Cosmos Café: Disambiguating Space and Time [12/5]


(Ed Mahood) #21

Well, it is now!

(That was the original post, but “The System” says posts must be at least 20 characters long! That’s why I add this parenthetical addition, not because it adds anything substantial.)

(Marco V Morelli) #22

I just posted the video and audio above. Apologies for the delay. I was in the first stages of coming down with a head cold when we recorded, and now it is full-blown. Just another one of those speed bumps…I’m sure I’ll be fine. Carry on! :sneezing_face:

(john davis) #23

Hooray! Hope you are feeling better soon.

(john davis) #24

Beautiful! You are already adept at self-modeling and I am enjoying your developing meta-skills. Your observations about how we add learnings from other mapmakers to renew our own maps, is crucially important.

This, I believe, is what a healthy epistemology could become and is at the heart of meta-modelling. As we start to enjoy other maps, we start to become more curious and less defensive. There is no right map. We need all of them and need to test them out.

I have noticed that this trend, if cultivated consciously, teaches us much about the relationship between Meta-mind and what Aurobindo called the Supra-mental, which is when GOD becomes FLESH.

This is how angelic beings resonate with one another. Yet in my flesh I shall see God…

(Douglas Duff) #25

Yes…you bring up the same idea in the Cafe when @patanswer realized this in the first time modeling.

This is one nice conclusion your modeling has provided, and has great potential for achieving some of the goals of this Co-op project.

(T J Williams) #26

As I listened, and mused, about ‘moving comfortably between different styles of thinking’, about space and time as means of allowing for distinctions in levels of intensity, about oscillation between the perceptual and the conceptual, about pixels, flat tori, patterns and dreams, this came.
I don’t know what it means.

I do know that I value these talks even when I cannot be present.

(john davis) #28

Mind boggling! Thank you, TJ, for this wonderful sketch. It is immensely suggestive. I feel that we are learning how to externalize the group mind. Isn’t this what Merlin Donald was speculating about?

I wonder what would happen if we put all of our maps on the table ( including our updated ones) and muse upon them? What would happen next?

And of all the images you have put down on paper what are you most drawn to?

(Douglas Duff) #29

So much to say about these talks we share. We are all “fountains” of knowledge, fusing the separate hemispheres.

Your two drawings combined remind me of this

Did Sloterdijk ever mention the brain as a bubble in Bubbles? I have read Bubbles introduction and somewhat understand the gist of his world…on pg. 45 (though he is conjuring the relationship between God and human) these words are written: “'What is here termed a sphere is, in a first and provisional understanding, an orb in two halves, polarized and differentiated from the start, yet nonetheless intimately joined, subjective and subject to experience-a biune shared space of present and past experience.” If taken out of context, this could be a depiction of the brain. Maybe that is how to find the meaningfulness of Sloterdijk…take him out of context :rofl:

Some notes, unspoken thoughts during the Cafe:

First, I want to clarify the John-bot and the discussion from about 1:24 and beyond. @johnnydavis54 and @achronon went in the direction of “well, how are these fascinating bots meaningful?” Good question. The timeline for usefulness and meaningfulness of the bots is blurry, but as we experiment more and more, apply more and more, the use and meaning will appear when “we have a bot for that” (a play on “there’s and app for that”). Personally, I would like to see a sort of libertarian view of these things…we don’t want the big folks (big tech, big government) to be in charge. Bring it to a fun, personal level. Even personal enhancement would be nice , something along the lines of Thync…but I imagine in a generation or two applying all sorts of little bot-like things to all that we do in the same sense that the smartphone has created all sorts of new ways of seeing the world, though, of course, the devil is in how we use this stuff.

Sophia as a whole, true AI system is beyond us, but John-bot as I imagine is achievable. I am no Techie/coder, but “he” would probably not have to be more than a few hundred programmed phrases/algorithms. John will never be replaced, nor would I like to actual use the John-bot over John. It would be a usable technology. Compare it to books. I would have much rather have heard Socrates speak directly, but I will take Plato’s accounts. I would much rather have spent a few weeks roaming the earth with Gebser,but I will accept this EPO as enlightening enough. I would rather be at the next Kerri Welch conference, but I will just re-listen to the FF episode again. I would rather fly out to NYC and spend time at a real cafe with the real John…at least I have my John-bot!

Thank you for the Tetralemma…it seems “there’s a name for that” appears just as much as “there’s a book for that” round these here parts.

And , resonating with @achronon, this time together is something great, if not the great thing, to look forward to each week…at least we have our Infinite Conversations in the mean time! Thanks @madrush, again and again!

(john davis) #30

Indeed we are. Here is a talk about Aurobindo by a fine scholar. I am interested in these differing streams and how we may go forward. In some ways, I believe, we are already there…a heightened consciousness in waking life…and a liberation of society…

(Douglas Duff) #31

Good introduction. “All life is yoga” could be Aurobindo’s catch phrase.

Link to Aurobindo’s Collected Works
This will be useful when the time comes.

(Ed Mahood) #32

I particularly like the “cone and question mark” between the “fountain” (good call) and the flat torus that somehow ends up three-dimensional (the tree (?) below and to the right), the hologram.

It reminds me of the work a friend of mine is doing on the Hebrew alphabet, but directly and intimately related to what we’ve been kicking around otherwise. After the new year and should we have a free café session, I could give a bit of an overview and introduction, if there’s interest. It is very arcane and, in a sense, specialized, and given the starting point, too often disconcerting (but I think that’s beside the point). Just a thought.

If I had a coat-of-arms, that would be a candidate saying for the banner thereupon. (The current leading candidate is, "If it weren’t for bad luck, I’d have no luck at all.)

(john davis) #33

what I am most drawn to in your map of our map is the 3D torus shape and the pixels that form the landscape. I have a funny feeling when I see this that there is more going on than meets the physical eye. We are working with inter subjective spaces through the interplay of language and drawings. I feel the drawing is a gesture that has kinesthetic and visual qualities. I imagine that we are in a kind of training for a Sense 8 evolutionary dive into meta-mind…

(Ed Mahood) #34

Thanks for this. It is a word of reason in an often turbulent discussion. And you are aware that John, I’m sure, any other of this group, I’m fairly certain, I, most definitely, will go gallivanting off in merry directions at the drop of just about any hat. It goes with mapless territories.

Nevertheless, the idea of technology as a “recognized inferior ersatz” is a point very well taken. There is no substitute for the real deal, agreed, but we should be happy about and thankful for whatever else is the best-we-can-do instead. There is a slight caveat in that a book, for instance, is still personal and intentional and intentionally communicative (at least as I understand text production; I’m sure my post-modern acquaintances would dispute that). AI, I believe for the most part, is being developed and driven as a replacement for not an enhancement of a lot of things.

What your comments made me realize is that I’m not so much opposed to the technology, what disconcerts me is the (a) worshipping of technology that the Kelleys and Kurzweils practice, (b) the false assumption that all technology is good technology, and © the absolute inability of most involved in the development of that technology that (1) what has questionable roots (it is profit driven and will be profit driven; there’s a lot of money to be made here) will have questionable fruit, and (2) history has shown unequivocally that we humans have never pursued the good path of technology for very long. In other words, it’s what I’m fairly convinced will be what we do with it, not what it is that bothers me. Of course, that’s not only the curmudgeon speaking; every once and while his buddy Cynicism shows up for the party.

In other words, I see a strong disconnect between what proponents claim will be the case and what is (a) actually possible and (b) most probable.

Studies have shown that many young, smart-phone savvy people when presented with a question/problem will spend very little time trying to think it through, instead they will assume there must be “an app” for that and go searching for it. Over time and when this becomes the majority behavior, there will be fewer and fewer people to be developing the apps so we’ll turn that over to the machines (which is already the case … there are more lines of machine-generated code in Windows 10, for example, than human-generated code. Given the size of these programs, we have more machine-generated testing than human-generated testing, and this means we really don’t know what’s going on in there. Code can be very resilient, but just one bug per 1000 lines (and they do not have to be process-disruption bugs) can lead to unpredictable behavior of the system). I may not trust humans as much as I should, but I trust our machines even less, for I know who created them, and all creations are in the image and likeness of their creator.

(Ed Mahood) #35

Speaking of bots and how meaningful they will become – eventually – this popped up on my FB newsfeed this morning (a French friend of mine posted it):

I’m not sayin’, I’m just sayin …

(john davis) #36

That’s a great idea. I have studied religious scholar, Elliot Wolfson, who has done some amazing work using the Kabbalah. I would be very interested. Let’s use all of our knowledge and use all of it well! It seems that we can bring our attention to our interests, and then we start to enlarge our maps and our territories. I imagine we can get to a more coherent systems through such investigations.

(john davis) #37

The distinctions about meta-mind ( group scale) and super mind ( Cosmic scale) made in your opening remarks, Marco, are useful. You make mention of the Void Scale. Is there anything else about Void? And what kind of scale is that?

Is there a relationship between Void and Mapless territories?

How do we know there is a Void?

How do we map a territory that is mapless?

What do we do when we dont know what to do?

This is what Bateson called " learning how to learn." Children are probably the best exemplars here. They know they dont know and so are free to experiment.

I do find that as we relax and start to make maps that a healthy naivete starts to develop that I believe contributes to our coherence. Adults have to unlearn a lot but children are already open. And all kids love to draw and move their bodies. It dont mean a thing if it aint got that swing!

It is the balance, I believe, of the triune brain that wants to happen. It comes through in my drawing of the odd symbol. We are para to the earth. We are developing our para brains. I will update my drawings and post it soon. I feel an adjacent possibility is in the making.

And I sense that each of us, receptive to each others oddness, will manifest more excellent learning events. When we go to these liminal zones, we should expect the destructuring antics of the Trickster. This destructuring-restructuring movement is happening everywhere in our turbulent times. I am encouraged that out of our sincere attempts to model our maps of time-space we are can embrace of our paradoxes and impasses. Collectively we can deal a little more effectively with these strange loops if we are grounded in a community of the competent.

Thanks again for communing and making sense of the past-present-future together! This is a great gift we are giving and receiving. I experience a great sense of satisfaction from this exercise and look forward to even greater coherence, embodied understandings and generative conversations.

I am very interested in your paradoxes, dilemmas and impasses. Please feel free to add to the discussion, post drawings, and perhaps offer new directions. I am more confident that we can “love the one your with.”

(Douglas Duff) #38

Yes…and maybe that is a good summary of this tech/ so-called AI “stuff” “gallivanting off in merry directions” as one sees fit… the Fabulous video (at work now…don’t want to watch the video here!!!) seems to prove your point of mapless territories…all the more reason for us positive vision seekers to remain involved…

…and, in some perverted way, the sex-bot is an attempt at a positive vision; I imagine all of the repressed males out there in this harassment climate being targeted by society now, afraid to even glance at a woman for fear of accusation. I would much rather these males stay at home in a bubble of pleasure than invade others bubbles.

I hang with that guy too! I do foresee a

Wall-E type outcome

over The Enlightened Society for our Earthlings as a whole.

(Ed Mahood) #39

Thought 1: Our Western myth of beginnings is set out in Genesis, particularly Chapter 1, which is the first creation narrative. In v2 we are told that the earth was “without form and void” (KJV). The Hebrew for this is ThoHU V’BoHU (pron. TOH-hu v’BOH-hu). The first word means most fundamentally “formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness” (and note it is a noun) and appears 22 times in what we call the Old Testament; the second word’s root meaning is “emptiness” and it appears only once, here. A more literal reading of v2 would be, “And the earth was an unreality and an emptiness …” “Void”, however, has been imprinted our consciousness for about 400 years, or since King James had his translation completed.

Thought 2: In Kabbalah, there are many different ways of referring to what we generally call “God” in English; about 10 different titles, and a whole slough of “names” (but that’s another topic all together). When speaking of this time before Light (which gets created in the Genesis narrative in v3), for lack of a better way of phrasing it, the notion most often invoked is AYN SOPf (pron. ayn SOHF). The first word is a common particle meaning “there is/are no”; the second word means “end” and appears 10 times in what we call the Old Testament. The expression means literally “there is no end”. Obviously it has a temporal feel to it. Sometimes you see it expressed as Eternity, but another, perhaps more common, way of expressing this notion is the “No-thing”. It is not a nothing, rather it is no thing that we can conceive with our limited perception and cognition.

Though “void” has been introduced into Thought 1, it really need not be there. In Thought 2, it could be adduced, but that would be reading something into the notion. In other words, in our root mythology, there is no void.

This is, at any rate, how I’m operating at the moment.

(Ed Mahood) #40

Heh, heh, heh … I was referring to John and me and anyone else in our merry band of pranksters. But your reading is just as valid. (Mine was an impossible sentence to punctuate – I should have used parentheses instead of commas, now that I think about it), and though I thought about rewriting it, my lazybone-self let it go.) :hushed:

Oh, I don’t doubt that at all. Another way I could have phrased my assessment would have been, “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” I’m very aware that we humans want to do well, but I’m just as aware that we too often end up doing very poorly. We think a lot, but we don’t think a lot of things through. We know – always after the fact – that there are consequences to our thoughts, but we rarely think about them beforehand. We’re always in a hurry, but we can never really say why. I don’t know what we think we’re going to miss, we have all the time in the world, literally.

But … we’ve been conditioned to believe that we have no time at all, that what’s important will somehow pass us by. No, we miss what’s important because we’re too often too frantically trying to get somewhere which ends up being nowhere near where we thought. Our Egos are, unfortunately, impatient.

(T J Williams) #41

I only know Dennett by reputation - and I never figured out whether his basic claim was that we were subject to the tricks our consciousness played on us or that consciousness itself did not exist (or was practically reducible to gray matter in motion). If the latter, then Hart is right - this is almost too easy:
"Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds."
And why, TJ the simpleton asks, should that product of unreliable deceived minds called science get a pass?
Yes, my a priori assumptions include consciousness as that which connects us to a reflexive universe. And I’m OK with that.

Your dream image made me suddenly wonder what it would look like in “3d”, and a “fountain” emerged - with an ‘unseen’ source possibly connected to another dimension and flowing up and out. That was the spark to the rest. Maybe it connects to the universal torus and pours back in somewhere or maybe it just continues to flow out into “actual” infinity or maybe “somehow” both… But here, now, where space and time make room for clouds, trees, birds, sailboats, and us to be and do, listening, as Ed eloquently put it, is the greatest gift we can give one another…
Just some next-day thoughts.

In agreement with Ed, “I dunno,” would make a great banner for a coat-of-arms. (LOL!)

That works for me.

I’m not up on the latest developments in AI but my gut says there is a difference (as Yuval N Harari says somewhere) between intelligence (problem solving - which all life does, really) and sentience (plus intuition and feeling, or again, as Ed pointed out, the once-important distinction between knowledge and data) . Possibly semantics but I don’t think so. As impressive as these robots are, I don’t think we are anywhere near understanding the human mind (more than brain!!!) well enough to truly ‘duplicate’ it.
Echoing John: When the infinite monkeys type out King Lear, get back to me… :zipper_mouth_face: :laughing: