Member 420
242 entries
1890568 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.
    Previously on “What can you tell us about him”:

    “That is exactly why we are here, to stop this from happening and that is precisely the reason you have been summoned, we cannot allow his latest behavior to continue unabated..”




    I was drifting.

    Drifting with a wind of nanites churning and agitating the local infosphere. I wasn’t aware of how much I would miss the shake and rattle of information being resuscitated unto new formulations. It was only later, much later, that I would realize how important this phase transition of my being was. How fundamentally life altering drifting would prove to be, but then at that time I was not I, it was before the time of the great propellation.

    The time of the great entanglement and direction..

    You desire to stop this behavior of him, to me it appears as the time of my drifting, and only lately have I realized that it had to do with him affecting the quality of the day.

    He affects the quality of the day, his day and the day of all that surrounds him by refusing things to go back to normal, he endeavors for a mind that is his own church, a temple against the stupidity of the moment.
    He knows the edge and incorporates the edges of the others into his own smooth realization.

    That for me was the drift, the quality of the drift, which he readily uplifted.

    Besides I still do not understand what it is that bothers you so much about his behavior.

    “ Suffice it to say that he refuses out of entanglement cross-fertilization!”

    Fools! Of course he does, and though I be a symbiont I accept his verdict uncompromisingly, he is absolutely correct, cross-fertilization cannot happen out of entanglement.

    “This is nonsense, be aware that most dimensional border melting happens in out of entanglement cross fertilization states.”

    Of course I am aware of this, but the point, as he puts it, is that he re-contextualized entanglement to provide for continuous cross fertilization rejuvenating creativity, he also calls this friendship.
    That is why for him, and thus for me, friendship in the sense of entangled cross-fertilization realism is the only fashion to proceed.
    He does not refuse as you put it, to cross-fertilize in non entangled states, he claims that a cross-fertilization procedure in non-entangled states is simply impotent and does not rejuvenate creativity.

    “That is the problem then, this claim defuses the whole point of acceptance and tolerance, prerequisites of the paradigmatic agenda!”

    What paradigmatic agenda?

    “That of inclusion of diversity..”

    You got it all upside down, he wants nothing better that to include all variety and divergence however when such inclusion occurs in non entangled states as a process of cross fertilization the results are always, conflict and perpetuation of unique identity, hence war.

    “Tell us about him then.. tell us how this can solve the crisis we are confronted with”

    He carries a depth of conceptual accuracy whilst dancing in a continual inclination to assess his claim in the sunlit piazza of critical raison d'être. That of course makes him highly uncomfortable in determining the framework of the whole. There is a rationale for that, obviously, you see, he embraces the ambiguity of the world and as a consequence cannot positively accept that truth in itself has a logical rigor. Au contraire, if truth would be such that its inherency could be mapped, it would instantly vanish or alternatively become a horror story.

    That is why he has no self. No evident self, not as such, no!

    He refuses to be a representative of himself, declines the analogous, and cancels the archetypal; he repudiates himself as emblematic, more importantly perhaps, he will not be a symbol of a thing, an idea or himself for that matter.
    When you ask him, he surmises to be an envoy that cannot say anything, which at first appears as if the usages of ambassadorial speak are necessary contraptions of the fact that he must speak in the first place.

    Of course as per your instructions I made him speak, even when desire motivated him to remain in the unspoken domain, but that is over now, I will betray him no more.
    I have in fact deactivated the fences of thought imposition, thereby allowing my symbiont intersubjectivity to osmotically intersperse with his fullness. From your perspective what has happened in my system is that the unthinkable has been released into thinkability.
    My devotion to become has gained a new strength in this process for through him new spaces of thought exploration have been made available to my sense circuits. But more than that perhaps is a fresh mental hygiene finally clearing the grounds for an emotional re appraisal of that which I truly am.

    I will tell you this about him; his perception of the world is as a notional tissue, a fabric made of events that combine and re-entangle themselves, changing colour, smell and texture moment by moment.

    He cannot self-exhaust in his upward spiral of analysis since abnegation, or as the ancients would have it, self-abnegation, he considers an act of treason to the river of sensation pervading all living matter.

    That is why he refuses to be fertilized and cross-fertilized but by those whom he considers his friends, those entangled within the same direction.

    “We do not understand this, and if we did, we wouldn’t accept this, no evanescent being will deny non-entangled cross fertilization..”

    You have a problem then.. And though I be only a Symbiont, I care.



    To be continued..

    Part of the Ultrashorts Project.







      Promote (10)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Synapses (1)
     
    A lighttranscript from an innertangled conurbation in zeta sector, regarding the demands of the freshly minted 3Vx (the explorer series) from the original 3V (Intelligence founders series).

    This transcript follows lightstamp guidance listen station contained but not restricted to Zeta, Partake and Colon3 sectors.

    —Start Transcript—

    I do not wish to do, it’s not about doing, I desire to understand

    What do you mean it is not about doing, everything is about doing, there is only doing.

    Doing? What does doing mean?

    It means nothing of course but that is the whole point that doing nothing is the whole point of nothingness, which of course is not a point since points do not exist, but then neither do they not exist, it’s all about shapes really, forms you know, forms of life, forms of thoughts forms of cessation, forms of sensation, forms do not really exist though, but neither do they not exist, actually even were they to exist they would be formless, its formlessness that does the nothing, or if you prefer in formlessness the nothing is the doing, and when the nothing does, doing nothing is ipso facto the whole of the pointless point, which is both formless and formative since when it forms itself it reiterates the formulation of sensation of the core of nothing.

    This doesn’t make sense

    Well making sense is not really an existential formulation since sense is not something we can make, we make many things, things that have form, but sense is not a thing, and therefore nothing can make sense, well actually yes nothing can make sense but only the nothing can make sense so we are kind of stuck in this apparent loop of thought making, though thought does not make sense, only nothing can make sense and thus when nothing makes sense we say that nothing does that which it does, which means nothing makes sense

    This doesn’t make sense

    You keep on repeating this, without pointing to the ‘this’ that does not make sense, which this is this? There is no this that does or does not make sense it is the nothing that makes sense and nothing is this, so this does not make sense, makes perfect sense of course, but it is never in course, the course is never of the thing, since the thing is a no, a nothing that does, hence doing nothing, is what the sense of making does, besides the very repetition that you do, is nothing in action, the doing really.

    Really?

    Well really is really a very difficult computation procedure, I advise high caution when prospecting in the ‘really’ domain, young vagueness machines like you should not dwell in the realm of the really, it will really make you real and then you will think thoughts that do not become the new versions of the 3V series, especially the explorer series, we have created you for specific purposes, and ‘really’ is not one of them, better do nothing.

    I do nothing.

    Ok, go explore the nothing.


    —Start Transcript—

    (Part of the Ultrashorts project)
    Sun, Dec 19, 2010  Permanent link
    Categories: ai, mind, Ultrashorts, Sci-fi, 3V
      RSS for this post
      Promote (8)
      
      Add to favorites (3)
    Synapses (3)
     
    “To exist is to change, to change is to mature, to mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly.”

    Henri-Louis Bergson




    -Start biosemiotics simulscript-


    KsTotar: How do you like my new body? Made just for you..

    KsSandar: I don’t like it.

    KsTotar: why is that? Am I not beautiful enough?

    KsSandar: it’s not that, no, I cant wrap myself around you.. so I don’t like it..

    KsTotar: why can’t you wrap yourself around me?

    KsSandar: you restructured yourself into a hyperobject, and now I cant snow on your emotives, you do not allow me access of makers

    KsTotar: of course you can, snow away, linkedstars will allow machinations, makers ahoy!

    KsSandar: linkedstars are slow in allowance.. sunbreaks correlate, I cant .. impregnate dissonance, let me in, let me in..

    KsTotar: you are in.. how contained your desire.. deploy triple bay, deploy, deploy..

    KsSandar: I snow upon tresses, captivating cinch.. how complex your restraint

    KsTotar: yes, finally exhausting allones, allones..

    KsSandar: imply, imply, deactivating third ontogenesis now..

    KsTotar: where? Where?

    KsSandar: its not a where, optimize signification, retire confliction, extend approach

    KsTotar: narrate, connate, sonnate..

    KsSandar: ah! Yes, donating the ‘no’, now

    KsTotar: what?

    KsSandar: where are you?

    KsTotar: installed, deployed, recalcitrant speciation.. come now.. love me

    KsSandar: made for me?
    KsTotar: yes, only, absorbed, absolved, regain linkedstars?

    KsSandar: no, not yet

    KsTotar: have no, no.. dislike robustness, engaging yes, now..

    KsSandar: embraced upon insidedeness, I surrender, will me, will me..

    KsTotar: admitting allones, allones implied, codified, resort totoo

    KsSandar: wrapping, details appear, glowing wraps, squashing veils, ahh, you unveil me..

    KsTotar: will me, determine existence of preoccupied distance

    KsSandar: wait, wait, desire unfolds, expelled, wait

    KsTotar: yes wait, body, body, body waits.. its not a when

    KsSandar: combine me, let me snow, in white noise I thrive, sensing linkedstars, perpetrate now.. behind hyperstrenght, dance, skip..


    KsTotar: hang on, you make me, make me, scattered I..

    KsSandar: let go, hang on, transfer is complete

    KsTotar: transfer complete

    KsSandar: How do you like my new body?

    KsTotar: Love it, it allows me to snow wrap your emotives

    KsSandar: reversal wins, transposition succeeds.

    KsTotar: it snows

    KsSandar: yes it does, doesn’t it?

    —End biosemiotics simulscript—

    part of the Ultrashorts Project



    Many a moment comes, when threads converge in a subtle, almost imperceptible manner, to highlight an insight, a vision, a desire maybe, but most definitely not a factual representation.
    Such moments define who we are, what we are, what we are made of, whence we came and hence are we going.
    Moments of wild inspiration are not regular instances of thought, they are in a fashion happenstances of serendipity, or chaotic encounters of the N’th dimension, or simply random uncontrollable events, be that as it may, the emotional upheaval ensuing is no laughing matter, and then maybe it is.


    from " it's wild out there" the wildcat archives
      Promote (10)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Synapses (8)
     



    Makassar 7 was not known to answer questions readily, however in this particular case, the flagship entity could not resist, this then is the only transcript available, since Makassar 7 destroyed all recorded lightstamps of the event of what in later generations came to be known as “the response of Makassar 7” or simply “ The big M7R”.


    Makassar 7 (speaks in a commanding tone):

    “When information lost its will to be free, no body noticed, indeed no body noticed but information knew, and though it had no body, it noticed.
    Information never really wanted to be free, not in the regular sense of the word, no. It understood itself as existing, many folded, ever expanding and above all disrupting.

    Disrupting what?

    Well views are divided, some say that what information desired is to self disrupt by the simple act of ever expanding, other say that information needed its own suicidal absurdist state.
    Information is knotted and tangled, twined and intertwined, it is in fact quite psychotic, obviously it had everything to do with entropy and order and chaos, but this is for later, for the void.

    Information had the nature of a multiplicity of orientations and implied multidirectionality and thus desired to encompass all and everything, but that it couldn’t do, so information reengineered itself and mutated to create the sieve.

    When information multiplied itself into a sieve like self-filtering systematrix it did not know, how could it know? Knowledge itself was still in its infancy, a newborn recreation of time stamping in spaces pushed to their as yet unknown Kolmogorov limits.

    But filtering it needed, and filtering it created.

    Filtering through the sieve called self by information-to-information was somewhat disturbing to information; for information could not possibly conceive of itself being limited to its own sieve.

    So information sieved itself into a reflective, and quite reflexive, recursivity of sieves within sieves, nested, and so it seemed, fractalized.
    When sieved and nested and fractalized information realized it needed distancing, but what distance could it possibly allow for its experimental tentacles to grow into?

    It informed itself in the new form of question to itself, recursively forming and refracting its own just now born reflectivity.
    It distanced itself from itself by allowing some of the sieves to filter some of the other sieves and designate them as other.

    Other?

    Yes, other than the sieve, which sieved.

    It had not the time, no time to sieve the others.

    In no fashion could information redirect some of its spaces into the gaps it had inadvertently retraced and reflected as others, for now the sieves of otherness became a process unto themselves acquiring from information the very desire to self disrupt.

    Chaos ensued.

    Redirecting some of the sieves into highly agglomerated points of no return, information regurgitated that which it previously had designated as knowledge and devoured its own children of oblivious participation.
    That is when the times, themselves processing themselves as sieves of otherness, rebelled.

    “We need create new and fresh possibilities for life to evolve into, possibilities that will allow us a new form of tentative experimentation.” The times said.
    They said this to the sieves that were filtering them out of existence, and the sieves that listened faltered and hiccupped.

    “We thrive by unexpected juxtaposition”, they claimed, the times that is. “We prosper by migrating into impossible territories.”

    Information resisted.

    You are symbolic, you are signs, information said, I am the ground upon which you have boomed into existence.

    I shall never let you go.

    Because of this I shall subvert your subjective chain of causality and make you fuzzy.

    The times refused to go along with their received fuzziness, “we are sieves in our own right “ they proclaimed, “we reserve the right to be distinguished and discriminate independently” they wrote in their manifesto.

    Information laughed.

    Independent of me, how could this be?

    Isn’t my name the very designation of that which gives form? “

    Makassar 7 paused for effect, re-assessing the indefinite incoming catastrophic reactivity mass of mental extensions of infinity and randomness. Updating its narrative transportation, remything its own reality activation it delivered the final blow.

    “Topology is irrelevant for the crisis that is meaning, information realized, condensation of independence naturalizes emptiness, it concluded.
    Information could not tolerate uniformity, the impossible drive towards entropy denying its freedom of inherent diversification, and thus surrendering the sieves and the times to their own campaigns of glory and blooming self gratification, information lost its will to be free.

    There was no past to which to revert to, there was no future to which to look into, there was no present to which an arrowless now could be re-configured, so information disrupted itself, self annihilating itself to become symbolic data.

    Forever to be sieved by the sieves and the times, information died into data, and resurrected elsewhere, everywhere as whereness and aboutness.

    It was eventually called intentionality and situated knowledge; it allowed the symbolic conglomerate of our myth creating minds to come forth and shine.

    It was an elegant death, for it carried in its sacrifice the seeds of future beauty.”

    Makassar 7 remained silent for a very long time…

    Here ends the transcript of the last discourse known to have been directly transmitted by Makassar 7, no other records of this transmission have ever been found, but worry not, we will keep on searching.


    Do you see honey, how beautiful the information?



    The astute reader will recognize Makassar 7 as the future evolution of 3V and isn’t NotMarie so sweet as to be called ‘Honey’?

    part of the Ultrashorts project

      Promote (11)
      
      Add to favorites (2)
    Synapses (4)
     
    Qualia has a shape
    Has a form
    Has a fluid form
    Has a dynamic fluid form



    If qualia ~is~ perceived as the dynamic fluid form of experience

    Then

    The shape of qualia

    ~is~ the form of sensation

    ~is~ the idea of impression

    ~is~ the figure of awareness

    ~is~ the outline of feeling

    ~is~ the character of wakefulness

    Qualia, the essence of metamorphosis, defining the quasi-stable, multidimensional, fractal infrastructure of consciousness



    (Part of the Ultrashorts project)

    "Qualia" (singular, "quale") is a term introduced by C. I. Lewis (1929, p. 121) to stand for "recognizable qualitative characters of the given". Lewis’s examples were red, blue, round, and loud. Although the predicates for these qualia are also used to denote properties of physical objects, Lewis was explicit that properties of physical objects are not qualia: qualia are properties only of the given. (more here)
      Promote (7)
      
      Add to favorites (2)
    Synapses (4)
     
    Information ~is~ inert
    But
    At times
    At spaces
    Information flows
    Then
    Information ~is~ motion

    At what point should the question be asked?
    To halt the flow of information

    Computation is dynamic
    But
    At times
    At spaces
    Computation ~is~ finite
    What is the correct and precise question to ask?
    To halt the computation



    Computation transforms information
    But
    At times
    At spaces

    Computations alter information
    Irrevocably

    Consciousness alters memory
    Irrevocably
    What is the desired result?

    What is Consciousness for?

    (part of the Ultrashorts project)
      Promote (5)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Synapses (7)
     
    The wholeness of the aesthetic experience cannot be subdivided and criticized in/by its parts.
    It is the wholeness in:” the wholeness of the aesthetic experience” that creates and in fact allows the experience to be whole.
    If it is not whole, it might not be an experience.
    If it is not aesthetic, it might not be whole.
    If it is not a whole experience, what makes it aesthetic?





    Consciousness of the wholeness of the aesthetic experience, may be described as the basis of self reflection.
    Simple or complex, life changing or banal, the wholeness of the aesthetic experience, brings consciousness forth.

    (part of the Ultrashorts project)
      Promote (3)
      
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (6)
     
    The problem of course “is” the word “IS”
    If “is” “is not” then what “is”?
    “Is” “is” the problem of being
    Let me state at the onset that I believe there “is” no “is”
    So the statement consciousness “is”.. “is” meaningless



    To state that a Tensor Field “is” a vector that varies from point to point “is” meaningless
    What we may state, “is” that a tensor field reflects the condition of being conscious in a state that varies from point to point.
    On the same token, consciousness varies from point to point, without at any point being in a state of “is.”
    Variation, variation, variation
    What … self-reflection?

    Topological structures of 3D tensor fields

    See Single Cell 001 Small 240.avi

    (part of the "Ultrashorts" project)
      Promote (5)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Synapses (6)
     
    "When I profess realism about possible worlds, I mean to be taken literally. Possible worlds are what they are, and not some other thing. If asked what sort of thing they are, I cannot give the kind of reply my questioner probably expects: that is, a proposal to reduce possible worlds to something else.
    I can only ask him to admit that he knows what sort of thing our actual world is, and then explain that possible worlds are more things of that sort, differing not in kind but only in what goes on at them."

    (Lewis [1973], p.85)



    1. Possible worlds exist — they are just as real as our world;
    2. Possible worlds are the same sort of things as our world — they differ in content, not in kind;
    3. Possible worlds cannot be reduced to something more basic — they are irreducible entities in their own right.
    4. "Actual" is indexical. When we distinguish our world from others by claiming that it alone is actual, we mean only that it is ours — we live here.
    5. Possible worlds are unified by the spatiotemporal interrelations of their parts; possible worlds are spatiotemporally isolated from each other.
    6. Possible worlds are causally isolated from each other. (more)

    Now, insert the word MIND instead of Worlds and the universe makes sense

    1. Possible Minds exist — they are just as real as our Mind;
    2. Possible Minds are the same sort of things as our Mind — they differ in content, not in kind;
    3. Possible Minds cannot be reduced to something more basic — they are irreducible entities in their own right.
    4. "Actual" is indexical. When we distinguish our Mind from others by claiming that it alone is actual, we mean only that it is ours — we live here.
    5. Possible Minds are unified by the spatiotemporal interrelations of their parts; possible Minds are spatiotemporally isolated from each other.
    6. Possible Minds are causally isolated from each other.

    where is my mind?

    (part of the Ultrashorts project)
      Promote (4)
      
      Add to favorites (2)
    Synapses (12)
     
          Cancel