[FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...

[Marcus Daniels]

Is there reason to believe that Musk is interested in a libertarian-utopian vision?      If specialness is a rare instance of unique, it seems reasonable to take what he's said in public at face value:  That by having humans on both planets, "humanity" can be saved from disaster.   That's like a Noah's Ark type argument that would suggest that people are more interchangeable.   There's no need to keep the copies.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 2:47 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Future Generating Machines...

I don't know if we are converging in our acceptance/dismissal of "the myth of individuality" or not, but for the moment I am hallucinating convergence. 

I think the distinction we are arriving at *might* be that *every snowflake is unique* but that this is true in the very same way that *every stone is unique* and *every tree is unique*.   I think the point you are making is that that (intrinsic?!) uniqueness should not be conflated with specialness?  

The pinon closest to the bedroom in my house which I sat under and climbed in regularly for most of my elementary school years *was* quite special *to me*, up to and including feeling guilty/uncomfortable when I let my father talk me into trimming one of the lower branches to open up a larger canopy to sit under.   I could have "groomed the hell out of"
the tree, maybe even nailed up a platform and made a treehouse in it, but I was (for better or worse) hyper-aware of the details that made it unique.   My imagination/memory includes (I think) many of it's details including some of the larger roots humping up out of the ground and the places I needed to avoid gripping whilst climbing to avoid getting pitch on my hands.

I believe that Musk's delusion includes the ideation that by moving himself (and ~1M other individual peoples) to the surface of Mars (and/or distributed through the asteroid belt) will allow the "forcing culture" to change enough to match some libertarian-utopian vision he holds.  

I *think* when you debunk the specialness of the individual you are saying that the uniquenesses (specific construction of any given
snowflake) is mostly irrelevant in many/most contexts.  

My nephew is a budding materials scientist with a particular background in crystallography (his father is a minerologist) and he recently walked me through, in particular, some of the idiosyncrasies of quartz crystals and the myriad uses those specifics can yield various useful properties (in industry).   I went looking for the basis of Kurt Vonnegut's Ice-9 only to find that we are up to 18 distinct crystalline forms...  and of course (in the spirit of the individual/unique) those don't include the combinatorics implied by contaminants (or intentional dopants, etc.) which I assume are the basis of the plenitude (effective infinitude?) of snowflakes individuals.  

Individual human beings in the context of groups larger than Dunbar# pretty much get their meaning through their utility which reflects a combination of their affordances and their circumstances as much as the long-term relationships (2,...n-wise) they have with other individuals (not to mention domesticated/wild/familiar animals, edifices, plants, etc.)



 of On 3/29/21 3:11 PM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:
> 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)....
>

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/