James, I appreciate your wise responses to my comments/critique. It appears we have more in common theoretically than I anticipated. Thank you for the clarifications and the rest of your contributions to this fascinating dialogue. Regards, Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D. On Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 5:19 AM Jamie D <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links > or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is > safe. > ------------------------------ > @Glen, > > What is your opinion on the "meme" concept? > It seems the trouble with the meme is a perfect example of your trouble > with the finger and the moon. > > I argue that an actual fighter jet IS a meme (and a memeplex), as much as > any word like "blue", as well as any technology, because words and concept > are technologies. > > Yet, what the actual fighter jet IS, is mere behavior....and there is no > fighter jet but in the mind. So the meme concept rides the edge > representing the finger and the concept if the moon, but as we aren't used > to having to call the word "concept" every single time we say any word, the > meme concept suffers. And because of that difficulty, rather than opposed > to it, do I advocate the meme, because it makes one see how language is > only a map, not the territory. > > I also argue that human minds are AI's, because our minds are cultural > and thus artificial....thus every person inadvertently programs an AI in > deciding who to be as they grow up...yet, beneath the Cumulative cultural > Tok (mind) of any individual, there is an analogue, infinite, or > indeterminate process that's like the human to the cyborg (more ghost to > mind). > > Lastly, > The reason AI will never fully decommission humanity is the likely answer > any philosopher of science will give in describing the history of > inventions: inventions don't come from sheer intelligence, but the CCE of > the individual, their surroundings, history, and various emotional and > economic incentives. > > Also, are you familiar with Joseph Henrich's work on cultural evolution? > From your writing, I can tell you've been exposed to it either directly or > indirectly. > One of his ideas I most appreciate is how humans aren't really that > "smart", but that specific CCE enables us to adapt above the genetic level, > as long as populations are large enough to cultivate know-how. > > I would add to this idea the following: > > The ONLY reason (that matters, politically) one person seems, for the > moment, less smart than another, is stress, and mostly social stress. In > other words, the only cause of stupidity is social stress. > > Our cultivating systems of know-how that make one person appear smart can > change in a few days or weeks without chronic stress. > > All It takes to make a dull person smart is the encouragement to "be > honest with their self", as that seems to be the primary difference between > successful intellectuals and creative's vs the failures (who, due to > stress, learn excessive self doubt into denying the obvious...they're > fooled into selling their selves short, and this phenomena is SO powerful, > that a person formerly regarded to be beyond hope could become a genius in > a short time IF only this ONE factor could safely be reversed. > Unfortunately, "dull" people find equilibrium in chronic stressful states, > thus changing that could cause sudden egomania without support.) > > Jamie > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 2:03 AM James Gien Wong <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > >> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links >> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is >> safe. >> ------------------------------ >> Hi Jamie, >> >> See my reply below >> >> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 8:42 AM Jamie D <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click >>> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the >>> content is safe. >>> ------------------------------ >>> @Glen, >>> >>> Are you developing this yourself, or mostly theory, and planning to >>> acquire the technical work after presenting to the peer to peer foundation? >>> >>> Have you done any work in machine learning? >>> >> >> G: I've been mostly developing by myself off and on for the past few >> decades but I am part of a number of different networks so in the last few >> years have been connecting with a broad range of experts in these networks >> one on one to develop it further....material scientists, linguists, AI >> scientists, complex adaptive system scientists, circular economists, >> commons theorists, sustainability engineers, philosophers, planetary >> scientists, computer scientists, software developers, educators, cultural >> anthropologists, mathematicians, social scientists, political scientists, >> contemplative practitioners of various traditions, The project is so broad >> and so many dimensions that it required a lot of diverse input. Their >> feedback has guided my development. I'm in the process of assembling an >> inter-disciplinary project team right now. There are various teams of >> scientists-developers-engineers-activists working in loose Digital >> Autonomous Organizations around the globe on various permutations of these >> problems. We all seem to be working on and converging towards the same >> cybernetic-human systems to empower a bottom-up multi-solution. I work >> closely with an AI scientist for the last few years at the intersection of >> multiple domains that overlap my areas of interest, and he works with >> groups of software developers architecting different aspects of this >> system. >> >>> >>> This is exciting, largely because I haven't come across anyone with such >>> a similar range of understanding combined with a similar philosophical >>> approach that 1. reconciles domains few people at willing to bridge >>> (nonduality, futurism, linguistics, philosophy, and the harder sciences) >>> and clearly sees things systemically, and can talk about it to people who >>> speak different languages. >>> >> >> G: We all travel different roads to arrive at the present. I was deeply >> influenced by Douglas Hofstaeder's Godel, Escher Bach, An Eternal Golden >> Braid many decades ago. That book entangled reductionlist, logical and >> mathematical methodologies with the nondual approaches of the East in a >> whimsical, entertaining and thought-provoking way. One of those chapters, >> with Escher's print of Two worlds, set me off on my explorations into Zen >> Buddhism. His theme of infinite loops still deeply resonates with me to >> this day, as I see the 1st person / 3rd person views as entangled in such a >> loop. We're able to discern patterns in the world through observations, and >> we use our symbolic prowess of culturally learned language to represent >> those cognized patterns, making them accessible to others through the 3rd >> person perspective. We feel ourselves to be a psycho-biological being >> (Jourdain & Jourdain) and our experience of "mind" is 1st person >> consciousness while our body grounds us in the common language of >> materiality which the rest of the non-human universe speaks. Our senses can >> sense the non-human materiality and our own individual, human body in the >> same way, constituting our 3rd person perspective. So as we interact with >> our common, objective reality and discern patterns, and share those using a >> common language, we learn about the world out there, but we also learn >> about ourselves, since our bodies are composed of the same stuff as the >> stuff outside our bodies. >> >> So as individuals, we are forced into cumulative cultural evolution (CCE) >> at birth. We have no choice. Our parents impart CCE upon us as neonates >> have no choice in the matter. So we are conditioned to these cultural >> patterns from before birth. Please don't misconstrue my choice of words. I >> make no judgment on this, but merely state the existential conditions of >> our introduction into reality. Our early exposure to those patterns >> conditions profoundly for the rest of our life journey, putting us on a >> particular trajectory with which we will experience reality, especially >> through language and abstraction filters which cause us to parse reality in >> a specific way. We become agile members of the symbolosphere, and symbolic >> usage becomes second nature to us. The net of symbols internalized in us >> affects every aspect of how we experience reality. We discern patterns in >> reality, and we apply those patterns back to us, the individual, living >> human being inhabiting its environment. The pattern is encoded in language >> and we assign truth value to it. But whether it is true or not, is a >> transient thing that varies with the accumulation of knowledge stemming >> from CCE. The (symbolic) knowing does not affect the fundamental >> phenomenological experience of reality. Yes, progress does alter the >> permutation of things that exist. New patterns of knowledge can allow us to >> emerge new forms of materiality, such as new combinations of genes, or new >> arrangements of atomic structures at nano-scale. New biochemical >> relationships may come into being, such as when human activity caused the >> corona virus to leave its natural wild ecosystem and form new relationships >> within a new ecosystem of modern technological humans. The impact on human >> civilization is new and frightening and science seeks to discern the >> patterns of the pandemic spread so that it can develop technology to >> mitigate it but nature is simply following "its laws" to unfold >> phenomenological behavior. >> >> We see the world through the eyes of pattern detectors. And we create >> symbolic objects out of the patterns we detect, and once consolidated in a >> popular, socially used word, that pattern takes on a concrete existence. In >> this sense, I see the hard problem of consciousness as a clash between the >> 1st person experience of reality, and the 3rd person, quantitatively >> described world of patterns of "objective reality". Here I agree with >> philosopher Philip Goff on the point he made in his book "Galileo's >> Mistake" but I have begun conversation with Philip to interrogate him on >> his ideas of the details of his panpsychic theory of reality. In Buddhist >> philosophy, there is the phrase "the finger that points to the moon" with >> the simple instruction of "don't mistaken the finger for the moon". The >> finger pointing is a symbol directing our attention to the moon. But the >> finger is not the moon. Likewise, the description of the world, including >> an aspect of the world called "human beings", and an aspect of that called >> "consciousness" are fingers that are pointing to some aspect of reality. >> >> Living at such a level is hard core, as the vision is so broad it's hard >>> to fit snugly within most other groups. >>> >>> I checked out the websites you put at the bottom of your email, and >>> they're similar to the kinds of projects I've worked on. The thing is, I've >>> grown to be what some might call cynical (But I don't see it that way >>> anymore either). >>> >> >> G: My websites are in a poor state of messaging. I haven't done anything >> to upgrade them for years. I hope to upgrade them soon. >> >>> >>> The way I see it, humans deny their ego, present ourself as without ego, >>> yet cannot find motive in life without ego. We really don't like our minds >>> to be naked even more than our bodies, thus we can never openly know >>> ourselves unless forced upon us by the web, or in very intimate >>> situations..... and it's only for this latter cause (collective intimacy >>> and space) that I leave room to hope for a truly ego-transcendent culture >>> of the future....something that I believe happened only every now and then >>> in more indigenous communities. >>> >> >> G: Can you elaborate a bit more on this, please. I catch bits and pieces >> of what you are saying but missing the big picture. Perhaps illustrate with >> some examples. >> >>> >>> Even "saving the world", or saving anyone is so motivating by the >>> opportunity for dividends in moral power. It seems like everyone wants >>> moral power these days, but moral power must be backed by a population that >>> can't possibly know the whole truth, and for that reason, I'm >>> reconditioning myself to ditch the grandiose aspirations and live for >>> myself, as the whole universe has equal value to any single person.... >>> (even if the future will look back and see that if I wanted to, I could >>> have gone all-in towards saving lives with crowd epidemiology)....i just >>> don't trust anyone would believe me, so I'm going for the smallest product >>> that some specific group will love (Zero to One). >>> >> >> G: Yes, I think I get what you are saying, Jamie. Some environmental >> scientists have countered some arguments like yours with statements such >> as: "even if you go and live in the mountains by yourself for the rest of >> your life in a completely offgrid manner, the impacts of a runaway climate >> system will catch up with you". But I also understand what you are saying >> about value. I would hate to be in a position to decide moral relativity of >> who lives and who dies, weighing tradeoffs between numbers of living >> beings. I think its a quandry we are in as a species and everyone has to >> make the best choice they can. Some will choose one way, and others >> another. I suppose for me it's about finding out what I as an individual >> can do with my own life that is both meaningful, and can have optimal >> leverage. There are only so many hours in a day. Creating a better world >> for all starts and ends with our own personal growth as well. If we can >> improve ourselves each moment, by shining our light to the world, we can >> also improve the world of others. The spiritual journey of the individual >> seems to be one of expanding oneself to the rest of the world, finding >> oneself and the world to be connected in some deep way. In this sense, our >> world seems to be the way it is partly because we have collectively not >> succeeded in our journey and have collectively alienated each other and the >> natural world. In this sense, generating our authentic empathy with others >> is a way of discovering our greater self. >> >> >> >> >>> Jamie >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 11:12 PM Jamie D <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>>> Yes, but such a web infrastructure (which I believe to be >>>> inevitable...or something along these lines) would further bring us >>>> together in ways that human nature would select. >>>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 17, 2021, 8:24 PM Waldemar Schmidt <[log in to unmask]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click >>>>> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the >>>>> content is safe. >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> So, we have more in common than that which serves to seperate us? >>>>> >>>>> *Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD* >>>>> (Perseveret et Percipiunt) >>>>> 503.631.8044 >>>>> >>>>> *Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)* >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 17, 2021, at 2:34 PM, Jamie D <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click >>>>> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the >>>>> content is safe. >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> Hey ToKers, >>>>> >>>>> I'm working on a web prototype I hope to finish by August. It's a very >>>>> basic version of a collective intelligence that integrates all user inputs >>>>> into what I and my friends call "thought-demographics"...so like, "I drink >>>>> Green Tea" would be a demographic, with a population of those who share the >>>>> same expression....or any expression one might care to make. >>>>> >>>>> The following is some of the theory behind it that still blows my mind >>>>> every time I bother to look deeply into it. >>>>> >>>>> Theoretic Limits of RealTalk.ai (not online yet) >>>>> (Hint: there’s no limit. The concept behind the prototype IS the >>>>> Singularity, the big one, the one TOO BIG TO SEE. While the prototype >>>>> RealTalk.ai is intended to utilize well-known aspects of social networks, >>>>> the concept of integrating symbolic expressions to form a collective, >>>>> interactive representation of society is boundless, inevitable, >>>>> mindblowingly valuable, and stunningly powerful.) >>>>> >>>>> *The closest thing I've found out there so far to the central concept >>>>> is collaborative filtering, used for netflix recommendations. >>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Collaborative-5Ffiltering&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=xgm3cWFkblLXaf7Cz_V1x7i7n4d0eAuk53NrFTyf8cw&s=MinL7hlvXnlkIrCupRfp8kqMmycJKkexBotfGN9pmMk&e= >>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Collaborative-5Ffiltering&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=EfyDO0hrtTkCIvj7T2pCsryNmVoBNr5Elfv5iZ0g-Mo&s=wCu4tL4D6zRzBc5MOrD0Tqgx9khk09YZkSFlFj-TvQ4&e=> >>>>> >>>>> A similar concept will be used to further integrate society into >>>>> collective intelligence. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> - It is akin to the transition from kingdoms to democracies - >>>>> harnessing greater collective input for greater social union. This time, >>>>> everyone is president, ...at least somewhat...who knows? >>>>> - As you read this, try to think of a better way to protect the >>>>> future from AI tyranny, autocracy, idiocracy, or any other >>>>> existential threat to society. >>>>> - The principle will be the structure for entirely new economies >>>>> and social systems, and the entire internet a stage or two from >>>>> now. >>>>> - Ego and profit-motive are the causes of all problems in >>>>> medicine, science, academia, ..everything. EGO IS ALL.Yet, we are still >>>>> being domesticated by one-another, and the culture of egioc denial is >>>>> dying, as our nature so obvious on the media. >>>>> - The principle will radically augment the following industries >>>>> and more: >>>>> - Utilizing crowd epidemiology - potentially curing all diseases. >>>>> - It will be the greatest social science database of all time. >>>>> - It will replace the current political charade. >>>>> - Identity politics will be obliterated by egoic exhaustion and >>>>> the clear-seeing of the hidden values of other groups in the safety of our >>>>> homes. >>>>> - Once it gets a foothold, it will never end, but further >>>>> integrate towards, and as, the Singularity...but not like it’s been >>>>> conceived so far... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The concept: >>>>> >>>>> RealTalk.ai is a prototype collective intelligence in the works, based >>>>> on the inevitable principles of cultural evolution and the integration of >>>>> broader human intelligence. >>>>> While RealTalk.ai is merely a prototype, the concept is inevitable, >>>>> and massive. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> image 2: >>>>> >>>>> image 3 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Each user will have their own set of endorsed or created expressions. >>>>> >>>>> The only risk of privacy is triangulation and estmate. >>>>> >>>>> Users can research their society's values in depth. >>>>> >>>>> At least, small groups and companies can use this, but *my prediction >>>>> is that the general idea is a leap in the evolution of culture. * >>>>> >>>>> Old news: Humans are cyborgs, and have been since our tool and symbol >>>>> use began domesticating us. >>>>> >>>>> New news: Every Human Mind is a kind of artificial intelligence >>>>> already, as we design our minds...but who designs the mind? I contend each >>>>> human baby is a kind of AI cultural engineer, a loop between the body-mind >>>>> and surrounding culture, who cultivates an emergent Tree of Intellect >>>>> in both the individual mind and the community. >>>>> Just as culture is inherently technological, so it is with our minds. >>>>> New words, concepts, and ways are continually invented, internalized. And, >>>>> hungry for info, the mind, like an organism unto itself, endlessly seeks to >>>>> copulate with novelty to give birth to some prestige-offering >>>>> thought-baby: a trend that will offer or further increase status, a >>>>> long-life of glory. >>>>> >>>>> The system of symbols in each human brain is an emergent Tree of >>>>> Knowledge. Young children never know what they will learn or become, but as >>>>> their Tree rises higher, they acquire a greater view of their landscape, >>>>> their reality, whether they emphasize the physical, natural, or various >>>>> social or other landscapes. >>>>> >>>>> Intelligence is evolutionary, systemic and emergent, but also, I >>>>> contend, essential to our very being, our presence. Intelligence is >>>>> already infinite, analogue, and combined with increasingly definable >>>>> stuff. For it is that ineffable whatever, the “I-Am-ness”, that’s >>>>> behind all the mappable aspects of mind, and it’s like a bottomless white >>>>> hole. And it’s YOU. >>>>> >>>>> *Personally, I’m confident the duality between the known / knowable >>>>> and the unknown / unknowable will never end, yet the former will likely >>>>> grow forever as it encroaches on the ladder, both infinite, but that’s too >>>>> philosophical for this paper. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Now, about RealTalk.ai: >>>>> >>>>> Imagine each person on the planet copied their mind/memeplex to the >>>>> web, (as we are already, just not organized, NOT YET INTEGRATED, but >>>>> soon to be...) such that every shared meme bridged any two or more >>>>> people into a tribe or “thought-demographic”. >>>>> >>>>> But first, some big-picture stuff on the evolution of culture and tech: >>>>> >>>>> The most constant trend in cosmic evolution, including culture and >>>>> technology… >>>>> >>>>> (other than the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy, or, according to >>>>> the big picture, what I call the expansion of evolutionary possibilities) >>>>> >>>>> …..Is the accelerating integration of increasing complexity. >>>>> >>>>> Just LOOK: >>>>> >>>>> Earth was a molten rock… >>>>> ...then hardly a biosphere, >>>>> …then the cambrian explosion, >>>>> ...then early hominids, bands, tribes, kingdoms, parliaments, >>>>> democracies... >>>>> …industry, phone and airlines, then the web, social networks… >>>>> ...each stage both more complex and integrated than before. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> “Historically, we have seen an overarching trend towards the emergence >>>>> of higher levels of social organization, from hunter-gatherer bands, to >>>>> chiefdoms, city-states, nation states, and now multinational organizations, >>>>> regional alliances, various international governance structures, and other >>>>> aspects of globalization. Extrapolation of this trend points to the >>>>> creation of a SINGLETON.” - Nick Bostrom. >>>>> >>>>> SINGLETON - a world order in which there is a single decision-making >>>>> agency at the highest level. >>>>> >>>>> It’s in Nick Bostrom’s interest to shout wolf. I would if I were him, >>>>> and believe it too as that too would be in my interest were I in his shoes. >>>>> But from where I look, the inevitable singleton must be collective >>>>> AND singular at the same time. >>>>> >>>>> Journey into this concept and you will continually find more and more >>>>> epiphanies, an endless resource for the practical dreamer. Your vision for >>>>> the future will rise so high above your peers, you won’t speak their >>>>> language anymore. >>>>> >>>>> I’ve written hundreds of pages on this idea, and feel like I’ve barely >>>>> scratched the surface. It’s TOO BIG TO SEE. Maybe some people have more >>>>> trouble visualizing the endless, accelerating integration of >>>>> complexity, let alone come up with a prototype that harnesses the >>>>> principles. >>>>> >>>>> One thing this has is moral power...but moral power is a popularity >>>>> contest that only bends to the truth when it has to. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> -Jamie >>>>> ############################ >>>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >>>>> following link: >>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ############################ >>>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >>>>> following link: >>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >>>>> >>>> ############################ >>> >>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >>> following link: >>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >>> >> ############################ >> >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: >> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the >> following link: >> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 >> > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the > following link: > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 > ############################ To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1