[FRIAM] dystopian vision(s)

[glen]

Yeah. I'm not as concerned as you seem to be about the addictive nature of alternative perspectives. Obviously, because my whole schtick is about attempting to take alternative perspectives. The addict has to admit they have a problem before treatment will work, eh?

But if we adopt the perspective of the "longtermists", "transhumansits", or similar, and believe that essentialist computation is the limit point, the thing just over the horizon toward which evolution works, then our *brain* is one of the first/best instantiations of such computers. (Maybe I need scare quotes, there, too ... "computers"?) Quantum comput[ers|ing] is a close second only because too many people are ignorant enough of current computing to think hard about its limitations.

So another form of Dave's argument, still metaphysical, is this Smolin-esque (or even Schrödinger-esque ala negentropy?) concept that our objective(s) is tightly coupled pockets of deep computation. And *that*, given that our brains are fantastic computers, gives some weight to the idea that deep and broad introspection gets one closer to God, closer to the objective, closer to the real occult Purpose behind it all in much the same way as studying quantum mechanics and quantum computation.

My argument *against* that is that even if tightly coupled (coherent) pockets of computation are a crucial element, so is the interstitial space *between* the tight pockets ... like black holes orbiting each other or somesuch. It's not merely the individual pocket/computer that's interesting, it's the formation, dissolution, and interaction of the pockets that's more interesting. Actually, then, the *void* is more interesting than the non-void.

Tangentially:

Panic! At the Disks: First Rest-frame Optical Observations of Galaxy Structure at z>3 with JWST in the SMACS 0723 Field
https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.09428

On 8/18/22 08:03, Steve Smith wrote:
> The experience *I* have (or the way I have mostly interpreted it) with various ways of "playing around with my interface/membrane/boundary" is that alternatively addictive to the point of becoming "essential" and a "vertiginous stare into the abyss" at the same time.    I'm not talking particularly or specifically about ingesting entheogens or any other substance known to acutely adjust reality.  There are (obviously) many other ways to "play around with the boundary".  For what it is worth, Pandora is playing Denver's iconic "Rocky Mountain High" in the background as I complete this paragraph.
> 
> I currently attribute this to the alone/all-one duality and the flexibility (elastic and plastic) nature of self-other boundaries (membranes?) as a conscious ego.   (Sting - How Fragile we are on Pandora now, segueing into judy Collins' Both Sides Now).
> 
> If I take "the Uni/Multi-verse" to be nothing more/less than a single complex adaptive system which can(not) be reduced to a system of systems (only reduceable by an imperfectly isolated system (self) which has a compressed "model" of the universe as a system of systems of which it"self" is a perfectly isolated subsystem(self)) then the experience of self-other and "gaining insight/parallax into (R)reality" isn't all that puzzling (to this self's model of itself within the universal).
> 
> This of course still leaves (for this illusory "self") the "hard problem" of the fact (rather than the nature) of (subjective) experience itself...
> 
> I have a feeling (in my subjective experience as a self) that the "breath of consciousness" might be the compression/decompression cycle itself?   Talking (linearly) about this stuff is a fractal/recursive minefield of rabbit-holes worthy of Alice tripping on Entheogens?
> 
> - Steve
> 
> On 8/18/22 8:34 AM, glen wrote:
>> Parallax is an important technique for getting at things just *beyond* one's current representational power. So, were I to try to steelman your argument, I'd suggest that, yes, the process by which our bodies refine/focus/hone-down our attention to a smaller, compressed thing from a larger thing (whether the largess is "noise" or not is a tangent) is important. And the entheogens permute that honing down, that reduction, to create a different transformation.
>>
>> It's reasonable to speculate that the transformation we execute under the influence of an entheogen might be *less* reductive than that we execute when "sober". But to argue that the transformation under the influence is a more accurate match to reality is fraught. Less reductive? Sure. More accurate? Well, that would require us to go into that tangent. What do we mean by more accurate? Does randomness exist? Etc.
>>
>> So we might want to be careful with that crossing between relatively tame statements like "entheogens alter the cross-membrane transformation providing parallax toward the out there" versus more metaphysical statements like "entheogens provide a better transformation (or no tranformation) across the boundary to the out there".
>>
>> Thanks for clarifying. I think I have a better understanding of the argument. Those of us who play around with our interface probably *do* have a better understanding of reality than those of us imprisoned by their one, sole interface. But we don't need to go so far as to say a drugged mind is more capable of perceiving the real reality.
>>
>> On 8/16/22 17:16, Prof David West wrote:
>>> If you assume, or believe, that the mind (body-brain-embodied mind-Atman) naturally processes 100% of the inputs and assume/believe that a survival enhancing mechanism filters that stream to create the illusionary subset that we call Reality, then entheogens work to dismantle the filtering mechanism and expose the Real Reality.
>>>
>>> Missing in my first post was a hidden premise, that any augmentations (Neuralink, et. al.) are almost certainly based on whatever we think we understand of the filtering mechanism, not the Mind, and therefore would augment/enhance that mechanism and therefore lead to results opposite of what is desired.
>>>
>>> The missing premise is pretty much conjecture on my part but is grounded in an advanced, but not expert, understanding of AI and neural network technologies; so it should be taken with a tablespoon (thousands of grains) of salt.
>>>
>>> davew
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2022, at 11:22 AM, glen wrote:
>>>> Opposite of what? I don't understand how augmentation is the opposite
>>>> of the entheogens (drugs or meditation). Are you saying that, e.g. the
>>>> Mojo Lens or Neuralink further restrict, whereas the entheogens lessen
>>>> the restriction?
>>>>
>>>> If so, then my guess is you could do the same sort of restriction
>>>> modulation with any augmentation device. E.g. if there are 1 billion
>>>> possible data feeds you could receive, decreasing them is like an
>>>> undrugged person self-censoring and such, then increasing them is like
>>>> taking a entheogen ... that is, assuming Church-Turing.
>>>>
>>>> If we reject C-T, then it seems reasonable to argue that the body
>>>> "computes" something that any computer-based augmentation would
>>>> restrict, by definition, making it impossible to expand beyond what the
>>>> augment provides. Computer-based augmentaiton would provide a hard
>>>> limit ... an unavoidable abstraction/subset of reality.
>>>>
>>>> On 8/15/22 19:04, Prof David West wrote:
>>>>> The hallucino-philia (and Buddhist epistemologists) would argue that our brains (minds) already fully grasp / cognize / perceive our physical reality. But, for survival purposes, it self-censors and presents our consciousness/awareness/attention with a small abstract subset of that reality—an illusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Drugs and meditation are 'subtractive' in that they dismantle the abstraction/reduction apparatus that generates the illusion hiding our 'full-grasping'.
>>>>>
>>>>> If such a belief were "true" then "augmenting our brains" would be the exact opposite, and exceedingly harmful, approach ...
>>>>>
>>>>>      ...   unless, the augmentation was a permanent [lsd | psylocibin | mescaline] drip.
>>>>>


-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ