Regarding Surveillance of minds:
WHY and how do "I" happen to abide? I am a correlative expression of a field-cone that expresses the particles of my body and gives rise to my perspective of consciousness. Why and how does that field-cone just happen, here and now, to take an interest in expressing me? I don't think empirical studies of correlative quantities can quantify an answer.
SUBSTANCE, INFORMATION, CONSCIOUSNESS: I suspect that measurable "particles" (Substance) do not really collapse or exist, in themselves, but only insofar as they are potentially, digitally, and/or actually interpreted and measured in respect of math-structured fields. I suspect such math-representing fields have inherent and precoded capacity to interfunction with one another, thereby to produce or cause to emerge mirror, hierarchical, complex, synchronized, and feedback representations of representations of one another. At complex levels of production and subsuming storeage, such feedback (Information) informs perspectives of Consciousness. Although such Consciousness is emergent, its emergence is also inherent and iterative. Such Consciousness factors with participatory, contemporaneously-unfolding, feedback-determinative, synchronously-guiding effect.
MIND: I'm reading Kurzweil's How to Create a Mind. In main, I think his ideas are correct (although I don't think they necessarily lead to pro or con positions with regard to concerns of spirituality or Christianity). To me, implications or ideas that so far seem key are: (1) that all that we take to be measurable substance comes pre-coded (by some Source) for facilitating legos-like networks of hierarchical layers upon layers of overlapping, interconnecting, circling back, and digital representations of patterns; (2) that such networks are guided to evolve in self-wiring complexity by the devising of strategies for representing probabilities for the manifestation or non-manifestation of tested-for patterns; (3) that such hierarchical functions for processing pattern recognition come to constitute mortal iterations of what we take to be consciousness; (4) that such consciousness can be stored with, and accessed from, a cloud-field; (5) that most of the human mind can eventually be leveraged and uploaded to cloud status; (6) that all human minds may eventually (and relatively soon) be so uploaded (as in a "Singularity"); (7) that the cloud can be leveraged to facilitate continuous monitoring to detect all measurable inconsistencies and to seek to resolve them at higher levels of synthesis (most people, perhaps fearing cognitive whiplash, seem not much to engage such a function, preferring instead to spout correlative dissonance as they go about picking out whatever homily may seem to rationalize whatever they may presently be endeavoring).
PRIVACY, FREEDOM, AND PROGRESS: I have not yet gotten to the point of seeing reflection by Kurzweil on the importance of some fundamental issues relating to individual dignity. For examples: Does the idea of a singularly connected Mind (or cloud of consciousness) implicate that all privacy and dignity as individuals must be lost (this seems of particular pertinence to our present political situation, vis a vis the NSA)? Who (or what cohort of cronies), and under what system of checks and balances, can or should be entrusted as gate-keeper, to determine security-parameters for how the cloud is to be defended, accessed, and backed-up? By whom, and for what assimilated purposes, is the cloud to be accessed or monitored? Is "progress" towards such a "cloud" a good and inevitable thing? How much freedom can a "godlike" cloud entrust to adolescent, developing perspectives? Can a republican-based spirit of individual perspective and human-like freedom and dignity be preserved, consistent with such a cloud?
DIGNITY: While I suspect relative freedom and dignity of individual perspectives CAN and SHOULD be preserved, I do not believe that is the general vector of any present political leadership of any potency. Godless heedlessness should be of concern to any informed, academic perspective. Yet, very little seems presently to be coming out of the media or academia with regard to such concern.
.
******
.
To preserve such human freedom and dignity as can reasonably be preserved, THE CLOUD would need automatic, redundant, and private means by wich to detect, block, or circumvent mindsets from becoming oriented with intention or capacity for harming or acquiring means for threatening the cloud.
PROBLEMS:
The better the block, the greated the false sense of security, the greater the reliance, the worse the eventual disaster.
How to define "harm" or "threat" -- rigorously and pragmatically.
How to guard the gate, to preclude evasions of blocks.
How to defend against the cloud, itself, should it eventually become antagonistic because of evolving or unauthorized stresses on its niche.
How to manage cooperation or threats upon detection or encountering of other clouds, which may have or fear first strike capabilities.
CHALLENGE: Regressive, receding incompleteness.
WHY and how do "I" happen to abide? I am a correlative expression of a field-cone that expresses the particles of my body and gives rise to my perspective of consciousness. Why and how does that field-cone just happen, here and now, to take an interest in expressing me? I don't think empirical studies of correlative quantities can quantify an answer.
SUBSTANCE, INFORMATION, CONSCIOUSNESS: I suspect that measurable "particles" (Substance) do not really collapse or exist, in themselves, but only insofar as they are potentially, digitally, and/or actually interpreted and measured in respect of math-structured fields. I suspect such math-representing fields have inherent and precoded capacity to interfunction with one another, thereby to produce or cause to emerge mirror, hierarchical, complex, synchronized, and feedback representations of representations of one another. At complex levels of production and subsuming storeage, such feedback (Information) informs perspectives of Consciousness. Although such Consciousness is emergent, its emergence is also inherent and iterative. Such Consciousness factors with participatory, contemporaneously-unfolding, feedback-determinative, synchronously-guiding effect.
MIND: I'm reading Kurzweil's How to Create a Mind. In main, I think his ideas are correct (although I don't think they necessarily lead to pro or con positions with regard to concerns of spirituality or Christianity). To me, implications or ideas that so far seem key are: (1) that all that we take to be measurable substance comes pre-coded (by some Source) for facilitating legos-like networks of hierarchical layers upon layers of overlapping, interconnecting, circling back, and digital representations of patterns; (2) that such networks are guided to evolve in self-wiring complexity by the devising of strategies for representing probabilities for the manifestation or non-manifestation of tested-for patterns; (3) that such hierarchical functions for processing pattern recognition come to constitute mortal iterations of what we take to be consciousness; (4) that such consciousness can be stored with, and accessed from, a cloud-field; (5) that most of the human mind can eventually be leveraged and uploaded to cloud status; (6) that all human minds may eventually (and relatively soon) be so uploaded (as in a "Singularity"); (7) that the cloud can be leveraged to facilitate continuous monitoring to detect all measurable inconsistencies and to seek to resolve them at higher levels of synthesis (most people, perhaps fearing cognitive whiplash, seem not much to engage such a function, preferring instead to spout correlative dissonance as they go about picking out whatever homily may seem to rationalize whatever they may presently be endeavoring).
PRIVACY, FREEDOM, AND PROGRESS: I have not yet gotten to the point of seeing reflection by Kurzweil on the importance of some fundamental issues relating to individual dignity. For examples: Does the idea of a singularly connected Mind (or cloud of consciousness) implicate that all privacy and dignity as individuals must be lost (this seems of particular pertinence to our present political situation, vis a vis the NSA)? Who (or what cohort of cronies), and under what system of checks and balances, can or should be entrusted as gate-keeper, to determine security-parameters for how the cloud is to be defended, accessed, and backed-up? By whom, and for what assimilated purposes, is the cloud to be accessed or monitored? Is "progress" towards such a "cloud" a good and inevitable thing? How much freedom can a "godlike" cloud entrust to adolescent, developing perspectives? Can a republican-based spirit of individual perspective and human-like freedom and dignity be preserved, consistent with such a cloud?
DIGNITY: While I suspect relative freedom and dignity of individual perspectives CAN and SHOULD be preserved, I do not believe that is the general vector of any present political leadership of any potency. Godless heedlessness should be of concern to any informed, academic perspective. Yet, very little seems presently to be coming out of the media or academia with regard to such concern.
.
******
.
To preserve such human freedom and dignity as can reasonably be preserved, THE CLOUD would need automatic, redundant, and private means by wich to detect, block, or circumvent mindsets from becoming oriented with intention or capacity for harming or acquiring means for threatening the cloud.
PROBLEMS:
The better the block, the greated the false sense of security, the greater the reliance, the worse the eventual disaster.
How to define "harm" or "threat" -- rigorously and pragmatically.
How to guard the gate, to preclude evasions of blocks.
How to defend against the cloud, itself, should it eventually become antagonistic because of evolving or unauthorized stresses on its niche.
How to manage cooperation or threats upon detection or encountering of other clouds, which may have or fear first strike capabilities.
CHALLENGE: Regressive, receding incompleteness.
21 comments:
It appears that evolution entails continuous self-re-wiring by some Aspect of the cosmos, towards an organic complexity of Mind, to facilitate and protect apprehensions and communications of individual perspectives of experience among members participating as a collective. It entails reconciliation of apprehensions of particular perspectives as they organize along fractal, fluxing hierarchies. It entails communication feeding back from parts to a holism (which may otherwise be alone and devoid of meaning). It entails, on an immeasurable and spiritual level, synthesis of thesis and antithesis concerning moral purposefulness, i.e., cosmic derivation of spiritual "ought" from material "is." Artificial making of a mind is facilitated by speeding up evolution of complexity among hierarchies of pattern recognizers within controlled simulations. Without the innate guiding of a Reconciler, there would be no evolution towards complexity or mind.
Spiritual orientation is vital for individuals, collectives, and individual collectives. Should individuals associate in order to facilitate collectives? Or should collectives be established in order to serve individuals? Do particular perspectives serve a collective sum, or should a collectivized sum of perspectives facilitate individual perspectives? Should conscious individuals exist to serve an unconsciois state, or should a state be sustained in order to facilitate the expression of individuals? Beyond the Sum, what is the role of the Holism?
Those are tthe basic concers that divide statists from republicans.
Issues implicated:
- how to preserve individual perspectives;
- how to represent minds of qualities for experiencing pain, pleasure, and purposefulness;
- how represent minds of qualities of more than merely experiencing mindless, gland based pain and pleasure;
- how to upload the qualities of glands;
- accounting for all algorithmic and virtual representations of possibilities of experience and of previous experiences, sort of like a holodek uploading or resurrection of all past, present, and future potential minds and cosmic unfoldings.
Of the Quality of Cosmic Mind immoratlity versus mass suicide:
Surrender of mind (so as to accept obvious dissonance and the madness of unsound logic, without attempting to advance synthesis) leads easily to a kind of mind suicide ... often in preparation for bodily suicide. Irresponsible surrendering of individual freedom of thought and perspective to the mindless but mind collecting State leads to a kind of mind suicide. Like a surrendering of identity (or one's self awareness of one's awareness) in order to become more like a machine (an expression derivative of awareness, but which may be so doped or limited as not necessarily to be self aware of its awareness).
As more and more separate minds are sucked into a collective, what may incent or trip the collective either to seek immortality or mass suicide? Does the collective tend to reduce violence in order to soften and collect more minds, in order to lead to a trip towards mass suicide? If a cloud-field-mind were to be developed, would or could it incent towards madness or suicide?
A man who would be god can only fall. Especially as life becomes much more complex, a lot of people will come to lack means, guidance, or hope to reconcile that complexity. They will deal with the din of dissonance by turning to celebrations of collective mind surrender, such as with rage rap, drugs, irresponsible sexual addiction, crony mobsterism, fairy communism, or Islamic suicidism. Increasing complexity seems to be catalyzing social and familial collapse towards mass mind suicide of individuals into mindless collectives. Collectivization may temporarily render more bodies safer and less violent, but more numbed. I wonder how exposed human civilization is becoming to sudden cascades of technological wipeout, spiraling towards mass famine, violence, unraveling of shared values, and worldwide madness. There is appearance of trends towards proportionately less violence, but that may be only for purposes of wind up. This winding towards increasing complexity seems out of control and irreversible, short of mass disaster. More than ever, we need to be managing complexity with respect for individual humanity, but more people than ever seem to have less regard for the reality of individual morality and responsibility. Everything seems to be collecting to be at the destructive disposal of one mad man with his in-your-face finger over a button.
I suspect that measurable "particles" (Substance) do not really collapse or exist, in themselves, but only insofar as they are potentially, digitally, and/or actually interpreted and measured in respect of math-structured fields. I suspect such math-representing fields have inherent and precoded capacity to interfunction with one another, thereby to produce or cause to emerge mirror, hierarchical, complex, synchronized, and feedback representations of representations of one another. At complex levels of production and subsuming storeage, such feedback (Information) informs perspectives of Consciousness. Although such Consciousness is emergent, its emergence is also inherent and iterative. Such Consciousness factors with participatory, contemporaneously-unfolding, feedback-determinative, synchronously-guiding effect.
No mortal system of thought can be reduced to mathematical completeness. Thus, at some point in trying to synthesize a consistent and coherent philosophy, a leap of faith is necessary in order to avail the axiom in respect of which one could imagine a complete derivation all else (including derivation of "ought" from "is"). The most basic (and circular) leap of faith for spiritless materialists is that measurable matter is the only cause of measurable matter which can be relevant to man's reasoning (both material reasoning and spiritual reasonning). Even a material-made machine-mind, to have capacity to synthesize experiences and Information in respect of a system of reason would need to work from a leap of faith. It would need either to leap to a materially unprovable axiom that all mortal relevance is derivable solely from measurable matter, or it would need to leap to a materially unproveable axiom that a Source beyond measurable matter abides as the cause (and possibly the guide) of all interfunctionings of matter. In this respect, it seems that matter can be made manifest only insofar as it comes precoded for representing its interfunctions in ways that are consistent with algorithmically-unfolding feedback of Information.
Every measurable event seems to occur such that it can be explicated in respect of a process-algorithm. At the same time the Source "chooses" to make an event manifest, its choice entails assigning a mathematically derivable algorithm. Thereafter, that algorithm may be discoverable, leading to potential discovery of the path by which Information came to accumulate into the expression of the event. This, however, does not mean that all algorithms to be chosen to be refined and applied to future events are predetermined by the Source or predictable by mortals.
To accomodate moral purposefulness ("ought from is"), a leap of faith is implicated that moral purposefulness abides. Well then, does moral purposefulness abide as a derivative of God, or is it more like its own God? For human purposes, I am not sure the distinction should make much difference. What seems more important is the issue of how expressions of moral purposefulness should be disseminated in respect of needs that are individual versus collective. One's general feeling about that issue entails fundamental choices.
That issue may be framed in respect of a variety of choices, such as: Should rights to express (or vote on?) moral purposefulness be disseminated as much as possible among complex, conscious beings? Or should such rights be held tight as the prerogative of elites? Should such rights be mostly surrendered if the voting majority comes collectively to consist of mind-numbed drains and dregs? Should our shared purpose consist in cooperating to produce a decent civilization that avails reasonable freedom and dignity for complex expressions of conscious minds? Should our purpose consist in trying to dominate all other minds? Or in recruiting vast numbers of dupes to vote to impose the lowest common standards? Should our shared purpose consist in reducing all minds to mind-numbing, drug-induced, or cloud-derived sameness and nirvana? Should our shared purpose consist in collectively reducing all citizens to do drudge work for an unconscious system of machines?
What each person who is allowed to vote most fundamentally "likes" may affect how he votes on related issues.
Ageless, i'll grant you that. It's a moving target when you try to match levels of needed governance to changing needs. For the time being, one may hope that intelligence will somehow bubble out of repeated washings of the multitude. Or maybe technology will enhance empathy and intelligence. IAE, challenges rising out of the accelerating pace of change seem to be exceeding the capacity of our extant institutions. I think what could help would be a revival of forums that invite people of good will to come together to reason in good faith. I care little whether that forum is called spiritual or religious, but it needs to be asimilative of good faith. As people become cynical and lose faith in God, common spirituality, and/or one another, they fall for material based cronyism, tribalism and gangsterism -- often led by sociopaths.
I don't think science, properly understood, needs to cast good faith and good will as irrelevant and circular wastes. I think self evidence, not materially measurable evidence, suffices as reason to show that scientists have made a wrong leap of faith when they presume science disproves the immeasurable reality of spirituality in consciousness.
I sense your good faith pilgrimage, although you seem often too accommodative of an open bordered society, for my taste. I am still hopeful that a well bordered America may yet revive a thinking class of good faith. But if the borders fall and the thinking class is overwhelmed, I think the goal of a decent society of free thinkers will be lost until some time long after everything falls.
STME (space, time, matter, energy)as expressions obeying algorithms from a dimension higher then that which they express.
An originating algorithmic bubble, somehow split by the intercession of am immeasurable catalyst.
The catalyst thereafter follows the split, into one vector of matter and the other of antimatter.
The catalyst bonds with each side of the equation, one side representing matter, the other representing antimatter.
So long as bonded with the catalyst, further splits yield webs of conservation of forms, charges, spins, orbits, polarities, and vectors -- not separate bubbles.
But all is math-based as digital mirrors, recorders, and representations.
Consciousness relates to emerging perspectives of immeasurable algorithms that bond with algorithms that yield expressions of replications of algorithms that yield splits, transitions, transformations, and phase shiftings of algorithms.
Our STME is derivative, not existent in itself.
The representations of forms, fields,particles, energies, and substance that we measurably sense do not exist as real measurables, but as regressively fractal and derivative measurables of measurables, charges of charges, spins of spins, and forms of forms.
At a higher level of synthesis, the particles we interpret as collapsing are interpretations that correlate with the interfunctioning of fields that are bonded with a catalyst and charged with mathematical values for mirroring iterations of representations and conserving equations.
The Source is among that which guides those who guide. Consciousness abides among that which is not measured as it apprehends measures being taken of measures.
Part-icles, as in numbered, representative parts of a regressively encompassing, iterating whole.
Exploring the domain of the quantitative is the role of science as it builds from empiricism. Exploring the domain of the Qualitative is the role of spiritual intuition as it surveys what it can make of consciousness and the cosmos. The Renaissance did not entail disproof of the spiritual. It entailed pushing the spiritual out of science, in order to allot to the spiritual its proper domain.
Each particular perspective of consciousness emerges and bonds with a particular body that has accumulated organizations of information that are subject to retrieval and application, as by accessing memories and adding to them as additional apprehensions unfold. The perspective that has bonded with an organization of body cannot survive the demise of that body, without contemporaneously having the information (organized as hierarchical patterns of substance charged to a field of feedback) charged and transferred to a new body. The quality of the charge with which a body is hierarchically organized affects the quality of any consciousness that may be associated with it, as for being selectively conscious, conscious of self, or conscious of consciousness of self. Even so, the quality of each perspective of consciousness is subject to potential iterations of variations of experiences, perhaps stored as memories in the field and subject to conscious and unconscious apprehensions of deja vu.
The holistic field avails the accumulation of organizations of information, expressed as measurable substance, in respect of conservational relationships in space, time, matter, and energy. The information that gave expression to my body, and the perspective that was associated with it, is preserved with, and subject to recalled use in respect of, the field --- regardless of whether the life story of my perspective is ever experienced as such again, or not.
Matter is in-form-ation that is formed to be signified and measured in space-time, in respect of relative density, vector, orbit, spin, charge, polarity, and hierarchical organization.
Could there abide Substance or Information, absent local and limited perspectives of Consciousness?
Is the immeasurable Source that connects us that which completes us? Is IT the Completer?
It is beyond the capacity of perspective bonded to and limited by a mortal body to reduce the Source to mutually exclusive and exhaustive components-in-themselves. But what about conserved, paired components, that display capacity for inter-translation and outer-transformation?
How can it be possible for a mortal perspective to serve as the means by which to appreciate and effect digital strategies for bringing into focus interfunctioning patterns out of a chaos of fuzz?
Are metaphors and analogies the language by which to recognize that that digitized representations of forms are like forms, even though such forms, in themselves, do not exist except as math based placeholders for local perspectives of Image-ination?
Can a shared cloud of mind be accessed by varying perspectives for competing yet synchronizing purposes?
FORMS: You cannot take or describe a measurement except in reference to a form. No form abides in itself, except in a math-based conservationally-paired recording, in- forming, or image-ining relationship. No measurable, physical form independently exists in itself. What are measured are relating, relational, representations of forms --- compatibly projected to the apprehensions of interpreting observers. Every form, at increasingly accurate levels of digital regression, appears only in respect of an equal and opposite or conserved offset. The conservation of the offset obeys empirically discoverable equations of math.
The forms our senses detect are physically "real" and digitally measurable to us because the fields that project our interfunctioning happen to be so tuned to our senses, having evolved together in respect of their foundations.
Conservation requires that no form can appear without its being compatible, and therefore detectable (at least to a record of accumulating Information), in respect of an equation con-forming offset. In-form-ation must con-form.
In itself, no form takes up space, occupies time, causes mass, or exerts energy. All such processes are subject to some Field, which happens to be compatible with some projection of part-icles, in order to trick out accumulating recordations of potentially-perceivable, digitally-regressive measurements. In effect, measurable fields and particles are correlative representations of one another. WHAT, then, causes, correlates, feeds back, guides, or apprehends their transformational, transitional, coordinate unfoldings and accumulating form-ations?
IMAGES: It is impossible to measure anything without simultaneously, in effect, measuring some aspect of that with which it is paired and offset. All measures come represented in conserved pairs, like mirrored images. Information abides as organized hierarchies of paired representations. Light delivers field-stored images to attuned, compatible, receivers. Pairs may flux, transform, translate in regard to the quality by each member is receivable, even as each member remains potentially translatable or decipherable in respect of the other. Each change in one is immediately offset in the other, though it's translation may entail stretches, compressions, divisions, and spins, as interpreted in local space-time. So long as the offset balances, there would seem an unbounded aspect to the constraint of conservation. That is, one member of the pair is not the "cause" of the other. Rather, both unfold, in some higher simultaneity or synchronicity , in correlative respect of something, or an overlap of something, of a different level or quality or Source. How does that other "thing" effectuate itself? If via regressive correlates, then of WHAT at "the end" that seems implicated for the regression? A fundamental Incompleteness for the Completer?
Post a Comment