[FRIAM] dystopian vision(s)

[Steve Smith]

Glen said:


> ...
...
> 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.

The first paragraph references my current interest in not strict 
*computation* but something notionally larger/subsuming of computation 
and that is *consciousness* (without trying to define the latter further 
for the moment, just asserting that it is a proper superset of the 
former).  This makes it more, not less metaphysical of course.

Depending on the author/source,  life, mind, consciousness (in the 
animist/panpsychist/pan-consciousnes conceptions) seems to fit well 
complementary to your use of "computation".   As presented a few dozen 
posts back, my current fascination is along the arc of Deacon's 
Homeo/Morpho/Teleo Dynamics formulation around these 
problems/considerations.  I did get one off-list response to that which 
suggests that some here are familiar/interested in this perspective...  
my breath is 'bated.

I think that the point you make about the voids might be another way of 
describing the power-law/fractal distribution of structure across scale, 
not privileging any particular scale of "tightly coupled (coherent) 
pockets of *utation"?   Or maybe I am getting this wrong/clumsy also.