Philosophy Discussion Forums

There are many complex issues behind the "dumbing down" of the general population and the cult of ignorance, some of them talked about 100 years ago. Since I don't think AI will develop as a type of consciousness per se, I don't fear machines will take over in a Matrix movie scenario. However, while no sophistication of consciousness in AI is a threat, all that is required is sophisticated automation of processes (at which AI excels) to have an impact in key mental and social capabilities of the general population, as we are seeing already in the culture of internet and smartphones. Who ever wins or loses still will have blood running through their veins, but the social dynamics that will develop are still unclear. The end of net neutrality might be a hint of what's to come, with some sense of deja vu in realizing that a few companies and individuals will be controlling content, manufacturing consent, while the wheel of capitalism keeps on rolling. That would be truly dystopian, but on the other hand, the lynching mob mentality of the masses during this current period of abundant free trade of information, got me rethinking. It shows that consciousnes and the flows of information are still part of social dynamics derived from relations of production and the power hierarchies developed with them. There's where the battle for a better society was and will be.

For me, there are two types of AI being created by humans - one is the familiar type, the other is institutional/collective intelligence.

Today is a strong shift of wealth from individuals towards institutions. The institutions are now so large and powerful that they effectively become arms of governments, that are being ever more hollowed out, and when the public service is hollowed out, so is the middle class. Interestingly, things are moving towards a configuration that's not much different to how communism was described to me by a Vietnamese refugee technical college classmate in the 70s.

Revolution will probably be attempted sometime in the next few decades; some of the very the wealthy are already anticipating rebellion and are calling for more equitable policies to ease tensions (seemingly futilely, given the recent US tax givaway for the POTUS's wealthy friends). However, the withdrawal of labour is no longer a concern; machines do it. Drones and automated weaponry using state-of-the-art materials will provide protection for the few from the many.

I see a growing divide that, should humanity survive the current environmental and resource threats, will almost certainly result in speciation. The only true dystopian future as far as I'm concerned is mass extinction that includes humans; everything else is a short phase in the Earth's timeline. Even in the face of that catastrophe, from what would probably be a nuclear or asteroid winter the descendants of rats would emerge as intelligent beings to continue the story (just as we are descendants of shrew-like mammals of the Cretaceous era). What a moment it would be for their early mining efforts to uncover the first relics of ancient gods that once ruled the planet!

Dark Matter 12-26-17

Who or what is Dark Matter???

Before the beginning there was only Darkness upon the Deep/

Before the beginning of the Creative Process the only thing in existence was Dark Matter, was a substance that had no Mass; This substance existing as both a Singularity and also as a State of Singularity, in which nothing had relative, numerical value, Reality itself being meaningless nothing being differentiated, measurable, to include Time, Space and motion,

Time being undifferentiated, Space being undifferentiated, motion existing without angular momentum, without velocity of Speed and direction.

Motion existing only as an insignificant innate inner motion, as a vibration, an oscillation causing a Singularity to make a humming sound; OHM.

Motion in Time and Space having no relative value, the Reality of Everything having a numerical value of Zero-0, nothing.

The Light was separated from the darkness, when a Random singularity was displaced and converted in to a Singularity of One-1, known to be, the Reality of first cause, first Light becoming the direct cause of a System of Chaos.

The resulting Chaos being born of the Butterfly Effect.

The Reality of First cause actually being an Affect, the system of Chaos being the cause of the manifest Reality of the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything that exists in the Material sense of the word.

Wayne:

I phrase it quite differently, but my line of thought is similar.

Everything, everywhere, everywhen and their every possibility converge in a singularity, a perfect balance of forces. This Unity of forces is indistinguishable from nothingness and therefore cannot be said to either exist or not-exist. And while this implies immutability, it does not imply immobility. The "First Act" (there never was a beginning) is the (hypothetical) beginning of a feedback loop involving all the latent forces.

0/1

What is the difference between a Singularity of Zero-0 and a Singularity of One-1???

Does Zero-0 come before or after One-1???

Wayne92587 wrote: ↑December 27th, 2017, 2:25 am 0/1

What is the difference between a Singularity of Zero-0 and a Singularity of One-1???

None

Does Zero-0 come before or after One-1???

Neither.

I note that mystical thinkers on these forums tend to speak a lot of singularities, unities, zero and one. I look at what's being written, and I know it's in English, but it simply doesn't resonate. If all was one homogeneous quasi-nothingness and it has increasingly differentiated since the BB, isn't that a good thing, allowing for complexity, diversity and sophistication? I would think it a good thing to get away from the One/Nothingness/Zero point/Unity.

Greta wrote: ↑December 27th, 2017, 3:36 am I note that mystical thinkers on these forums tend to speak a lot of singularities, unities, zero and one. I look at what's being written, and I know it's in English, but it simply doesn't resonate. If all was one homogeneous quasi-nothingness and it has increasingly differentiated since the BB, isn't that a good thing, allowing for complexity, diversity and sophistication? I would think it a good thing to get away from the One/Nothingness/Zero point/Unity.

Why? As long as you measure only by the yardstick physical nature, you can never hope to find unity in time and space.

I will have more to say on this.

I don't really understand what experiencing unity means. Is that basically tuning into a larger consciousness of which one is part? If such larger consciousnesses are real, then wouldn't there be, say, institutional consciousness, societal consciousness, humanity's general consciousness, and that of the Earth etc?

Greta wrote: ↑December 27th, 2017, 6:20 am I don't really understand what experiencing unity means. Is that basically tuning into a larger consciousness of which one is part? If such larger consciousnesses are real, then wouldn't there be, say, institutional consciousness, societal consciousness, humanity's general consciousness, and that of the Earth etc?

This has probably nothing to do with the unification during sexual intercourse.

Greta wrote: ↑December 26th, 2017, 6:43 pm For me, there are two types of AI being created by humans - one is the familiar type, the other is institutional/collective intelligence.

Today is a strong shift of wealth from individuals towards institutions. The institutions are now so large and powerful that they effectively become arms of governments, that are being ever more hollowed out, and when the public service is hollowed out, so is the middle class. Interestingly, things are moving towards a configuration that's not much different to how communism was described to me by a Vietnamese refugee technical college classmate in the 70s.

Revolution will probably be attempted sometime in the next few decades; some of the very the wealthy are already anticipating rebellion and are calling for more equitable policies to ease tensions (seemingly futilely, given the recent US tax givaway for the POTUS's wealthy friends). However, the withdrawal of labour is no longer a concern; machines do it. Drones and automated weaponry using state-of-the-art materials will provide protection for the few from the many.

I see a growing divide that, should humanity survive the current environmental and resource threats, will almost certainly result in speciation. The only true dystopian future as far as I'm concerned is mass extinction that includes humans; everything else is a short phase in the Earth's timeline. Even in the face of that catastrophe, from what would probably be a nuclear or asteroid winter the descendants of rats would emerge as intelligent beings to continue the story (just as we are descendants of shrew-like mammals of the Cretaceous era). What a moment it would be for their early mining efforts to uncover the first relics of ancient gods that once ruled the planet!

I read this as some other way of describing what used to be called the socialization of production, or the development and extension of the general conditions of production, which means also that there's an increasing tendency to characterize our individual problems in terms of the collective domain, not as the simple sum of self-interested agents, but as the irreducible, supervenient emergence of the social, uphold by human cooperation. That individual consciousness can be thought to extrapolate to a collective consciousness (or be derived from one as in Jungian analysis) may be a symptom of this characterization.

Institutions, organizations and governments and their relations of power work under a set of norms often (but not always) formalized in legal and political conventions. Many tensions arise, of course, but a critical one is the growing contradiction between the interests and well-being of the few and the ones of the many, which explains most of our current battles in those legal and political fronts, as well as the ever rotating cycle of counterculture. It could, but not necessarily will resolve in revolution. Who knows, maybe as AI droids replace laborers in the most routinary, automated tasks, and they become not only part of the production processes (factories), scientific exploration (i.e. space travel) and coercive functions (military and police force), but enter the sphere of consumption, as has happened with every other technology in the past; then a new balance of power could make possible the revolution that has been so hard to achieve by other means. The struggles in the public domain will most likely be about controlling access to that technology, and will resemble today's struggles. However it unfolds, I'm sure it would make any currently famous sci-fi movie look ridiculous. In any case, the human factor will never be out of the equation, nor stop taking the leading role.

Greta wrote;

I note that mystical thinkers on these forums tend to speak a lot of singularities, unities, zero and one. I look at what's being written, and I know it's in English, but it simply doesn't resonate. If all was one homogeneous quasi-nothingness and it has increasingly differentiated since the BB, isn't that a good thing, allowing for complexity, diversity and sophistication? I would think it a good thing to get away from the One/Nothingness/Zero point/Unity.

“One” existing as a homogeneous quasi-nothingness and it has increasingly differentiated since the BB,

Wayne wrote; Not So !!

Chaos was the first thing to exist:

Within this State of Singularity existed an untold number quantity of Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities having no Relative Numerical value.

There is no increasingly differentiated state in the Creative Process.

Creation began as a system of Chaos that began a cllation, a clustering, of Singularities having relative, numerical value.

All Singularities having the same relative, numerical Value of One-1,

The difficulty in understanding the Creative Process is in understanding that even though all Singularities are the same,
in a chaotic system, a Singularity of Zero-0 does not become relative until a Random Singularity Zero- finds a way to become relative, to have meaning, to become measurable as to location and momentum in Time.and Space

The First Singularity in a series, the first Singularity to become relative being given the numerical value of One-1.
The second Singularity in a series being relative in the sense that is comes after One-1 is given the numerical value of Two-2 and the next three and then four.

The First Singularity being First Cause, itself being Affect, being un-caused.

The series known as Cause and Effect, did not exist until the Creation of The Reality of First Cause.

The Reality of First Cause, a Singularity having relative a numerical value of One-1 being the direct cause of a System of Chaos that has made manifest the Heavens and the Earth the Universe the Reality of Everything that exists has colatiomolest to form Reality as it exists in the Material sense of the word, even a rock.

The word collation misspelled twice.

chaos; Common usage

a chasm or abyss

Anarchy, lawlessness or a stateless society
Lawlessness, a lack of laws or law enforcement


Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics and it is focused on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. 'Chaos' is an interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, self-organization, and reliance on programming at the initial point known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The butterfly effect describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state, e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a hurricane in Texas.[1]

Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems—a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect—rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general.[2][3] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[4] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[5][6] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[7
Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics and it is focused on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. 'Chaos' is an interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, self-organization, and reliance on programming at the initial point known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The butterfly effect describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state, e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a hurricane in Texas.[1]

Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems—a response popularly referred to as the butterfly effect—rendering long-term prediction of their behavior impossible in general.[2][3] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[4] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[5][6] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. The theory was summarized by Edward Lorenz as:[7

Yet extreme chaos and extreme homogeneity/order are indistinguishable.