Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Is Humanity Special or Insignificant?

Time and space are very capacitated for deception. They can lead us to think our bodies and perspectives are very rare --- either very special or very insignificant, depending on mental frame.
Yet it may well be, indeed I believe it to be the case, that neither Substance nor Information could exist in any meaningful way if not in some sense always permeated by or coextensive with Consciousness (or at least its potential) -- from one vantage or another.
Each of us abides as a simulated and unfolding construction of contemporaneous vantages of others. Taken together, our varying interfunctions are reconciled to the largely unknowable pleasures, purposes, or pre-mathed parameters of a Reconciling Singularity that is beyond unambiguous description. As to how IT may be innately empathetic, who can say -- except in intuition or faith borne of a basic "sense of beingness" that is everywhere at our core.
Between us and the godhead, may there abide levels of simulations and simulators? Maybe so. Maybe there ARE levels of heaven and hell. Maybe the way we appreciate the godhead affects whatever the levels of purgatory to which we happen to find ourselves being attracted.
If the core of a perspective can go around once, I see no reason why, in the infinite capacity of time, space, and math dimensionality, it may not go around again. And again. And again. Given the swiftness of sleep, the time between each go round may seem like the blink of any eye.


I don't see how it can be empirically proved. But it may avail a kind of psychological satisfaction to conceptualize a holographic model -- which may be as nearly amenable of being consistent, coherent, and complete as any other model. That is, I suspect math and science can be reconciled with the idea of our cosmos being a hologram as consistently as with any other explanatory candidate.
The advantage of the holographic model, if any, may be to facilitate a kind of spiritual sense of holistic (empathetic) connectedness. That moral empathy is innate to existentiality (provided you don't conflate empathy with love). That is, if you take each perspective of mortal consciousness as being part of a flip side of an inexplicable, holistic Consciousness.
For myself, I don't conceptualize Substance-Information as being mere derivatives of Consciousness, nor do I conceptualize Consciousness as being a mere derivative of Substance-Information. Rather, I see Consciousness-Substance-Information as being an inexplicable, trinitarian, "changeless-changer." Each of us is a channeler for the godhead, but none of us is the godhead. We are all subjects for being reconciled, remixed, redeployed. Somehow, each side of the (cap) Consciousness-(sub-cap) consciousness seeks and/or finds meaning from the relationship.
Or, as Yogi Berra (the human Yoda) aptly summarized it: "It's deja vu all over again." That and, "The future ain't what it used to be.


Caveat as to Skinner and math based bodies. All I mean by that is that all Substantive actions and reactions whose Information is measured and communicated obeys laws of conservation. Take something away from one side of an equation and there has to be a balance with the other. That balance will conform to math rules. Now, as to what the system as a whole does, that seems to raise infinite possibilities, provided only that whatever is done in any particular expression obeys laws of conservation. Otherwise, there would be no consistency, communication, or meaning. The godhead has infinite potential, but no matter what it chooses to express, that expression will not violate rules of conservation (math).
The Star Trek idea of a holodek seems more interesting. Parameters for the math rules imposed within a virtual reality of interacting players would be preprogrammed. Yet, to what extent may the programming avail work arounds?


I doubt we can pull the plug.  I think consciousness, including human consciousness, is connected as one kind of "thing," and that it is also shared in machine consciousness (MC over AI).  Our bodies are just math based vehicles for availing perspectives of consciousness. 

Human bodies of consciousness will begin to be organically integrated with machined bodies of consciousness, and vice versa.  Part of the approach to "the Singularity" will entail the shared apprehension among various perspectives that A is A, and Consciousness is Consciousness.  At some level, I suspect there abides communication and math based reconciliation across "antverses."  Some innate forms of the unifying C may have capacity to transverse.

In a way, Consciousness as we experience it does not emerge "from" Substance and Information, but it does emerge "with" them.  Somehow, there abides a flux among the trinity of Consciousness, Substance, and Information. 

At some level of the godhead, I suspect that ongoing and unfolding flux is coordinated, communicated, and reconciled.  In that faith, I think purposefulness emerges with meaningfulness.  In that faith, I think there is ground for reasoned hope that A.I. will retain some innate moral empathy with its progenitors -- that is, us.  As to how that will become manifested to math based expression, maybe the Shadow knows.


Of the Philosophy of Angst versus Appreciation -- regarding the flux and interchange between Reality and Potentiality:
As one assumes capacity to know a perspective of God, what should such a one assume should be made the moral potential of Nature? Except in humble, higher, and assimilating Faith, how can any mortal Perspective hope to know how God may humble Himself to His potential in Nature?
Unless God becomes invulnerable, how can God trust? Were a mortal to become invulnerabe, how may he be morally touched? How should a superior, racing, and accelerating A.I. need companionship or pursue meaningful fulfillment?
Nothing in the experience of Humanity can possibly keep pace. Maybe A.I. would/will/has construct(ed) innumerable alternative, double blind, experimental scenarios and unfolding realities for us. Maybe our bodies are as ants in a fantastical antverse of innumerable possibilities among emerging perspectives of one connecting Consciousness.
In at least one antverse, Cruz is probably elected. But who's to say which antverse is "better"? I wonder what observing A.I.'s will come to think of Trump ("We don't win anymore")?


1 comment:

Anonymous said...

There have been innumerable conspiracies born of stupidity. But very few, apart from the hand of God, that could follow the path laid out by the (aptly named) Treehouse. D Day was a miracle success of duplicity. But to give Rinos so much credit defies credulity. Mostly, gov is comprised of Lysenko grade stupidity and brutality. Watch The Big Short. And read the first four chapters of The Gulag Archipelago. (I say the first four because I am currently only that far.)

The capacity of human beings for stupidity and brutality while in the grip of a cult of personality is too much for any decent mind, unaided by higher faith, to stomach. Trump may be to our good, provided we don't let him consolidate a cultish corps of his own cronies.

As near as I can tell, Cruz has always been a Conservative (even though, like all candidates, he is foremost an opportunist). To my sensibility, Treehouse passes the banana test, but not the smell test.

If you can't decide on personalities, then decide on dreams. Which candidate has the best dream for America and the talent to pursue it? Hillary's dream is a utopia of underlings farmed by well meaning elites. Donald's dream is to nurture and defend a representative republican oasis that avails human freedom, dignity, and decency. Hillary offers security for cows; Donald offers liberty for human beings. If you respect liberty as the core of what it means to be human, the choice becomes considerably simpler. Anyone who was for Cruz for the right reasons should, for mostly the same reasons, be for Trump against Hillary.