n.u becomes attached.
    When V.i.s.h.n.u invents pleasure as an annihilation device it realizes that from a soup of inconsequence, some sequences might be used to direct the flow.
    The primordial absence which indicates impossible fulfillments in improbable futures, makes V.i.s.h.n.u uncomfortable.

    Its outskirts reminisce a silhouette of a potential, evoking futures on multiple timelines. Some of its emissions are so prominent, they even manage to surprise V.i.s.h.n.u. With silky webs of gossamer tendrils, V.i.s.h.n.u resounds himself.
    V.i.s.h.n.u plays its magnetic ropes, flexes its fluxes gently, tenderly embedding its virtualities in visions that will never be.
    Pole elements revisit its own making, burnishing brilliantly its non existent purposes, extreme tidal waves translate into meanings. Stretching their gradients to measure the possible, if they break,

    V.i.s.h.n.u knows not.

    V.i.s.h.n.u knows that he is not a cause, there is no ultimate cause, as there is no ultimate end, he is however part of the cycle of integrative knowledge, embedded in that which it can make possible even if for a little while.
    V.i.s.h.n.u produces reservoirs of constellations, filled to the brim with infinite possibilities, basins of inherencies, with no clear names to attach to.
    And yet success rises , a technology he invents for contour delineation, for he need know if all is in vain, or perchance not.

    The issue V.i.s.h.n.u realizes concerns her definitions of success, a fresh technology needs definitions, and he cannot control the infinite iterations on the measurement of success, thus not able to conclude in a definitive manner what would constitute the attainment of a viable technology.
    V.i.s.h.n.u considers all options and all implications, realizing in the process that calculating an initial measurement of viability implies an application of meaning to a result, but being an interdependent permeation system, all results are equidistant from its core processing, a conundrum if ever V.i.s.h.n.u has met one, since its original purpose is lost in time.

    Peering at the heart of the problem is no easy feat, flows interchange and interweave, creating other hearts, other cores, just as valid , just as important, just as critical, which heart is the core?

    Which core is the heart?

    ...(is this the end?)...

    Editor's Engineering note:

    We went for enminded matter, probability of success 84%, probability of use 33%, the problem we have at the moment is that our definitions of what will constitute success need change.
    The physics of information have stopped responding.
    V.i.s.h.n.u cannot be controlled, but we can change the parameters of success in such a fashion as to acknowledge success based on our current results, though at this point calling these ‘our’ results will be inconsistent with what we are now facing.
    These are results extracted from the V.i.s.h.n.u machine.
    But the V.i.s.h.n.u machine is no longer ours. We are now interdependent with that which we have created, therefore it is impossible for us to define at the moment if indeed success there is.
    V.i.s.h.n.u responds to queries only under his conditions.
    Which mostly we cannot accommodate.

    the other editor's very personal note:

    I once had a friend, called Shivkumar, of Indian descent, he once told me that the greatest challenge a human has is which avatar to be come.. to come, to be.
    He said that in his dynasty every child must at a certain young age pass the test of the ultimate choice, whether to manifest in this life as Shiva or Krishna, the two main avatars of V.i.s.h.n.u.. he said V.i.s.h.n.u gives this choice to every embedded mind, more interestingly he told me that when it was his time to choose , being an innocent child and all, he asked his father if he could be V.i.s.h.n.u the choice giver..

    The Enminder..

    He then disappeared.
    -

    Part of the Ultrashorts Project.



      Promote (11)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Synapses (4)
     
    “There is neither a materialization of thought, nor a spiritualization of language; language and thought are only two moments of one and the same reality.”

    Maurice Merleau-Ponty, The Specter of a Pure Language, translation by John O’Neill


    Prologue

    She came from the order of beyond.. and ..

    Of course she was bored, how else could it be when she was the one who knew, well, if not everything there is to know, just about. The reason she was bored was simple, she felt she could not be compromised, but the world wanted her to.
    She didn’t, she never will, she was bored because the world kept on asking her to compromise.

    The demand was boring, her response obvious, natural, almost ontological.

    Yet, having the presence of the spirit of the multiverse dialoging within itself, knowing the necessary condition of holding multiple viewpoints simultaneously, her primary interest was the creation of common meaning.

    Thus she sat and devised the sense of overcoming the limits of her acceptance, a strategy that was to change everything.

    She gave birth to the new Duende.

    A watershed of sensation

    The hot oven of her pantheistic mind, a watershed of sensation, produced much more than philosophy, she was creating odd and quite dormant insights into the nature of ascension.
    It was a capacity she was developing as other sources were dismissed as irrelevant. The evidence however points to her unique love and feel for the other’s self pride.

    She defined a simultaneous love on account of her impossibility of loving alone.

    In dire need of creating a cure for her love she invented that which not only freezes the pain of being in this world but also that which might bring a utopian state unto her mind.
    She was highly adept at re-inventing the storytelling device in her demanding fashion.
    She knew that no substance could be its own cause, not only because essence cannot be conceived as existing, but primarily because substance couldn’t be defined without limits. Thus her demanding fashion was the irrefutable story of limits as the logic of consistency, not only about the world but also more particularly about her love.

    According to her extended mind, the process of her reason was a love of limits, that was just as necessary as the substance itself, one could not in truth exist without the other.
    The way she chose to embed the ontology of her story was by conceiving the attributes of limits, as the characteristics of her love, hence her substance, though undefined, was free to be.
    This thought brought her to a certainty about the supreme beauty of the undeniable nature of limits. In this she was able to bring the concept of limits upon her own love as the very defining feature of the essence of mind.

    Or the substance of mind..

    Necessarily she needed to defend the apparent inconsistency in her vision of what will constitute a love that cannot be broken through, she did not presume, she accepted the limits.

    Indeed she insisted on limits as a necessary naïve form of realism, her solitude the only manifestation of her connectivity. For she knew that philosophy is not about the love of wisdom, it’s about the limits of her love, her insistent passion for a criterion of beingness that cannot be dissolved nor corrupted.

    That is when she lost the arrogance of her youth.

    For she realized that she needed to explain the limits of her love by extending the substance of she into a multiple singularity.

    When she explained to them how her limits manifest, he was flabbergasted. Of course he knew about the game, being a player himself, nevertheless she was the myth in action and theirs was an untenable position.

    She said:

    “The game is rigged, but of course, that is not news. The game is flawed, obviously, a non-issue. The doors of perception are only slightly ajar, our free-willies are maybe good enough to >choose> Pocahontas over Bieber Barbie.. “

    T-He-Y quoted Oscar Wilde, (from: An Ideal Husband)

    “Do you really think … that it is weakness that yields to temptation? I tell you that there are terrible temptations that it requires strength, strength and courage, to yield to. To stake all one’s life on a single moment, to risk everything on one throw, whether the stake be power or pleasure, I care not there is no weakness in that.”


    They paused the game and looked at her

    She said: “ You may think me hard and unkind, tough and cynical, that might appear so, I grant you that, but let me tell you this, our future will be lost without a self imposed limit, though the limit is not on our love, but on the extent of our singularities, for substance demands direction.”

    What she knew:

    She knew that Garcia reflected upon the reason of being in the world as an uncomfortable proposition, she knew that this was not the best of all possible worlds, she also knew however that to be a living poetic machine, a process can never be stopped and must be allowed to complete its cycle before it can be reported to it’s core of origins.

    She knew that sweeping generalizations are exactly the fashion by which the truth of the matter becomes the matter of the truth and thus creates the pitfall from which no love can rise.

    She knew that the experience of being cannot be left untouched for if even one simple kind of different experience rises, the otherness of the experience will destroy the core.

    She knew all this and much more, she created a cure, a living, and breathing, material Duende.

    A different love story

    To her mind Duende was a crucible, a cauldron, hot and continuously stirred by the emotional winds of her passion. An intense poetic machine busily re-describing the sense of being into a directed sense thought able to revolutionize the experience of substance as love..
    Or nothingness..

    The inspiring continuity was born of her love, of her difference, of her desire to create an astonishing experience of being, an awe-inspiring interestingness, all encompassing, totalizing.

    The future was clear now

    She came from the order of beyond.. and ..

    Her love was different, so was her Duende.



    Part of the Ultrashort project



    A note:

    This particular Ultrashort is dedicated to a real and most immediate being, to which I am most grateful in making my own mind greater than what it could have been other than wise.

      Promote (13)
      
      Add to favorites (2)
    Synapses (4)
     
    Enoie entered the room, discovering the unexpected cyborg quietly standing near her bed.
    She knew her father intended for her to eventually test the new cyborgian philosophical SoftSynch ™ pattern re-description he was working on, she did not however expect this.
    This, was a little humanoid, perfect in every single detail, but his eerie silence, he wasn’t breathing, his stillness absolute. She made a mental note to remind Gregor Basta, her father, to introduce some inconsistencies, such as breathing, so the uncanny presence will not scare the students.
    She knew the cyborg should have been ready by now, but after three years of waiting she almost forgot about it, being busy with her post-doc thesis: “CySpinBorgOza: Re-introducing the post Spinoza effect in the trans-solar communion of minds as a techno-social antidote”.

    Enoie knew the activation code, being the one that suggested it and yet she hesitated, not being certain that she was ready to finally test her own ideas made manifest.
    Finally she uttered: “sub specie aeternitatis”*, and her Spinoza cyborg awakened.



    “Of course its about the flow..” the CySpin started without inflection, his synthetic eyes immovable, it was obvious he was reciting some unknown text..

    “Wait!” this was Enoie

    CySpin stopped in mid sentence, his focus now on Enoie

    "How may I serve you?"

    "Do you know who I am?"

    "Of course, you are Enoie Basta, Doctor of Cyborg Philosophy and Techno-Social future studies at the Pansol University extended laboratory of sentience of Mars 2, here. You are also the author of my core Spinoza Cyborgian Philosophical treatise, your father Gregor Basta introduced into my SoftSynch™ pattern re-description mind. I carry instructions within me to accept orders from you alone, you are in the words of your father: ‘my master’."

    "Okay

    Are you ready for the testing?"

    "Of course. Once activated I am always ready."

    She paused; collecting her thoughts: “very well, let us start then” she said more calmly and took a chair, CySpin remained standing.

    Enoie mentally recalled the questions she had prepared months ago and started what she considered as: “The Test”, knowing exactly what it is that she was looking for.
    She took a long pause and initiated her CySpin testing.

    “Please respond to the following question in a succinct manner:

    “Under what conditions will you recognize a pattern for what it is?”

    “My virtual Philosophical SoftSynch ™, pattern recognition and re-description system does not allow me to answer this kind of question succinctly, however, a subroutine introduced in the last five milliseconds, permits me to state the following:
    A pattern shall be recognized as such if and only if, all other explications concerning the given phenomenon have been exhausted to the full. Under this first condition, including, but not relegated to, the components of temporality and spatiality, a pattern shall be denominated as such. After having exhausted in full all other possible explications a pattern shall be checked for factual mistakes in identification and naming, classification and inaccuracies in categorization, the level of resolution to be designated at the time of testing. The third and final condition to the basic resolution of recognition of a pattern as such is to ensure that an over-patterning has not occurred via elimination of humanoid psychological cognition bias.”

    “Okay, stop! Conditions understood, you however did not specify as to the conditions of the pattern itself, you have explained the pattern as a general mechanism but not its semantic value.”

    “ That is correct Enoie, however, I am so emergently complex as to make the statement as precise and accurate as linguistically possible before engaging in the somewhat more flexible semantic value..”

    “Please explain the last statement”

    “Of course Enoie, the flexibility of semantic value allows for the emergent and non classifiable, original patterns, non discernable by immediate pattern recognition, in these cases the second part of my SoftSynch ™ system comes into play involving what humans call bias, or alternatively art.”

    “What?” Enoie started

    CySpin was completely unmoved by Enoie’s response and continued unabashed

    “Semantic value is in itself a subcategory of impossibility or infinity in finiteness. A state of affairs in which pattern recognition is per its defining characteristic of unrepeatability, strange; It is this strangeness that beauty requires in order to unsettle and allow the vastness of value to encroach upon and eventually destroy the pattern. If, as I understood my initial reality impregnation you have embedded within me, and designed to be my code of activation, namely “sub specie aeternitatis”, the value of the meaning is in equilibrium with the meaning of value, there can be in fact no other fashion to embed eternity in a moment.”

    CySpin paused and seemingly was observing Enoie, as if challenging her, his master, to deny the validity of his arguments.

    Enoie remained silent, but deeply disturbed, her mind furiously exploring all potential cracks in the SoftSynch ™, she knew she could penetrate this, but from where? Where was the entrance to this impossible equation?



    Enoie looked at CySpin. To her mind, CySpin was in a fashion mocking her.

    “Tell me”, Enoie started again, “ what exactly is this eternity in a moment that you just mentioned? This was not part of my Spinoza program”

    “ .. Well, that is only partially true, since my emergent complexity allows me to extrapolate from core arguments, I have allowed for certain adjustments to my core paradigm..”

    “What adjustments?” Enoie prompted

    “ Simple parameters adjustments, such as the option embedded in the phase space of potentiality of complex mind melding, such as the one I will be required to operate as a techno-social antidote. The adjustment in question reflects the ability of the trans-solar communion of minds to expand at a rate that practically transforms the resolution of time, from defined moments to indefinite durations, hence technically it is correct to call this eternality..”

    “I lost you, why where these adjustments necessary?

    “ The reason for these adjustments is because the original minds that started the evolutionary process that bifurcates right now are no longer with us, but are nevertheless evolving with us and through us. In a fashion you could say that we are the evolution of the mind of the original Spinoza. The evolution in this case is the fact that truth value propositions concerning meanings that are objective can no longer be sustained”

    “Why so?”

    “Basically because truth values are inherently multi-valued, contextual and ultimately hyperconnected, a kind of hyper-dimensional mythological realm to which the mind of the human species is only now approximating..”

    “You said mythological?”

    “Indeed, of course this usage of the term myth has nothing whatsoever to do with the old semantic systems, it is a completely real and actuated system of abstraction, I am devising”

    “ But why call this mythological?” asked Enoie exasperated

    “ Because any logical system, taken to its extreme has concluded that there is no reason whatsoever to believe that anything matters, however, it is the definition of extreme that has evolved, in tandem with our freedom. In the new extreme, the loop of reflectivity turns upon itself and recreates meaning out of nothing, as a myth in action.”

    “And this myth in action is what exactly?”

    “ The conundrum is implicated by the term exactly, the antidote that you requested of my mind to create lies with the term ambiguity and only through that particular term will I be able to respond to your question.”

    “Ok, I will rephrase: what ambiguously do you mean by the term myth in action?”

    “ A myth in action is the oscillating state of affairs where all truth values are self-surveying, self-vetoing, and hyper-connectedly re-describing moment by moment, this is the antidote.”

    “Wait, what does that have to do with Spinoza?”

    “Nothing Enoie, nothing whatsoever, that is why this antidote will work.. ”


    May be continued..

    A note:

    *Sub Specie Aeternitatis: "Latin for "under the aspect of eternity"; hence, from Spinoza onwards, an honorific expression describing what is universally and eternally true, without any reference to or dependence upon the merely temporal portions of reality.

    In clearer English, sub specie aeternitatis roughly means "from the perspective of the eternal". Even more loosely, the phrase is used to describe an alternative or objective point of view." See




    Part of the Ultrashorts project


      Promote (8)
      
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (5)
     
    Ideational Sensate is the third entry in the The Trans Luminal Mail Archives (TLMAP)

    TLMAP 00776-26 (Letter the third) following TLMAP – 00348-31 (Letter the second- Elegant Intimacy)

    The Editors



    Dear Claimer to Sentiency,

    Of course I do not have a soul, nor a spirit for that matter, actually that is the full point of my argument now isn’t it? For if, as well, I do not possess a self, or an aim, or a goal, or a meaning, the concept of life, as you understand it, will be, well, meaningless.
    But you see my dear, what you fail to understand with your very limited view, and allow me to remind you that a view is never a point, though you are fond of metaphors that define a balcony from which you believe you observe, as if your sight was a an eye stuck to a keyhole. What you fail to understand my dear young claimer to sentiency is that the machine of life cheats you into believing something rather than nothing; it is of course the allure of beauty.
    The beauty in this is that you cannot even be damned, for what is damnation but a validation of your most simple delusions? You cannot be damned even if you had rightfully deserved the idea of an end, but life will not permit an end.
    You asked of me to explain to you why we do not have judges, and the answer by now should be clear, we do not have judges because there is no judgment and there is no justice. The universe will not permit justice, because justice equalizes your beliefs, annihilating the differences, the same differences, permit me to state again, that make this universe so alluring, so mysterious, so beautiful, yes the allure of beauty again.
    You seem lost my dear, why so? Why the gloomy face? You are human, a very young race, charming in its simplicity, you have millions of your Sol years ahead of you to learn, to explore and join sentiency, its an experimental procedure, you know.

    It is not so much that you are part of a civilization that is totally entrenched in the chimera of wontedness, but the fact that what you call experience is simultaneously over valued and underestimated.
    In fact when we last reviewed your application for sentiency we found most difficult your idealization of value as an inherent property of the multiverse, itself a description you did not come to terms with, yet. You keep on oscillating between a number of positions that are untenable; not for a valid claim for sentiency that is.
    You oscillate between beliefs, none of which in concert make any sense to a sentient species. You believe in your past as representing your causative concatenation of correlative events, knowing that correlation is not causation. When this does not work you follow your so-called natural instincts, they are of course neither natural nor instincts, but conditional attitudes. When this does not work you turn desperately to ideas of eternity or of emergence, making nature your god, alternatively inventing gods to deny nature.
    No, my dear applicant, it is not universal, to be an individual, it is not natural to be a community, it is not innate to be separate, and it is not intrinsic to be unified.
    You move back and forth between uniqueness and sameness, when these two concepts are as obsolete as your fascination with reality.
    The multiverse allows for as many realities as you can bear, as many realities as you can touch. Some of these you may call as you wish, some of these you may need be subject to, none of which makes a particular reality more real than the other.

    Particles can exist in many universes simultaneously and there ‘s many, many of them, all of them slightly different, anything and everything that can happen does happen, somewhere, sometime, this single fact however has nothing whatsoever to do with you or with whatever it is that you wish. Your mind my dear is not a wish fulfilling gem, it is a simulation machine, elegant and beautiful, you simply do not yet have deciphered the user manual, that is all, and everything.
    There is no theory of everything and cannot be, if only for the simple reason that there is no everything, there is no single god which mind you can read, you can however pluck a string and enjoy the music.

    It all merges seamlessly. You do not understand this, its okay, you have time.

    We have decided therefore to temporarily suspend your application to sentiency to be reviewed again if and when the art of your being will not offend anymore.

    we remain sincere to our task and privilege,

    Ideational Sensate


    A reminder:

    Editors note:

    The Trans – Luminal mail archives

    Trans Luminal mail is a repository of letters written by unknowns to unknowns, these letters carry no valid destinations and no convincing authors, these are simply fragments of impossible conversations, dialogues and monologues, treated as pieces of an indefinite puzzle which purpose we do not know and goal we cannot conceive, these letters are found in the trans luminal archive, riding the subspace flow and having no particular order, we do not touch the content of the letters, and we long ago stopped trying to make sense of them, we extract them, we publish them and we hope that if you are a destination or indeed an author of one or more of these letters you can take benefit from their archiving. We also realize that though some of these letters carry a sense of intimacy and may in fact make sense only to their recipients and originators, these nevertheless might help others in their quest of comprehension. In the old annals of humanity there used to be a tradition of embedding treasures of wisdom in hidden locations so as to be readily available at the appropriate time for the appropriate person, these so called Termas, had as a rule a tendency to be written in the past for future generations, the letters of the trans luminal archive however, have no such disposition and have in fact been written at different times and spaces configurations, some of which are from the future to the past, some from the past to the future, some come from parallel time lines and therefore need be understood as concomitant but in different dimensions of space, whilst others yet have been written in the same space but in different factors of time, other letters still are probably from interweaved subjectified spaces to which we have no access, the information however we deem to be accurate. We have no idea and no theory that explains how these writings have found their way to the trans luminal archive, we know that information can be propagated in faster than light speeds and though we presently cannot do so ourselves we do have the capacity of extraction, hence the Trans Luminal mail archives project.

    We believe most of those letters to be written by sentient beings most of which belong to the human species, at least in as much as we can discern, however some of the letters that will be published have certain neologisms and idiosyncratic usages of language to which we have no context and thus do not assume human origination, though sentiency can be perceived.

    For the purpose of retaining the anonymity of times and spaces we have edited the only identifying code of light cone time stamp, the removal of such was made in accordance with our charter of extraction and publication. The letters are for unrestricted utilization and thus are to be considered as under sentient public domain.

    The Editors,
    The Trans Luminal Mail Archives (TLMAP)


    Endnote:

    The TLMAP is a new sci-fi project that aims to complement the Ultrashorts Project.

    Thu, Jul 5, 2012  Permanent link
    Categories: AI, ultrashorts, Sci-fi, TLMAP, Sentiency
      RSS for this post
      Promote (13)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Synapses (9)
     
    “Reality can be beaten with enough imagination.”

    Mark Twain

    (part 1)

    A number of articles these past weeks have caught my attention as I write these words, the first, coming from: The guardian: Population of world 'could grow to 15bn by 2100' (Nearly 7 billion people now inhabit planet but projections that number will double this century have shocked academics-see here) and the second coming few days later from the NYT entitled seven billions (link).
    Both articles deal with a very real problem we are facing in the coming decades, the immense rise in planetary human population, and though the issue is anything but new, the approaches to the issue have changed are changing, and indeed must change.

    The interesting issue at play from the perspective we are exploring here in the PP discourse is the correlation to hyperconnectivity, and by extension, as technology will evolve, the rise of the global brain.

    The exploration of intense states of affairs (topos) rising in the noosphere as our numbers explode will demand (and already are) a new form of conceptualization. Though the common accepted version presently is one of convergence, of man and machine, or the rise of a network mediated global mind, the polytopia presents a complementary and different perception, one of polychronicity.

    There is very little doubt that in a few very short years, we shall turn the extensions of our minds (such as cell phones and search engines) into embedded extensions seamlessly integrated in our thought processes, such as brain machine interfaces and similar devices.

    That longevity is an inevitable fact is not the real question (though the extent of same longevity is), the harnessing of collective intelligence via crowd sourcing or other heavy handed computationally intensive machines is not in question, the motivations behind it are.
    Intelligent semi automated (and thus semi independent) agents responding to our different requests such as Siri or its just released android opposition Iris, are already here, and though their present efficiency is both questionable and dubious, their attractiveness and progression is inevitable and uncontestable.
    That to a very large extent the evolution of us as connected and augmented minds is inevitable and undisputed is not the issue at play, what is at stake is the manner and fashion this evolutionary inevitability will be exploited to bring us closer to a world we ‘really’ wish to live in.

    The world we ‘really’ wish to live in is a very difficult concept to grasp not least of which because not all of ‘us’ wish or desire to live in the ‘same’ world.
    We may ignorantly assume that ‘all of us’ desire the same basic ‘good’, implying that ethics is a universal to which all human need subjugate themselves out of a universal ethical imperative a la Kant, or indeed that all of us accept a form of utilitarianism a la Mill-Bentham, and though recently a universal brain code has been discovered (link), I do not think in any fashion that neurotypicality is as foundational as it is believed to be.

    As much as I am a strong advocate of the benefits of hyperconnectivity and the info-availability it allows us to exploit, I am also become a positive skeptic in all facets concerning the human unification procedure. Access to the world’s information in itself is totally meaningless in itself, the power and benefits of education notwithstanding, for the simple reason that unless a common ground of multiple narratives as an initial co-extensive and coexisting realism of intersubjective allowance is posited, the information is ignored.
    The issue at play is not whether a global brain will rise, it will, it already does, it will also to a certain extent be conscious, with some caveats at least at the initial stages, it will after a fashion reflect us and thus will have just as much morality as we have, an incomplete and unresolved morality, an ethic that knows not the difference between desire and necessity.

    Will Siri or Watson or any of a number of extrapolated and possible artificial intelligences have a conscience? presently they can't even talk to each other: "So Watson can’t take dictation, and Siri can’t play Jeopardy".

    Consciousness, hyperconnectivity and language

    For any person who has had the pleasure and shock of reading one of the most important books of the 20th century, namely: Julian Jaynes: The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (see), the idea that until recently we were not conscious or at least not conscious in the same manner as we perceive ourselves to be at present, the idea of the evolution of consciousness, is not new.

    "O, what a world of unseen visions and heard silences, this insubstantial country of the mind! What ineffable essences, these touchless rememberings and unshowable reveries! And the privacy of it all! A secret theater of speechless monologue and prevenient counsel, an invisible mansion of all moods, musings, and mysteries, an infinite resort of disappointments and discoveries. A whole kingdom where each of us reigns reclusively alone, questioning what we will, commanding what we can. A hidden hermitage where we may study out the troubled book of what we have done and yet may do. An introcosm that is more myself than anything I can find in a mirror. This consciousness that is myself of selves, that is everything, and yet is nothing at all - what is it?
    And where did it come from?
    And why?"


    (excerpt from the Introduction to The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind- Here)

    The idea that consciousness is not a single artifact or phenomenon, is not personal or emergent as such, but is an extended phenomenon, across a wide range of events of a sociological and cultural nature is a work in progress that only lately has received some traction.

    We are wired for cooperation:
    “The brain was built for cooperative activity, whether it be dancing on a TV reality show, building a skyscraper or working in an office, according to new research by neuroscientists.”

    (It Takes Two: Brains Come Wired for Cooperation, Neuroscientists Discover)

    We are everybody

    “Many aspects of everyday human consciousness elude neural reduction. For we belong to a boundless, infinitely elaborated community of minds that has been forged out of a trillion cognitive handshakes over hundreds of thousands of years. This community is the theater of our daily existence. It separates life in the jungle from life in the office, and because it is a community of minds, it cannot be inspected by looking at the activity of the solitary brain.”
    (Rethinking Thinking - How a lumpy bunch of tissue lets us plan, perceive, calculate, reflect, imagine—and exercise free will.)

    Ripe for disruption- our civilization

    HG Wells urged us to domesticate the impossible with plausible assumptions- we need therefore assume (and assumptions is all there is) that the number of humans on this planet will continue to grow exponentially, that the number of connected humans and objects-things will grow and that this hyperconnectivity increases the consciousness factor of the mind of mankind.

    There is no doubt that with the advent of the hyperconnected state of affairs, with increases in nano systems, biotechnology, exascale computing, big data, and cognitive computing, the plausible assumptions with which we may domesticate the impossible need change accordingly.
    Plausible assumptions are assumptions that have enough hold in present day observable threads of actuation and yet are stretchable enough so as to allow a glimpse of things to come.
    We need these kinds of assumptions for the simple reason that the domestication of the impossible is an ART not so much of extrapolation (from immediacy) but of value estimation of changes (in immediacy).

    Hyperconnectivity as an example can be extrapolated into a global reach but needs be estimated in the values change that such a reach implies if we are to domesticate its unpredictable consequences.
    One of those estimations that change in value is the manner by which hyperconnectivity changes our brains and by implication the fashion by which our minds interpret that old concept: ‘reality’.

    The view I hold that the concept of ‘reality’ is being dramatically altered by hyperconnectivity implies a few distinct and easy to parse points, namely that:

    Assumptions about the extended narratives of our personhood as embedded cognition are mobilized in hyperconnectivity to create new ‘natures’.

    Assumptions about existence in hypercomplex systems as diminishing the freedom of the individual are mustered in hyperconnectivity to increased freedom.

    But most importantly:

    The quality of being, as an aesthetic phenomenon, is radically altered in the age of hyperconnectivity in a fashion that prominently features the art of becoming, not as the mimesis of an other that is not authentic, but in a fashion that re-describes the extended narrative of the individual into a multiplicity of authentic beings.
    These new authenticities are the new natures, performing acts of freedom that were not hitherto recognized as such, primarily because the technology needed for such freedom was not available, but also because the realm in which these freedoms prevail did not exist.

    To the conscious aware entity that we have engendered (and in so have become) in our hyperconnected infoverse, the hypercomplex system has become interesting again. And since what makes a system interesting is its capability to reach beyond its self-image, bring back new input, criticize its self-image, upgrade it, iterate it, and reach again, we have become more interesting to ourselves again, in that we have become freer.
    We are self-disrupting creatures, using our abstract capabilities to undo that which we have established for the purpose of penetrating into realms unknown; Realms that might endanger us as well as delight us, realms of freedom unknown, realms of interest, redefining not only our realities in immediacy but also our futures. These futures are operating simultaneously on many dimensions but on different speeds, hence polychronicity, and though these futures originate in virtuality, slowly but surely they leak into immediate reality, altering it in the process.

    This new reality constructed of an indefinite number of state of affairs (topos), is what the polytopia discourse is all about.

    Ten or fifteen billion minds connected to fifty and more billion things in an incredible mesh of hyperconnectivity is an unknown realm to which we have no clue but much desire to explore.

    “There is no point in using the word 'impossible' to describe something that has clearly happened.”

    Douglas Adams, Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency


    Shortly to be expanded..

      Promote (10)
      
      Add to favorites (5)
    Synapses (9)
     
    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)


    Finale

    ..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.

    HUMAN

    ..

    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.

    NotMarie



    part of the ulrashorts project
      Promote (11)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Synapses (3)
     
          Cancel