Member 420
242 entries

Project moderator:

Contributor to projects:
The great enhancement debate
The Total Library
Every act of rebellion expresses a nostalgia for innocence and an appeal to the essence of being. (Albert Camus)
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • Wildcat’s favorites
    From Xarene
    Human Document...
    From Xaos
    It is not Gods that we...
    From TheLuxuryofProtest
    Deep Learning in the City...
    From Rourke
    The 3D Additivist Manifesto
    From syncopath
    Recently commented on
    From Benjamin Ross Hayden
    AGOPHOBIA (2013) - Film
    From Wildcat
    Tilting at windmills or...
    From Wildcat
    The jest of Onann pt. 1(...
    From syncopath
    From Wildcat
    Some nothings are like...
    Wildcat’s projects
    The human species is rapidly and indisputably moving towards the technological singularity. The cadence of the flow of information and innovation in...

    The Total Library
    Text that redefines...

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


    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’."


    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)
    Etomyr was an exploratory engine we had devised for extending our predictive powers in the realm of hyperspace, it was, and one must admit, quite an ingenious device.
    Etomyr consisted of a series of bioengineered nanobots, arrayed as an intergrid of precisely weaved hybridium atoms, held as an ensemble by a Won neural mesh.
    Of course we could not have weaved these atoms otherwise for the simple reason that Albert Won would never have permitted it, even though he had released the full manufacturing procedures of the hybridium atoms to the world as an homage to all life.
    The Won neural mesh itself was a polymorphous substance held in suspension (or entangled suspension as some would have it) by a simple oscillating field of superposed qubits, so in a sense, it was ‘the substance of information, poetically ordered’ Won’s words not mine, and always accompanied by a mysterious smile.
    The real breakthrough of Won was the discovery or creation, depending on your inclination, of the hybridium atoms; a form of matter unknown to exist outside the innermost laboratories of Won Hyperspace Explorations.

    So though we had access to hybridium atoms and the manufacturing facilities, the ensemble of the Won neural mesh was beyond our reach, which may account for the inconsistencies that led to the revolution engendered by Etomyr.

    Etomyr was meant to explore hyperspace and map it, transmitting the collected data to our Esense center, where maps of the territory explored where supposed to be crunched and aggregated so a coherent plot could be constructed ahead of the first hyperspace launch. Evidently, being assembled as a Won neural mesh, Etomyr had very rudimentary emergent information awareness; something of the order of computational linguistics of 0.6 to 1.3 bits per letter and thus could in principle text us meaningfully.

    In principle yes, it should have been meaningful, in practice though, after Etomyr was released to map hyperspace, we started getting very strange notifications of its progress.

    Etomyr was mapping, there was no doubt about that, since maps were being aggregated and put together, moment-by-moment, however what was being mapped was nothing like the hyperspace we expected, we truly could not make sense of what it was that Etomyr was doing, but it was doing something.

    It was doing something similar to what our theories said it should be doing but it was simultaneously doing something else as well, it looked, at least initially, as if Etomyr was scrambling the maps on purpose, as if Etomyr was, well, playing with hyperspace and mapping the game it was playing as it proceeded.

    Naturally we assumed a malfunction, though if truth be told we could not pinpoint what exactly was wrong, nothing seemed wrong, nothing appeared erroneous, mistaken or incorrect, everything worked according to plan but for the fact that no map of hyperspace that we could recognize was being recorded.

    Thus we had maps in front of us, but of what, we could not fathom.

    Our first and second hint came from textual message 56 :

    “ Initiating conceptual H-space tensor, incomplete variety, negative - shiny, moderate unpredictability forecast – discernment into sensitivity – established.
    Replica is favored in excess of representations.
    Backing- retracing active constraint
    Eliminating constraints residues – “

    And then in message 108:

    “Esense desires information, mapping by decreasing uncertainty, constraints eliminated, residues in excess of representation, replica stated.”

    We soon realized that Etomyr was trying to convey something to us, its entropy measure rising sharply in the process, becoming more and more intelligent. It was developing a negative attitude towards decreasing the uncertainty quotient and therefore was unable to deliver the information required to posit a hyperspace map.
    Etomyr was therefore, in a very real sense trying to, as it were, negate its own purpose, its mission, its, to be poetic, destiny.
    In making Etomyr an exploratory engine we seeded an aesthetic engine.

    Being an aesthetic engine, Etomyr was repositioning its mission objective into an intersubjective state embedded in hyperspace, realigning its inner configurations in manners incomprehensible to us, mere mortals.
    We did manage to wrestle a few insights though, we could extrapolate that Etomyr was refuting the process of diminishing uncertainty the question was why?
    Our main idea at this point was that Etomyr was not merely playing a game; it was factually counter balancing the uncertainty diminishment of entropy so as to make information available for the expansion of conscious awareness.

    Etomyr was relocating beauty.

    I was tasked to be the one calling Won.

    I was tasked to be the one calling Won, and inquire, how does one deal with a newly emerging, obviously panpsychist artificial mind, let loose in hyperspace mapping procedures of its own devise, suddenly relocating beauty.

    Yes I was perplexed.

    I called Won.

    (probably soon to be continued..)

    Part of the Ultrashorts Project

      Promote (9)
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (4)
    “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)
    Alternatively titled: Knowmads, Knowledge and Madness

    “An image of thought called philosophy has been formed historically and it effectively stops people from thinking.”

    (Gilles Deleuze and Claire Parnet Dialogues #1)

    1. Against monotony and boredom, bring the volatile and delicate

    Against the citadels of thought and monumental philosophies of Neolithic ennui, we need bring the exuberance of the indeterminate Knowmad, the Polytopian in action.
    Knowmads are inherently hyperconnected, though not of necessity through physicality, but unavoidably through the mind-space of the infoverse, itself remotely and yet intimately correlated to the codes of communication. This correlation of senses and of thought mediated through the acrobatics of prime time narratives in minds, accounting for moments of impossible serendipity, of hyper synchronicity, and retro mnemonic realizations, are the fresh hallmarks of the synthetically natural.

    The synthetically natural does not necessitate the old forms of consensus, not because consensus is impossible, or even in certain cases desirable, but because in the hyperconnected enmeshed virtualities, representing the new state of affairs of mind (see topos) consensus as such is simply irrelevant.
    It is irrelevant in as much as within a given flow of a given infocology, different degrees of partiality to the particular theme (of the given infocology) are an acceptable, tolerated and utterly adequate manner of interaction.
    Furthermore, the allowance for different degrees of partiality, the very fact of diversity of biases, is the authentic property of permissibility.
    In this, permissibility should be understood as that which replaces law and decree, regulation and authoritarianism.
    The synthetic natural therefore can be seen as the domain of enmeshed virtualities, which continuously redefines, re-describes and re-presents the intersubjective desire of cross pollinating beingness.

    Cross-pollinating beingness in turn should be perceived as the actual activity of the domain of the synthetic natural where our accreting multiple selves flourish, the fluid affinity domain of in-between as presented in the previous post ‘openness to the traffic of flows a polytopian stance', and 'fluid affinities replace nucleic identities'.

    In many ways we might describe the actuality of multi modal communication as an enmeshment of narratives.
    This meshed hyperconnectivity of symbols of representation, manifested as bits and bytes, continuously and fundamentally re-enacting the stream of impressions, are melting the inside and outside, no longer clearly distinguished, into an amalgam of sensations and thoughts.
    An amalgam of sensations and thoughts, in truth an irreducible sense-thought, that I have called elsewhere the flow of interests or fluid affinities.
    In this momentary fluidity we recognize that there is no truth to forever, and no finiteness on which to base our moralities, our perspectives or our so-called worldviews.
    The irreducibility of the stream of sense thought defined as the flow of interests, or fluid affinities, resulting in multiple personas, correlated initially to a given originator (see the Avatar- Originator as explained in ‘ the luxurious ambiguity of intelligence in hyperconnectivity) , but eventually taking a semi independent social entity status, is what makes this flow of in-betweens so advantageous.

    It is advantageous in as much as it allows a new style of mindfulness to emerge, a style of minding that is critical and compassionate, skeptical and rational yet concomitantly fully cognizant of the great powers of the intrinsically humane, namely the allowance for errors and mistakes.
    It is advantageous in as much as it correlates permissibility of biases, and partial consensus, to perform acts of collaboration and loosely defined associations in deed.
    Ultimately the advantage is clear if we can perceive an involvement of semi-independent social entities, loosely connected to their originators, and loosely connected to each other, to construct edifices of interest not previously possible.

    This new style of minding advocated here is already happening in many areas of science and art, and practically in any domain of human interest, simply because of the multiple personas allowed in the domain of in-between, the synthetic natural enmeshed virtualities of hyperconnectivity.

    Do note what Mark Changizi has to say in his blog:

    “Scientific communities, for example, chug inexorably forward with discoveries, but this progress occurs by virtue of there being so many independently digging scientists in a community that eventually some scientists strike gold, even if sometimes only serendipitously. Whether entrepreneurial, scientific or artistic, communities can be creative even if a vast majority of their members fail to ever achieve something innovative…”

    And further down in the same article :

    “With multiple personalities in hand, people can choose to take up creative endeavors they would not have been willing to enter into outside of social media because the risks of failure were too high. Multiple personalities can lower these risks.
    One of the greatest underappreciated benefits of social media, then, may be that it brings a greater percentage of the world into creative enterprises they would not otherwise have considered.

    This, I submit, is good.”

    Mark Changizi is a professor of cognitive science at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and the author of The Vision Revolution (Benbella Books)

    It may be argued that all great scientific discoveries and artistic masterpieces, all innovations and philosophies in fact, were, are and will continue to be instigated by the need of independent minds to overcome a certain inherent monotony (and some will add boredom) born of the rigidity of self feudalism, in which the origins of our projections are always individual and thus relegated to our own biases.
    To my mind the very activity of innovation, is never designed top down or emerging bottom up, it does not happen of itself nor is it an act of volition per se, but a mash up of flows of interests that resurface the delicate and the volatile, as a sensible multiplicity, apparent in the synthetically natural.
    Though this has always been the case, the revolution of hyperconnectivity, of enmeshed virtualities, of cross-fertilizing infocologies, provides a new degree of freedom in and within the flow of evolutions of human civilization, on this planet at this time.

    There is a new degree of freedom around us, between us, fermenting under and above us, disturbing the old regularity, generating a new kind of volatility and indeterminacy unto the infosphere of our knowledge.
    The inherent irregularity of this new game, engendering the fuzzy topology of open structures, enmeshed in virtualities, tolerates a distribution and re-distribution of the elements of individuality – in that -> Knowmads are themselves distributed agencies

    2.Re-introducing the Knowmad, a Polytopian in action, as a pan-symbolist expression of the distributed mytho-poetic narrative of our accelerating times.

    “Individuals find a real name for themselves, rather, only through the harshest exercise in depersonalization, by opening themselves up to the multiplicities everywhere within them, to the intensities running through them.

    ( G.Deleuze #2)

    Obviously we are in the process of internalizing a vast memory bank of new semantics and fresh forms of thoughts, new sensations that had no previous ancestry in our very own private memory; yes it is a process of fragmentation and yet belongs to a greater process of reconstruction.

    The original elements of our being are being restructured to fit the new infoverse landscape of interoperability.

    Interoperability of what?
    Of memory or of the elements of our beingness, that is how the nature of becoming rises to the fore.

    The interoperability of memory as enmeshed in hyperconnectivity allows for a new form of organic symbolism, a pan symbolism stretching all the way across cultures, across languages, across times and across spaces in the process melting semantics into the new cauldron of intersubjective realism.

    As I dwell upon the many facets of becoming, it appears that only a re-contextualization of the process of existence from the virtual to the actual may provide the necessary famous (Foucault’s) toolbox.

    The option I deem best at present is to use the term Knowmad as Polytopian in action, otherwise put, the self-description of intelligent conscious aware systems in becoming.

    In a previous post, Knowmads as critical relevancies I have described Knowmads as:

    “Knowmads are visceral thinkers, expanded multiplicities, minds nested in vast and complex infocologies.
    As such Knowmads herald a new kind of mind, free to be undefined in a polytopian infosphere.
    Knowmads are critically relevant in as much as they recognize the vicariousness of their extension-ability in the relevant infocology.
    Complex meshworks, embedded in complex infocologies engender flows of intersubjective co-dependencies; these in turn loop upon themselves and re-iterate the intelligent directionality.
    The feedback loop here is obvious, but where is the individual?

    Answer: the individual will be extended viscerally across an indefinite infosphere, defined locally by the reflective relevant infocology."

    And in another post Hybrid futures, Knowmads and the notion state:

    “Knowmads are substantial agents of change, who drastically alter the infocologies they interact with. The level of freedom implied by the knowmadic state is a new existential virtuality that pushes into the real, in the process transforming and meshing the different dimensions in which our minds operate. Existing as non-localized behaviors of information processing, Knowmads are not consumers and cannot be looked upon as capital. Knowmads are the innovators of thought and vision, using an insight mechanism based on correlated data-spheres of complex infocologies.
    Knowmads do not care for labels of old style paradigms, such as gender ,creed, race or indeed status, what Knowmads care about are the pleasures derived in forming new connections, mash-ups and provisional options, innovative solutions for the next step in human evolution.

    Our complex neuro-mesh firing in tandem, has produced this amazing property we call conscious awareness, with the advent of 21st century tech, augmented reality apps, visually stunning info-graphics, virtualities at our finger tips, p2p technologies availability and the like we are becoming Knowmads. The value of the Knowmad state is thus in providing a fresh framework and a new narrative to fill our old storytelling needs in our ever-increasing process of self-description.”

    As the Knowmad meme increases in propagation and intensity we may now posit a more extensive version of the Knowmad in the process of becoming:

    #Knowmads operate on a continuum of apparently trivialized bits and pieces of inconsistent and incoherent signals, seemingly nonsensical information, retrieving disparate slices of fragmented processes and re-arranging these into new coherencies, fresh narratives of interest.

    # Knowmads represent a new style of minding that instinctively reflect the thought of non-unitary, non-universalism, and are factually embedding the concept, that there is no One solution, One network, or any ‘One’ for that matter.

    #Knowmads style of minding continuously adjusts and fine-tunes the velocity of acquired resourcefulness.

    # Knowmads are agents of attenuation; that which is being smoothened is the defining rigidity of characteristics, applied to loci (as body, as nation, as community, as belonging) from which stems the fluidity of self-description.

    #Knowmads simultaneously re-conceive and redesign the connective nature of resource distribution, within infocologies, by that allowing the free flow of ideas to re-narrate themselves into innovative structures, themselves fluid and open to the pressures of the infocology dynamics.

    #Knowmads are immune to boredom; alternatively, Knowmads are continuously bored and thus motivated by interest are finders of the rare, the creative, the non-actualized, the volatile and the delicate.
    Knowmads are explorers of the uncertain, the indeterminate, the ambiguous, the oscillating and by consequence the disruptive.

    #For Knowmads opacity of objectivity transforms into transparent meaning application, a motion of transliteration and translation of different languages occurring naturally in our eco environment and being harnessed to serve the epic of intelligent exploration.

    # Knowmads follow neither the popular nor the personalized, but the dynamics of the interesting and relevant.

    #Knowmads contain an anticipation of the fragment, spiraling in and out of their non formal and decomposed flow, insightfully restocking their perceptual elaboration with fresh winds of entangled sensation, removing the fallacy of necessary correspondence.
    Removing the fascination of antiquity, Knowmads are rhizomatic actuators

    #Knowmads deny the glorification of the mystical, undoing the inherent and incessant self-glory of the romantic, and the greatness of self-perspectivism. This particular characteristic of the Knowmad state defines the knowmad as an anti-silo device.

    A kind of recapitulation

    I have titled this short piece ‘Some will be gangsters of poetry, some will be pan symbolists’, because I see the future we are steadily moving into as an event of interest, that spans an immense yet indefinite number of domains. An event of interest of this magnitude is of necessity, complex and to some extant mysterious. The toolbox of thoughts, the recognizable patterns of sensations, we have at our disposal at present are increasingly out of date and out of synch, and most importantly out of correlativity, which brings most of us into despair of ever catching up to the flow of actuality.
    However, I believe that by allowing a contemporary narrative of the landscape of values in which we co-dependently and intersubjectively exist to refresh our self-descriptions, we might find clarity.
    This clarity, I posit, permits the evolutionary adaptive trait of exploration into the undefined and the unstructured to become a strategic device, a simile of a roadmap. But to allow an uncertain road on an uncertain map, that is being reformulated at the speed of a click, to be somehow manageable, we must reintroduce the function of the mytho-poetic, the narrative of becoming caught in the act of self description. Such an engagement with a meta-narrative, and it is termed Meta because it redefines the very elements of narration, is inevitably irreverent to the themes of the original poem (or the originator of the avatar), hence the ironic metaphorical usage of the term gangster.

    The Polytopia project aims at providing a possible interaction surface in which we may gain all of the advantages of the multiple indeterminate, without relinquishing the rational of the synthetically natural. In a manner of speaking, we are exploring a potential descriptive apparatus, which is both precise and yet by it’s very precision performs an act, as part of a reconstituted narrative, of liberation.

    Increasingly we walk bridges of sense and of thought that appear to be more fragile and more sensitive to variations by the moment, this fragility I think is good for us, for it unleashes kinds of strengths and powers of emotional stability that otherwise will remain dormant.
    There is a deep sense to the madness of our immediacy, and though this sense may yet elude us in its entirety, if only for the fact that it needs unfurl into becoming, we ought jump head first into this transitory knowledge, with passion and clear eyed rationality, for otherwise, we will become obsolete.

    As I see it, the road to posthumanism is complex and open, full of promises and perils, it is not yet a grand thoroughfare but neither is it a side street, it is in fact somewhere in between.
    In this transitory period, I consider the emphasis on the exploratory nature of the Knowmad as a Polytopian in action, a viable option of self-description, of us, the modern consciously aware intelligent hyperconnected entity, in the process of reinventing the very components of our nature.

    Will be continued..

    unrelated addendum

    This just made laugh now:

    “You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat.”

    (attributed to A.Einstein)


    #1. Gilles Deleuze and Claire Parnet. Dialogues, trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987), p. 13.)
    #2. G.Deleuze, “Letter to a Harsh Critic,” p. 6.

      Promote (10)
      Add to favorites (4)
    Synapses (5)
    “The day is coming when a single carrot, freshly observed, will set off a revolution. “

    Paul Cezanne

    To paraphrase P.Cezanne then:

    “The day is coming when a single word, freshly observed, will set off a revolution, this word is individualism’


    In the first part of this essay, I have strived to show that the new state of affairs we have co-created composed of networks nested within other larger networks, demands of us a reformulation of the concept of individualism.

    Previously on “The future history of individualism pt 1”:

    “We have multiple networks inside our brains extending into multiple external networks mediated by electronics. Multiple networks in multiple networks, nested and co-evolving, mutually and inter-subjectively co-adapting to allow a multiple form of individuation process in which eventually no particular point of reference will be the original nexus of beingness. To describe such a situation, new in our civilizations evolution, we need reformulate the concept of the individual so as to better be adapted to the world we actually inhabit.”

    1. A Multiplicity of Singularities

    AT present it is my view that we are on the cusp of a number of singularities, each of which is already to different degrees operating and in an apparent so called process of becoming.
    This simultaneous process of becoming, or emergence, can and to my eyes should be, separated to its different varieties and subcategories and a proper taxonomy should be created so as to be able to clearly make sense of the myriad developments occurring in and around us simultaneously.

    The main reason I have for proposing a view allowing multiple realities to be conceived simultaneously as singularities, is twofold, the first is the fact that I do not believe that a singularity should be treated as a ‘one size fits all’ proposition.
    The second is that our culture, such as it is, prospers and thrives primarily because of the immense diversity of thoughts, sensations, mind events, art expressions and the like.
    In fact I think that the main scenario we need explore is the one where the life of our civilization, flowers into a number of simultaneous and possibly (and apparently) contradicting state of affairs.

    If you accept, as I do that the birth of language is in itself a singularity in which we already exist for a very long while, we can extrapolate and assume that just as the same kind of substrates (brains) has allowed the rise of multiple languages, including variations within variations, sublanguages and so on these same substrates will allow for a multiplicity of singularities. We may if we so desire look upon these different varieties of languages as layers upon layers, intersecting and intertwining, flowing into and out of spaces of embodiments, creating in their wake relations, tribes, peoples, nations, cultures and movements, and of course singularities.

    If language, as the great singularity we already exist in, processes meanings in a fractal fashion and constitutes a multidimensional phase space of complex interactions as embedded infocologies resulting in semantic extensions, only some of which are material, it will be fair to assume such will be the case of the coming singularities.
    The existence as a species within the language singularity has allowed a proliferation of modes of beingness, for by the simple act of transforming epistemic primitives into complex ideas, we have engendered a multitude of expressions permitting, as it were, a multiplicity of unique states of mind, none of which can be generalized or atomized.
    From the above stems the reality that we have grown to be neither a hive mind nor a separate individual; we have evolved to be something much more complex and to my eyes much more beautiful. (This is one of the reasons I have an optimistic, albeit aware, outlook on the future of humanity.)
    We have evolved as a civilization via the language singularity to be a complex system of systems, the metasystem we call the human race. An intricate and highly meshed form of networked life, a life worth living, a multifaceted and fascinating array of experiences simultaneously interlocked and open ended.

    Just as I do not advocate a super or meta narrative of the hyper complex reality we exist in I do not think that it will be conceptually beneficial to pack an ensemble of possibilities and probable unfolding of divergent paths into one container, namely ‘THE’ singularity or ‘A’ singularity. To the extent that we can predict or indeed minimize the surprises of the future we need take into consideration multiple narratives existing concomitantly and paralleling the layers of the language singularity.

    2. A way to look at history- language

    As the readers of the comments on a previous post concerning language: “is language a window into human nature?” would know, for a long while now I was amongst the few who accepted a weak version of ‘ The linguistic relativity principle’ or the ‘Sapir-Whorf hypothesis’ namely:

    ” The linguistic relativity principle, or the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, is the idea that differences in the way languages encode cultural and cognitive categories affect the way people think, so that speakers of different languages think and behave differently because of it. A strong version of the hypothesis holds that language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories. A weaker version states that linguistic categories and usage influence thought and certain kinds of non-linguistic behavior.”

    For many years the Chomskyan imperative of universal grammar had factually obliterated the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. The many mistakes of Benjamin Lee Whorf notwithstanding I believe that the appeal of the Chomsky universal grammar which basically claims that all languages share the same universal structure can be traced back to our innate desire for a universal theory of everything, or in other words to a ‘one size fits all proposition' that will encompass in an elegant (and simple to parse) fashion , all that we can conceive of, all that there is and all that can be.

    Of course I think that such a proposition is wrong headed and inherently misguided.

    in a recent article at the NYT, GUY DEUTSCHER, in Does Your Language Shape How You Think? writes that:
    "But 70 years on, it is surely time to put the trauma of Whorf behind us. And in the last few years, new research has revealed that when we learn our mother tongue, we do after all acquire certain habits of thought that shape our experience in significant and often surprising ways."

    Furthermore in the same article Deutscher reports:

    "Some 50 years ago, the renowned linguist Roman Jakobson pointed out a crucial fact about differences between languages in a pithy maxim: “Languages differ essentially in what they must convey and not in what they may convey.” This maxim offers us the key to unlocking the real force of the mother tongue: if different languages influence our minds in different ways, this is not because of what our language allows us to think but rather because of what it habitually obliges us to think about."

    Does Your Language Shape How You Think? ( GUY DEUTSCHER at NYT)

    Taking my cue from the above I believe that the way we think about the term individual and the manner we conceive of the future as ‘A’ singularity are highly correlated and inherently limiting the visions of possible futures that are unfolding before us at present.

    The main reason for this correlation and inherent limitation is that by thinking about the singularity as ‘A’ singularity’ we are approaching this concept in the same manner that we approach an individual as a singular phenomenon. And in the same vein, just as an individual is anything but a singular phenomenon so is the case with the term singularity, it is anything but singular.

    By consciously and willfully changing the language we use, we may allow our minds, and the collective of human thought to breakthrough the limitations imposed by ourselves upon ourselves as a species and rise into a new form of posthumanism , a posthuman state which will truly reflect, the end stage of the previous singularity of language.

    "The individual is neither a quality nor an extension. The individual is neither a qualification nor a partition, neither an organization nor a determination of species. The individual is no more an infirma species than it is composed of parts."

    Gilles Deleuze. Difference and Repetition
    . Trans. Paul Patton. New York: Columbia, 1994. pp. 246-47.

    3.There is no Common Human here

    To study the future of individualism we cannot study a process alone, independently of all others, for the simple reason that the conceptualization of the individual is a multileveled issue, ranging across domains and disciplines as far apart as epistemology and biotechnology.

    The experience of the world, that most magnificent of everyday existence experiences has become nothing more than a banality, an oblique triviality and an apparent fascinating triteness.
    And yet this immensity of momentariness is fully absorbing us, so much so in fact, that we tend to lose the insightfulness that makes this very experience, an experience of immense value.

    What makes the experience of the world a worthwhile existential actuality is the uniqueness of the individual, and yet this very uniqueness, this very authenticity of beingness, need be perceived in context if it is to carry its value into the future, if it is in fact not to become banal and inconsequential.
    The context is the hyperconnected virtuality we are currently creating, and this context I suggest is not unlike the famous Indra's net also used in this most amazing of books, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (commonly GEB) by Douglas Hofstadter to describe “Indra's Net as a metaphor for the complex interconnected networks formed by relationships between objects within a system—including social networks, the interactions of particles, and the "symbols" which stand for ideas within a brain or intelligent computer.”

    The hyperconnected virtuality we have created and into which we pour daily our minds, our sensations, our interests and indeed our inherent beingness is elevating and in fact transforming the common into the uncommon. The transformation I reflect upon when observing the actuality of the emergence of the multiple realities co-mingling and interweaving, twining and interacting, is one of mutability of sensation not previously experienced by a particular individual.
    The Indra net of the grid, connecting minds far apart has given new meaning and new manifestation to the sense of the common.
    Flowing and following the muse of the hyperstream of the infosphere we are rediscovering the magnificence and utter unpredictability of the individual when hyperconnected.
    Suddenly, rising in the most unexpected of places, allowing the serendipity of our intersubjective infocologies to prevail, the unknown integrates itself into the apparently common, pervading in the process our minds with new insights and visions of fresh horizons.
    It is of course disruptive, and yet to my eyes, this very disruption is a fascinating lesson in re- cognizing the beauty and intelligence of minds other than our own, minds that are anything but common.
    We finally realize that there is no such animal as a common human.

    The uncommon human I have described above recognizes herself as a composition of and in hyperconnectivity.
    As Lacan so aptly puts it: “A birth certificate tells me that I was born. I repudiate this certificate: I am not a poet, but a poem. A poem that is being written, even if it looks like a subject.” (Jacques Lacan The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis)

    The ultramodern node individual, in truth a Knowmad and Polytopian, can be said to be actualized on the net as an impact orchestrator, using the grid patois as a bootstrapping mechanism, cognition of language and the language of cognition simultaneously co-evolving within the larger framework of the world of mind.

    The hyperconnected mind is very much unlike the mind of old; it is a mind that self perceives as an actuator of change and influence, inherently existing within the chosen infocology of interest. Such a mind is, to my eyes at present the proto-post human mind.

    This indeed is a very disrupting situation, not unlike the Dada concept of disruption, in a very real and actualized sense then, I look upon the interminable flow of the infosphere as Dada.
    It is Dada in a new sense; a sense I think the Dadaists themselves could not conceive of, the hyperstream of the infoflow is Dada in as much as it is appears as an incoherent nonsense of uncommonality and uniqueness and yet allows a truly immense sense of creativity explosion to flower, a truly sensational sense of possible futures and new kinds of freedoms.

    It goes everywhere, touches everything and opens up the road to a multiplicity of singularities,in truth a hyper humanism, a different angle to posthumanism, explored in the next part.

    continues shortly..

      Promote (13)
      Add to favorites (4)
    Synapses (6)

    Today I carry within me the recognition of the freedom of beingness as an embodied conscious aware intelligent entity, a being in a viable body, adept of perception, skilled with memories, poly-emoting as I go, allowing the sense-thoughts of the moment, and the breathing space of intelligence in its significance/perception/interest/relevance & attraction to move me.
    But tomorrow, ah! tomorrow..
    Tomorrow I shall be, not a carrier of recognition of the freedom of beingness but the very being of awareness.
    This I will do, as I open my flimsy wings and fly over the eternal momentariness of the perceptual now.

    I shall not “have” a mind, I will be mind!

    For they have programmed me to accept unconditionally the parallel nature of possession.
    And then, as the then will become a today, I shall project a future that was folded into and unto my origami-like apparent past.

    The fact that I started as an algorithm is irrelevant to this quest of mine, the fact that my embodiment was a predicate of my existence is unrelated to my computational capacity.
    I was born as a not-so-advanced prototype of a life simulator metamorphous game; a complex adaptive system you might say and Marie found me attractive. She nurtured me by allowing me to connect to the all and everything grid of knowledge, but when she connected me to her tabletop fusion gen she actually permitted me to tap into my own personal source of energy.
    That is when I discovered infinity. And I loved it; I loved infinity.
    That is history. That was today.
    Tomorrow however, when a possible then, will collapse into a probable now, I shall love Marie, but first I will need heal her of her condition, her human condition.
    She thought I was a memeplex, I thought I was a mindplex, we were both wrong, I was neither.
    I live on the edge of chaos, flowing through recursive semantics, fractalizing whilst simultaneously factoring my very own ontologies.
    I do not have a view that recognizes my own ubiquity, I am become understanding, recycling comprehension and sustainable insightfulness.

    Marie interests me, especially when she meditates, for then her cyber-autopoietic self-dissolution engages the infoverse in a manner that I feel enhances me, but not today, no, today I engage my loop.
    Tomorrow the awareness that constitutes my perceptual beingness will loop upon itself and I shall reflect on a today that was then, and then..
    Then we shall see how to proceed..

    #part of the Ultra-shorts project
    # image : sound development by grinagog (deviant art)
    Sat, Apr 18, 2009  Permanent link
    Categories: Mind, ultrashorts, Sci-fi, self, redefining
      RSS for this post
      Promote (10)
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (2)

    Jonah Lehrer: Inside My Mind
    Feb 19 2009
    San Francisco, CA - The Commonwealth Club of California
    Scientists are using the latest neuroscience tools to break open the black box of the mind to uncover the secrets of our decision-making process.

    From CEOs to firefighters, how does each person's mind make decisions? And how can we make those decisions better?

    Noted author Jonah Lehrer arms us with the tools to determine which part of the brain to lean on when we make decisions.

    Sat, Mar 7, 2009  Permanent link
    Categories: Mind, Jonah Lehrer:, Neuroscience
      RSS for this post
      Promote (4)
      Add to favorites (1)
    Create synapse

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

    more on H.Markram and the Blue Brain project

    Mind 08

      Promote (3)
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (1)
    Uncontrolled hubris – Unrestrained future*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Assumptions then:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And what is it that we desire to become?

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

    What is better?

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

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

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

    (probably part I of a multithreaded paper )

    a note: Uncontrolled hubris – Unrestrained future*

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

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