[FRIAM] dystopian vision(s)

[Steve Smith]

On 8/18/22 9:47 AM, glen wrote:
> 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?
My use of the term "addictive" was unfortunate.  I didn't mean it 
particularly perjoratively.   I mostly just meant the awareness that one 
can become "codependent" on substances/experiences which are not 
otherwise organic to the nature of one's existence in-context. Tarzan 
and his friends may have done something vaguely similar to bungee 
jumping and skydiving (vine swinging and cliff diving), but those who 
have made the high-tech equivalents of those experiences part of their 
very persona have "given over" in some way that may or may not be 
something to "worry about"...  it is just in a practical sense a 
"commitment".  I have known plenty of people who have made "commitments" 
to all kinds of things/substances (caffiene, nicotine, alcohol, thc, 
gucose, lipids, parkour, etc) which they are virtually symbiotic with 
(addicted to?).   I have my own practical commitments to all kinds of 
behaviours and consumptions which are effectively now *part of who I 
am*.  I might have been a somewhat different person today if I had never 
become "committed" to alcohol, caffiene, earning/spending $USD, driving 
planes, trains, automobiles, etc.
>
> 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.

FWIW I was just re-introduced to Bostrom's Astronomical Waste 
<https://nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste> arguement in the context of 
a New Yorker Article on Effective Altruism which I think you have 
referenced a few times here.   A more computationally/entropic framed 
version of the Dyson Sphere <https://nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste> 
(or more originally the Stapledon Light Trap):

    An excerpt from/Star Maker/which mentions Dyson spheres:

        Not only was every solar system now surrounded by a gauze of
        light traps, which focused the escaping solar energy for
        intelligent use, so that the whole galaxy was dimmed, but many
        stars that were not suited to be suns were disintegrated, and
        rifled of their prodigious stores of subatomic energy.

>
> 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


I appreciate having near-peers who are "peering" into the same general 
(vaguely familiar) areas of the fractal abyss that I am...

>
> 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.
>>>>>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220818/28027380/attachment.html>