[FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...

[Marcus Daniels]

The video animated particles bouncing around to different outlets.   It didn't consider the case where an isolated weirdo never even enters one of its hamster wheels.
Such an isolated individual may still have "locality arrogance", but I think there's a plausible case that the agent's evolution is not just a result of the forcing culture.   The weirdo may still have other developmental cognitive forcing functions acting on them that only a culture can rescue.   

Influencers are just missionaries with a particularly thin message.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 2:11 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...

Aha! Yeah, we probably do share it. But 2 points in space can be in the same state *without* having a common driver. I.e. inter-subjectivity does not imply communication. En garde! So you may share the same sentiment with an alien consciousness near Sirius. And, although it sounds like I'm just joking, I'm actually trying to say something serious, which is that individuali[ty|sm] carries something like a "locality arrogance" ... the impression that one blob in the pervading field(s) is somehow special or unique, different from all the other blobs. Maybe our modern problem of celebrity and institutional bloat is a function of a finite and fairly small set of possible states of being? And now that we're up to 8B people, each of us is guaranteed to share state with some N others? And anyone who thinks they're somehow special or unique is simply ignorant of those who share their state? If we experience a massive die off, those of us that survive will again be true individuals?

Or, even if the space of states is actual infinite, perhaps there's only a small number of forcing cultures and we'd *have* to fly out to Sirius in order to get out of those overwhelming flows.

On 3/29/21 12:27 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> I think I *share* the sentiment you present here, though through other 
> mechanisms (than psi) to dissolve the (illusory/delusional) boundaries 
> between self/other or more aptly self/whole.   You are apparently 
> more-better at (or at least more committed to your version of) this 
> than I am which I envy/aspire.
> 
> I suppose all I'm teasing at here is the apparent paradox of (for
> example) the "two" of us, trying to serialize things about our "inner 
> states" to "communicate" between two "individuals".    In the 
> abstract, I accept the premise that what I consider to be an "individual" (e.g.
> me, you, 400+ people reading or hitting delete on this message) is 
> more a locus or cluster or relative concentration  in a high 
> dimensional field.    Maybe the only answer is to ingest a quantum of 
> the right mushroom...   or fast/dehydrate until I meet Joseph or 
> Brigham across a campfire in an arroyo...  or meditate until my spirit 
> leaves my body and apprehends the cosmos directly...
> 
> We two "illusory individuals" *appear* (from the perspective of 
> illusory
> individuals) to be communicating (poorly or otherwise)....


--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/