Thu, Sep 2, 2010
Amplify’s open intelligence
which both posted this essay and asked a number of important and pertinent questions.
I shall try and answer some of these questions noted under #DD
#DD :”Is a virtual mind universe composed of these disembodied selves (memories printed in social media), somehow generating ‘simultaneous everywhereness’? “
W: well yes and no, the concept of simultaneous everywhereness I use to describe a new fact in our lives, namely that ‘other minds’ have access to some of our thoughts, some of our published material, photos, likes and dislikes and so on, when we, ‘the actual author or aggregator’ are not directly connected to these memories anymore and if so a part of us (at present it is partial but as life-streaming goes mainstream, in due time all of our lives will be accessible) is readily accessible even if our immediate conscious awareness is not.
This new situation of simultaneous everywhereness heralds a new state of affairs for our minds, for in the past we were always correlated directly to our memories but in the new state of affairs we find ourselves in, our memories are somehow disembodied. At present I do not think that the virtual mind universe generates simultaneous everywhereness by itself, but as the evolution of the net progresses and our co-involvement in it, I firmly believe that it will, this will eventually change us and in certain senses already does.
#DD :”If these memories are coming alive then how does that alter the passage of time? “
W: as I see it, the times we operate upon within our minds cohere via our embodiment, in other words we operate as multidimensional minds in a plethora of times, however at the end of the day we still revert to our bodily functions as the anchor point of the passage of time. However when simultaneous everywhereness is factored in, the body as the anchor point loses its primary locus, at this point we cannot control the propagation of our memories as time stamps anymore, time becomes a fluid of perception (both of self and others), it is in a sense a form of liberation from the constraints of embodiment.
#DD :”If we’re no longer going to be individuals, should we abandon mentally abandon the fetish of our embodied selves?”
W: not yet no (btw love the fetish analogy) but in due time we will have no choice but to do so.
#DD : “Are we considering ascension? Is the meta-narrative of the individual to come to an end, reconnecting us with the technologies of our mind? “
W: if by ascension you mean mind upload, and the ensuing disembodiment I am not certain. I think we are still far from that point in time, we lack both the science and the technology for that, however as the science and technology in understanding our minds progresses I am quite certain that some kind of ascension will be available. At that point the meat narrative of the individual as such will transform into an aggregate like system of multiple coherencies to which we will need address the question of designation of identity and such. To your last question I offer the answer that I see us not reconnecting to our minds technologies but increasing and extending their reach, depth, and access, in the process transforming both the technology and ourselves (and by consequence the civilization we have originated and the specie we are).
#DD : “Reconnecting us with the nature our individual selves so brutally left behind? If we abandon our concepts of individuality, do we become more connected to other species, and/or more connected to each other? “
W: as a rule I see hyperconnectivity as the great game changer that our civilization has created in order to rebuild (or restructure) our connectivity to all, this of course will include not only other humans but other species as well. There is no need to leave the concept of the individual all together but change it or upgrade it so it can encompass a larger entity, extended via hyperconnectivity across times and spaces.
In fact as I see the individual as ‘a naturally evolved’ multidimensional being, hyperconnectivity is simply a reflection of this inherent state of affairs extended via technology into realms not previously accessible.
#DD :”What are the pros and cons of all of this?”
W: I shall try and answer this question in my next post in this series.
Thank you for a set of interesting and challenging questions.
Sat, Sep 11, 2010
Tue, Oct 19, 2010
so nice to sit down and read, thank you for a wonderful article Wildcat
"so a part of us (at present it is partial but as life-streaming goes mainstream, in due time all of our lives will be accessible) is readily accessible even if our immediate conscious awareness is not."
this is the moulted shell not the bug - I get that it is interesting that we are 'accessible' in a manner of speaking when we are offline, but this goes back to the value of concurrency, the 'splash' of two minds meeting in real time (originally wrote meating, perhaps more interesting..) this is not the same as correspondance in a context asynchronously. our memories, being constructed not stored are far more interesting than what actually happened (and I don't mean that in the simple sense of embellishment or revisionist history). I have read stuff I have written even only a year ago and accidentally missing the author, thought I was reading someone else's comments, very strange feeling indeed. you cannot step in the same river twice.
"At present I do not think that the virtual mind universe generates simultaneous everywhereness by itself, but as the evolution of the net progresses and our co-involvement in it, I firmly believe that it will"
"our memories are somehow disembodied"
something far more interesting than uploading our brains is afoot, but an uploaded brain snapshot complete with dynamics would indeed be disembodied memory, living in the same sense as our own minds, but perhaps without the decay and subsequent sensory accumulation, it would indeed be interesting to talk to that former-self-in-stasis.
"the times we operate upon within our minds cohere via our embodiment"
exactly why I think uploading a brain will be dispersive and as such 'unsuccessful', there will be no coherence, we would have to program a virtual meat sack for the program to function - what is more interesting is the liberation, gradually of the coherent mind
its meat sack, and the 'enlightenment' that would represent. we already feel the lessened grip of time on us with asynchronicity so well managed on the web. next up is loosening the grip of identities (single to multiple to (next step) emergent). once time and identity are loosed there is only sustaining this meat sack, which I hope to fix with *net. what we will do as a species at that point is quite unknowable, but exciting.
" At that point the meat narrative of the individual as such will transform into an aggregate like system of multiple coherencies to which we will need address the question of designation of identity and such"
on what basis will these processes cohere in any meaningful way without the meat container? as a "point of curiosity" - selfish patterns? attractors? where is beauty?
"There is no need to leave the concept of the individual all together but change it or upgrade it so it can encompass a larger entity, extended via hyperconnectivity across times and spaces."
The individual as generative will remain (and should) the individual as evidenced will evolve (and should). if we are able to generate a coherent (contained) artificial replica of mind, generative may transcend the individual - this would be a strange existence for the meat mind to be a part of. ringing of ringing. may lead to insanity in undeveloped meat minds (perhaps catastrophic incoherence in the artificial ones?). there will be no room for clinging.
"#DD :”What are the pros and cons of all of this?”