Not quite sure where to put this so I'll put it here for now. If it fits better elsewhere then please move it to the appropriate place.
Ever since I first wrote The Process of Sustaining (http://pseudobuddhaodiscordopastafarian.blogspot.com/2006/11/process-of-sustaining-in-universe-all.html) in mid 2006, I've been working towards a cohesive and coherent personal religion that I could share with other people. It was and will never be meant as a joke or as a passtime. I mean to build this, practice it, and write and speak about it in the same way that other religious folks do so about their religions. This is a lifelong endevor, and will probably take that long to produce anything on the scale I'd like to create.
I don't have a name yet, so for now I'm calling this the Church of the Process of Sustaining, after the original document. The tradition so far draws heavily from Religious Naturalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_naturalism) and mystic traditions (in the sense that the sacred or spiritual is immediately available rather than somewhere apart from everyday experience). Since learning about emergence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence) in late 2008, I've incoporated those ideas into my thinking. Most recently I've been reading about the tradition of the Great Story (http://www.thegreatstory.org/) or Epic of Evolution (http://epicofevolution.com/) (wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Evolution)) and incorporating these ideas as the central myth.
In his book Religion is not About God, Loyal Rue writes about the evolutionary reasons for religion as a source of social cohesion and personal fulfillment. In his deconstruction he lays out a religion as a central myth which is continued through ancillary experiential, aesthetic, ritual, intellectual and institutional strategies. This deconstruction from an anthropological standpoint is my starting place for construction.
Here is a bibliography of works I've read so far in relation to this project, either that I have drawn from directly or that have been helpful in this:
Tao Te Ching - Lao Tse (The style of writing in The Process of Sustaining was largely influence by english translations of this work)
Middle Ground - Tom Montag (A collection of poems from my favorite poet, somewhat of a farmer mystic)
Slanted Truths: Essays on Gaia Symbiosis and Evolution - Margulis and Sagan (an book I read in highschool that influenced my ideas about global ecology and evolution)
A Sand County Almanac - A Leopold (my favorite book and possibly the most influential book as far as environmental ethic I have ever read)
Environmental Ethics: Duties and Values to the Natural World - H Rolston III (another book on environmental ethic I read in undergrad, similar to Leopold's ideas)
Reinventing the Sacred - S Kauffman (THE book that turned me on to Emergence)
The Sacred Depths of Nature - U Goodenough (Epic of Evolution with reflections and conclusions from a Religious Naturalist perspecitve)
Dancing with the Sacred - KE Peters (Another RN perspective; god as the interaction between creative emergence and selection)
Religion: The Basics - Numeroff (A textbook on religion and culture anthropology)
Angel Tech - A Alli (Consciousness demolition and reconstruction; Ratatosk suggested this to me and I'm loving it)
Its also good for me to recognize my influences of roman catholic ritual, Taoism, Buddhism, irreligions such as Discordianism, UUism, and religious naturalism perspectives in putting this all together.
If there are other books anyone would like to suggest to me, or you would like to talk with me about this project, OR if you are interested in working on this project with me, you can post her, PM me, contact me by email at xelnagan_1 at hotmail.com, contact me through IRC or through IM (MSM: through the above email). I welcome any perspectives and arguments on this, because I've thought enough about it that I feel quite confident in my experiences and am also constantly editing what I have worked out to make it as close to the ideal as possible. Thanks be to the Progenitor from which all Life has continued, to the creative metaforce of Emergence, and to the Process of Sustaining, of which we all take part.
~Kai
That's pretty cool. You could just call your religion Sustaining.
Quote from: Nigel on July 05, 2009, 12:02:24 AM
That's pretty cool. You could just call your religion Sustaining.
Thanks. :)
I'd thought of Church of the Process but then I heard there was The Process Church of The Final Judgement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Process_Church_of_The_Final_Judgment) and I DON'T want to be confused with that. :lulz: I like your idea. One word is simple. Sustaining, or in longer, the Fellowship of Sustaining. Kinda like the Religious Society of Friends. :)
Kai, interesting concept.
I do have a question, though. With the eternal balance, how do you explain enthropy? Just curious.
Quote from: Sheered Völva on July 06, 2009, 04:23:21 AM
Kai, interesting concept.
I do have a question, though. With the eternal balance, how do you explain enthropy? Just curious.
I largely don't have to. Emergence takes care of entropy long enough to sustain the different levels (systems) in the emergence complex. A completely nonscientific way of saying it could be an emergence system traps energy just long enough for other levels to come about.
So, thoughts. Apparently at the begining of the unverse there were no particles in the first very small amount of time. If there had continued to be no particles the energy involved probably would have just dissipated. However, particles are energy (via E=MC2) in a packaged form, thus keeping it from immediatly dissipating. Thats the first level of emergence, and with it the basic processes of physics. The second level is chemistry, interactions between atoms. You've got fusion then, and molecules, and bodies of high numbers of atoms (stars, and those objects associated with them, fusion reactor or no). The third level is molecules interacting with molecules. You've got biochemistry, and biology. Theres the self replicating molecules in this, and cells. You can keep building on this with more levels, but you get the idea. Emergence only requires just enough time for it to happen. In our case, fusion is a primary source of energy (so second level emergence sustains third level emergence). Theres enough energy coming in for the issue of entropy to not be an issue for life to continue, at least for now.
Thanks for this, Kai.
I know you're doing it for your own edification, but thanks for sharing the articulation of what you have come to believe.
My own beliefs are similar (if less manucrafted) and i'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with.
Soon after abandoning my given faith, I developed some homebrew pseudomathematical mysticistic gumbo that satisfied myself, which I later found seems to line up somewhat with pythagoreanism (from what little I've read about it.)
Does your philosophy attempt to address first cause at all? Or do you find it to be out-of-scope?
Quote from: Iptuous on July 06, 2009, 02:29:55 PM
Thanks for this, Kai.
I know you're doing it for your own edification, but thanks for sharing the articulation of what you have come to believe.
My own beliefs are similar (if less manucrafted) and i'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with.
Soon after abandoning my given faith, I developed some homebrew pseudomathematical mysticistic gumbo that satisfied myself, which I later found seems to line up somewhat with pythagoreanism (from what little I've read about it.)
Does your philosophy attempt to address first cause at all? Or do you find it to be out-of-scope?
My creation myth ie the story of how the universe got to where it is and how it continues with focus on development of life and human existance, is a story version of what science has revealed about the universe. As far as I know, physicists have not yet determined the cause of the beginning of the universe, though most agree on a rapid inflation/expansion event from a very dense point of space-time.
Since I'm unable to address first cause scientifically at this point, I've been working from the assumption that, well, something like this:
In the Beginning, there was the Void,
And the Void was Nothing.
There was no Space, no Time,
No Mass, no Acceleration,
No Particles or Forces,
And no Happenings,
As there wasn't any place for happenings
To happen in. There was Nothing.
Something Happened.
(Beginning, 1:1-3)
So, thats sorta my rough interpretation of that first part of the story. Something happened, because if it didn't then this would all still be Nothing. Physicists still deal with this great mystery, so I don't see why I can't let it be a great mystery as well.
If I've got any concept of god, is one of god as creative metaforce of Emergence. I guess I could see emergence as the first cause but that seems weird to me, so I'm going with Emergence coming about in that first instant as an intrinsic property of energetic interactions. Ie "god" wasn't the first cause, but is the continuing cause.
So...maybe its out of scope, or not. Its all speculation and stories now, even for physicists. Goodenough calls this a "covenant with mystery", a mystery as to why there is anything at all rather than nothing, and why the physical properties of this universe are the way they are. Mystery leads to wonder leads to awe, either terrifying or liberating. Goodenough chose the later and I think I do as well.
I am gonna think sideways on this for a second.
As I love to point out, Cause and Effect exist because we humans create a partial model out of a subset of data. Cause - You ran a red light, Effect - You hit a car... in reality, though, there are many, many causes which led to the accident and effects are likely to extend well beyond that intersection. Could looking for the First Cause be a broken premise to start with? Instead of a First Cause, might there simply be a first 'INTERACTION'? In an emerget system, would the First thing to be interested in be the Big Bang, or the first transmission of Information, the first combination of electrons and company to form elements? That is, if we seek a 'Emergent Spirituality' , might the Big Bang itself be pre-causal. If God and DNA, Life the Universe and Everything are all children of emergence, what caused (what causes, effects, events) led to the first emergence, the first interaction between causes and effects? When did the first Information get shared, in some sense.
Maybe, an emergent system wouldn't worry about how the building blocks first showed up, but rather how the building blocks first emerged from independent bits of flotsam to the start of a Universe... or something.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 06, 2009, 03:18:21 PM
I am gonna think sideways on this for a second.
As I love to point out, Cause and Effect exist because we humans create a partial model out of a subset of data. Cause - You ran a red light, Effect - You hit a car... in reality, though, there are many, many causes which led to the accident and effects are likely to extend well beyond that intersection. Could looking for the First Cause be a broken premise to start with? Instead of a First Cause, might there simply be a first 'INTERACTION'? In an emerget system, would the First thing to be interested in be the Big Bang, or the first transmission of Information, the first combination of electrons and company to form elements? That is, if we seek a 'Emergent Spirituality' , might the Big Bang itself be pre-causal. If God and DNA, Life the Universe and Everything are all children of emergence, what caused (what causes, effects, events) led to the first emergence, the first interaction between causes and effects? When did the first Information get shared, in some sense.
Maybe, an emergent system wouldn't worry about how the building blocks first showed up, but rather how the building blocks first emerged from independent bits of flotsam to the start of a Universe... or something.
Well, I think some people would argue that looking for the first cause isn't broken :lol: some scientists I can think of. But yeah, I like the idea of a first interaction.
If we think of emergence as "when interactions go on, stuff happens that follows a new system of interactions", then a first interaction makes sense. If life is chemistry versus chemistry and chemistry is matter versus matter, the perhaps matter (and less specifically, space time forces, all the things required for the state of matter) is the interaction of energy versus energy. So, emergence could be said to come from that first interaction (someone will ask where did the energy come from, but then you could claim energy is precausal).
I said earlier something about the emerging systems being packaging for energy. Without some sort of packaging (particles, whether stable or temporary) energy would immediately disperse into nothing. This may just be nonsense, but on the other hand it seems sort of self evident (Cf. mass = energy).
Kai,
is full of pseudoscientific bullshit today :/
hmm...
I guess i am using the term 'first-cause' as a convenient and accepted term even though i don't really think of it strictly as 'cause'....
I guess I think of it as void implying lack of void. The inevitability of bifurcation in existence. zeroness implies oneness. this distinction defines twoness. And on in a bootstrapping fashion. From this fundamental geometry of ideal emerges the material world. I don't know the details between this conceptual existence and matter, but....
That's what I have pinging in my careenium....
Do you have an 'end days' myth?
Iptuous....
loves pseudophilososcientific twiddling, everyday.
Quote from: Iptuous on July 06, 2009, 03:42:30 PM
hmm...
I guess i am using the term 'first-cause' as a convenient and accepted term even though i don't really think of it strictly as 'cause'....
I guess I think of it as void implying lack of void. The inevitability of bifurcation in existence. zeroness implies oneness. this distinction defines twoness. And on in a bootstrapping fashion. From this fundamental geometry of ideal emerges the material world. I don't know the details between this conceptual existence and matter, but....
That's what I have pinging in my careenium....
Do you have an 'end days' myth?
Iptuous....
loves pseudophilososcientific twiddling, everyday.
No end days myth though, except that the sun going red giant is inevitable. Aesthetically I like the big crunch idea, where long after everything goes dark all the matter re condenses via gravity and another universe comes about, but I think an end days scenario is really not that useful except maybe in reference to stardust The carbon that is blown off of red giants is the primary source of carbon in the universe, and therefore a source for possible new life even after the death of our star. Continuation and rebirth is just more INTERESTING than an end of days scenario where everything is the same forever and ever afterwards (Cf. Revelations of John), and far more satisfying.
Oh, I totally agree.
Unlimited stasis seems like a hell of boredom! As self-defeating as 'utopia'....
Quote from: Kai on July 06, 2009, 03:32:47 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 06, 2009, 03:18:21 PM
I am gonna think sideways on this for a second.
As I love to point out, Cause and Effect exist because we humans create a partial model out of a subset of data. Cause - You ran a red light, Effect - You hit a car... in reality, though, there are many, many causes which led to the accident and effects are likely to extend well beyond that intersection. Could looking for the First Cause be a broken premise to start with? Instead of a First Cause, might there simply be a first 'INTERACTION'? In an emerget system, would the First thing to be interested in be the Big Bang, or the first transmission of Information, the first combination of electrons and company to form elements? That is, if we seek a 'Emergent Spirituality' , might the Big Bang itself be pre-causal. If God and DNA, Life the Universe and Everything are all children of emergence, what caused (what causes, effects, events) led to the first emergence, the first interaction between causes and effects? When did the first Information get shared, in some sense.
Maybe, an emergent system wouldn't worry about how the building blocks first showed up, but rather how the building blocks first emerged from independent bits of flotsam to the start of a Universe... or something.
Well, I think some people would argue that looking for the first cause isn't broken :lol: some scientists I can think of. But yeah, I like the idea of a first interaction.
Well, I meant in terms of this model of Emergence as Spirituality or whatever you want to call it... First Cause seems unnecessary to the model if we're focused on interactions and emergence... I think.
QuoteIf we think of emergence as "when interactions go on, stuff happens that follows a new system of interactions", then a first interaction makes sense. If life is chemistry versus chemistry and chemistry is matter versus matter, the perhaps matter (and less specifically, space time forces, all the things required for the state of matter) is the interaction of energy versus energy. So, emergence could be said to come from that first interaction (someone will ask where did the energy come from, but then you could claim energy is precausal).
Or that the it's in some pre-emergence model which isn't covered by the emergence model... ;-)
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 06, 2009, 04:07:49 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 06, 2009, 03:32:47 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 06, 2009, 03:18:21 PM
I am gonna think sideways on this for a second.
As I love to point out, Cause and Effect exist because we humans create a partial model out of a subset of data. Cause - You ran a red light, Effect - You hit a car... in reality, though, there are many, many causes which led to the accident and effects are likely to extend well beyond that intersection. Could looking for the First Cause be a broken premise to start with? Instead of a First Cause, might there simply be a first 'INTERACTION'? In an emerget system, would the First thing to be interested in be the Big Bang, or the first transmission of Information, the first combination of electrons and company to form elements? That is, if we seek a 'Emergent Spirituality' , might the Big Bang itself be pre-causal. If God and DNA, Life the Universe and Everything are all children of emergence, what caused (what causes, effects, events) led to the first emergence, the first interaction between causes and effects? When did the first Information get shared, in some sense.
Maybe, an emergent system wouldn't worry about how the building blocks first showed up, but rather how the building blocks first emerged from independent bits of flotsam to the start of a Universe... or something.
Well, I think some people would argue that looking for the first cause isn't broken :lol: some scientists I can think of. But yeah, I like the idea of a first interaction.
Well, I meant in terms of this model of Emergence as Spirituality or whatever you want to call it... First Cause seems unnecessary to the model if we're focused on interactions and emergence... I think.
QuoteIf we think of emergence as "when interactions go on, stuff happens that follows a new system of interactions", then a first interaction makes sense. If life is chemistry versus chemistry and chemistry is matter versus matter, the perhaps matter (and less specifically, space time forces, all the things required for the state of matter) is the interaction of energy versus energy. So, emergence could be said to come from that first interaction (someone will ask where did the energy come from, but then you could claim energy is precausal).
Or that the it's in some pre-emergence model which isn't covered by the emergence model... ;-)
I think that a universe before emergence would be beyond my ability of comprehension. I live in a universe based in Emergence, so I can't really comprehend anything outside of it. How would I think about energy without particles or forces? Its just impossible for me. Maybe thats why the idea of the Void works, void of our comprehension and impossible to understand, a great mystery.
Quote from: Kai on July 06, 2009, 04:23:24 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 06, 2009, 04:07:49 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 06, 2009, 03:32:47 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 06, 2009, 03:18:21 PM
I am gonna think sideways on this for a second.
As I love to point out, Cause and Effect exist because we humans create a partial model out of a subset of data. Cause - You ran a red light, Effect - You hit a car... in reality, though, there are many, many causes which led to the accident and effects are likely to extend well beyond that intersection. Could looking for the First Cause be a broken premise to start with? Instead of a First Cause, might there simply be a first 'INTERACTION'? In an emerget system, would the First thing to be interested in be the Big Bang, or the first transmission of Information, the first combination of electrons and company to form elements? That is, if we seek a 'Emergent Spirituality' , might the Big Bang itself be pre-causal. If God and DNA, Life the Universe and Everything are all children of emergence, what caused (what causes, effects, events) led to the first emergence, the first interaction between causes and effects? When did the first Information get shared, in some sense.
Maybe, an emergent system wouldn't worry about how the building blocks first showed up, but rather how the building blocks first emerged from independent bits of flotsam to the start of a Universe... or something.
Well, I think some people would argue that looking for the first cause isn't broken :lol: some scientists I can think of. But yeah, I like the idea of a first interaction.
Well, I meant in terms of this model of Emergence as Spirituality or whatever you want to call it... First Cause seems unnecessary to the model if we're focused on interactions and emergence... I think.
QuoteIf we think of emergence as "when interactions go on, stuff happens that follows a new system of interactions", then a first interaction makes sense. If life is chemistry versus chemistry and chemistry is matter versus matter, the perhaps matter (and less specifically, space time forces, all the things required for the state of matter) is the interaction of energy versus energy. So, emergence could be said to come from that first interaction (someone will ask where did the energy come from, but then you could claim energy is precausal).
Or that the it's in some pre-emergence model which isn't covered by the emergence model... ;-)
I think that a universe before emergence would be beyond my ability of comprehension. I live in a universe based in Emergence, so I can't really comprehend anything outside of it. How would I think about energy without particles or forces? Its just impossible for me. Maybe thats why the idea of the Void works, void of our comprehension and impossible to understand, a great mystery.
That seems entirely reasonable to me
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 06, 2009, 04:32:57 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 06, 2009, 04:23:24 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 06, 2009, 04:07:49 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 06, 2009, 03:32:47 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 06, 2009, 03:18:21 PM
I am gonna think sideways on this for a second.
As I love to point out, Cause and Effect exist because we humans create a partial model out of a subset of data. Cause - You ran a red light, Effect - You hit a car... in reality, though, there are many, many causes which led to the accident and effects are likely to extend well beyond that intersection. Could looking for the First Cause be a broken premise to start with? Instead of a First Cause, might there simply be a first 'INTERACTION'? In an emerget system, would the First thing to be interested in be the Big Bang, or the first transmission of Information, the first combination of electrons and company to form elements? That is, if we seek a 'Emergent Spirituality' , might the Big Bang itself be pre-causal. If God and DNA, Life the Universe and Everything are all children of emergence, what caused (what causes, effects, events) led to the first emergence, the first interaction between causes and effects? When did the first Information get shared, in some sense.
Maybe, an emergent system wouldn't worry about how the building blocks first showed up, but rather how the building blocks first emerged from independent bits of flotsam to the start of a Universe... or something.
Well, I think some people would argue that looking for the first cause isn't broken :lol: some scientists I can think of. But yeah, I like the idea of a first interaction.
Well, I meant in terms of this model of Emergence as Spirituality or whatever you want to call it... First Cause seems unnecessary to the model if we're focused on interactions and emergence... I think.
QuoteIf we think of emergence as "when interactions go on, stuff happens that follows a new system of interactions", then a first interaction makes sense. If life is chemistry versus chemistry and chemistry is matter versus matter, the perhaps matter (and less specifically, space time forces, all the things required for the state of matter) is the interaction of energy versus energy. So, emergence could be said to come from that first interaction (someone will ask where did the energy come from, but then you could claim energy is precausal).
Or that the it's in some pre-emergence model which isn't covered by the emergence model... ;-)
I think that a universe before emergence would be beyond my ability of comprehension. I live in a universe based in Emergence, so I can't really comprehend anything outside of it. How would I think about energy without particles or forces? Its just impossible for me. Maybe thats why the idea of the Void works, void of our comprehension and impossible to understand, a great mystery.
That seems entirely reasonable to me
Thinking about energy interacting with energy, the phrase "quantum fluctuations" comes to mind. But anyway, enough about first interactions.
So according to Emergence, what is the fundamental human condition, what's wrong with humanity today, and what should I do to fix it?
(A religion professor I once had said that just about every religion answers those three questions, and in general I tend to agree.)
Quote from: GA on July 08, 2009, 01:43:16 AM
So according to Emergence, what is the fundamental human condition, what's wrong with humanity today, and what should I do to fix it?
(A religion professor I once had said that just about every religion answers those three questions, and in general I tend to agree.)
Humans are the current crown species of our particular lineage, a lineage that leads 3.5 Billion years to the Progenitor, the first Life, and as such we share in an amazing history and a connection through this lineage to all living things that have every lived and will ever live on this planet (assuming the tree of life is rooted, which is the idea most biologist work under). We have an even longer lineage as our atoms were forged in crucibles of stars and exploded out into the universe, and so we share too that we are all stardust. We are living beings with emergent minds, tool makers with a wide variety of abilities and the need to create, shape from ideas into form, art, literature, and technology. We're able to ask big questions about life and the universe. Though these things may set us somewhat apart from our ancestors, we are still inextricably tied to the next tier of Emergence, the global ecology I call Process of Sustaining, from which we all take part, the Process which by the light of Sol Sustains all Life.
Although we are with incredible intellect and abilities, and it is clear where are roots are and what we are part of, it is easy to lose sight of our place in the Process of Sustaining. We /are/ part of giving and taking, and there is no avoiding ultimate death.
QuoteThe Illusion of Taking without Giving
Many people in this world
follow the illusion of taking and not giving.
Is it ironic
that the end of giving
began as a gift?
The idea that one is not part
of the process of sustaining,
that one is above it,
that one can control it;
that is the path to destruction.
These people take the gifts given freely,
and then enter the house
and take everything.
They have no respect for life.
To them, taking is a game,
a livelyhood.
But, they are not at peace.
In buying into the illusion,
they have formed their own hell.
A hell of consuming, and of fear
especially fear of their own death.
They will still die, in their own hell of fear
and possibly they will relent,
but not likely.
They may not give their life freely,
in the end,
but it will still be taken.
So, we fear death, we loose touch of our roots and the Process that goes on around us, and we try to control It in ways that are ultimately damaging for ourselves and our species. We loose our sense of awe, our communion with Life, and our respect for Life and the Process of Sustaing.
The solution to this starts with an awareness of ones own agency, and extends to the understanding of agency in all Life. It may not be conscious, but all living things have an end, a teleos, and a continuance. You let your mind sweep back across time to see the lineages bind together at the root in the Progenitor and see just how connected all life is by this chain of continuance. Life leads to Life, there is no lack of life inbetween. This is a 3.5 billion year unbroken chain. You go back further, see the atoms within us are a continuance of the atoms that came at the first moment, the energy there is the energy that has been since the Beginning, and the particular compositions of our bodies, these atoms were formed in the depths of stars. So, we too are connected to the greater cosmos in that way.
And we can reach out with our minds and see all the connections going on here on Earth in the Process of Sustaining, all the Giving and Taking and how it forms this giant network so incredibly complex and yet so simply in continuance, and realize we share in this. All these connections generate a sense of of great awe in me, liberating awe.
We can go a step further and consider our own death, but what is death really? If we are not just our minds in our bodies but our minds as part of our bodies, then our bodies don't really end. At the moment of death, other life begins taking of our sustainence. Our atoms continue in the earth, in the air, but mostly in other living things. So, we don't really end at death, we continue as part of Life.
All of these things instill a great sense of awe, respect, and fearlessness of death in me. When people realize what they are part of they will no longer fight death with illusions of forever taking. This is not saying utopia, or an end of pain, but those individual humans who choose to see it will know that we are not alone, that we all share in this Process, we're all together in this. We will cease being a destructive force in our own ecology, simply from awareness over time. Awareness breeds empathy, and empathy for each other and for our place in the Process is what we need now, more than anything. Thats how it starts. And I in this at least will not fear death.
Wow. Kai, take it as a compliment that you could totally sell this concept to the New Age crowd; plus, it has the added bonus of being coherent and useful.
I'm being honest here: Bottle it, write a book, and reap the rewards. You might be able to meet Oprah.
Quote from: LMNO on July 08, 2009, 01:55:58 PM
Wow. Kai, take it as a compliment that you could totally sell this concept to the New Age crowd; plus, it has the added bonus of being coherent and useful.
I'm being honest here: Bottle it, write a book, and reap the rewards. You might be able to meet Oprah.
Would that cheapen it?
If you're sincere, and the work has merit, I wouldn't think so.
Do the pinealists cheapen my understanding of Discordia? Not really.
Quote from: Kai on July 08, 2009, 02:30:58 PM
Would that cheapen it?
I think that depends on your intent for your activities.
if you mean for this to be a philosophy adopted by others in a meaningful way, then, yes. it would cheapen it because you would be on the bookshelf next to 'The Secret', etc....
if you mean for this to be a philosophy for yourself, and if other people like it, 'whatever'....
then sell that stuff.... it's easier to enjoy a philosophy that embraces unity and wholism when your observing it all from a comfortable position, and money helps to that end...
Quote from: LMNO on July 08, 2009, 02:36:36 PM
If you're sincere, and the work has merit, I wouldn't think so.
Do the pinealists cheapen my understanding of Discordia? Not really.
Okay. I think I agree with you.
This is just a beginning. The whole thing needs so much work before it would be ready for the sort of progressive layout that a book requires.
Goodenough and the rest have done similar things and I like their works but they still fall short of religious language. Goodenough talks about emergence but gets caught up in reductionism and Christian passages. Stuart Kauffman talks of emergence without reductionism but he ends up in incoherent scientific prose and quantum speculation. KE Peters talks about god as a cosmic dance between emergence and selection, but he inserts way too much personal prose and not enough common talk. All of these fail because of their wordiness and lack of simplicity. They provide a background then meld together a mishmash of traditions instead of creating a cohesive new tradition. Its good that these works are here, because then I don't have to provide the background.
I can simply start by creating a new tradition completely without trying to appease those who want a deeper background to where this all comes from. I guess what I'm saying is that these people didn't go far enough, they didn't take their ideas to the ultimate conclusion. Its kinda like how Leary created the 8-circuit system, RAW made it more concrete in Prometheus Rising and Antero Alli made it cohesive and took it to an ultimate conclusion in Angel Tech. Thats why what Leary made was interesting, what RAW wrote was fun and mind expanding, and what Alli wrote is more satisfying and practical. [ratatosk]For sombunal people, sombunal the time[/ratatosk]
Quote from: Iptuous on July 08, 2009, 02:53:17 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 08, 2009, 02:30:58 PM
Would that cheapen it?
I think that depends on your intent for your activities.
if you mean for this to be a philosophy adopted by others in a meaningful way, then, yes. it would cheapen it because you would be on the bookshelf next to 'The Secret', etc....
if you mean for this to be a philosophy for yourself, and if other people like it, 'whatever'....
then sell that stuff.... it's easier to enjoy a philosophy that embraces unity and wholism when your observing it all from a comfortable position, and money helps to that end...
Well, it would be nice if it were adopted by others in a meaningful way, but I'm not willing to compromise my "vision" in the process. So I guess it would be the latter.
Quote from: Kai on July 08, 2009, 03:04:53 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on July 08, 2009, 02:53:17 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 08, 2009, 02:30:58 PM
Would that cheapen it?
I think that depends on your intent for your activities.
if you mean for this to be a philosophy adopted by others in a meaningful way, then, yes. it would cheapen it because you would be on the bookshelf next to 'The Secret', etc....
if you mean for this to be a philosophy for yourself, and if other people like it, 'whatever'....
then sell that stuff.... it's easier to enjoy a philosophy that embraces unity and wholism when your observing it all from a comfortable position, and money helps to that end...
Well, it would be nice if it were adopted by others in a meaningful way, but I'm not willing to compromise my "vision" in the process. So I guess it would be the latter.
Prometheus Rising, Angel Tech, Quantum Psychology, Towards An Archeology of the Soul, etc etc etc are all published books and I'd argue that it doesn't cheapen them, or their message. The difference, IMO, lies in the writing style. The Secret is written like a Snake Oil Salesman's wet dream, Angel Tech is written like a set of concepts and ideas which are useful, if you use them... the book makes no GET X NOW claims... at best it claims to be a mechanics work book... which is only as helpful as the mechanic ;-)
Publishing is a key way more people can interact with information. More feedback, more memetic infections, more emergence as your ideas mix with the ideas of the reader and something new is formed.
In short, there's nothing wrong with publishing good ideas, as long as you don't publish the good idea as "Jeremiah Peabody's Polyunsaturated Quick-Dissolving Fast-Acting Pleasant-Tasting Green and Purple Pills".
Do Nevar Do This:
QuoteDo you have that rundown feelin', does your head go reelin'?
Are you nervous, jumpy or on the edge?
Is it neuritis, neuralgia, a head cold or stress?
Or maybe its your sinus drainage.
Do you have high blood, Berry-Berry?
Or maybe you're a little overweight?
You better make some correction in all this infection,
Just send in one dollar ninety eight.
Get ridda that runny nose, that nagging cough, that sneeze, achoo,
That wheeze and other injuries.
Take the wonder drug that cures all your ills,
Take Jeremiah Peabodys polyunsaturated, quick dissolving, fast acting,
Pleasant tasting green and purple pills.
Oh yeah!
Well, it won't upset your stomach, Its good for arthiritis,
It sooths all your aches and pains.
Get ridda those hammers in your head,
Don't be a hyprakrondriac ,
Start feelin' better again.
Clear up that fungus or mongus;
Its good for every ailment, including water on the knee.
And its guaranteed to be just what you need
For quick, fast, easy relief.
Get ridda that runny nose, that nagging cough, that sneeze, that wheeze
And other injuries. Take the wonder drug that cures all your ills, Take
Jeremiah Peabodys polyunsaturated, quick dissolving, fast acting,
Pleasant tasting, green and purple pills.
Oh, yeah! Little green and purple pills, oh, yeah, little green and
Purple pills.....
I definitely wouldn't do that. I also don't want to go the way of other authors though, who were unable to take their convictions to the next level. I don't want to prescribe a cure-all but I do want to prescribe at least something, you know, without having to take the whole book trying to be convincing (Cf. Dancing with the Sacred) or full of incomprehensable scientific explanations (Cf. Reinventing the sacred) or trying to borrow too much directly from other religious sources for explanation (Cf. The Sacred Depths of Nature).
I've taken to saying something before every meal. In Sustaining, a meal shared is the most basic and sacred thing a person can take part in. So, I say words to draw attention to the sacredness of eating:
"I am here now for this meal I have prepared. I am grateful for this Life Given that I Take [sometimes I list individual organisms that are ingredients] and Sustain myself. Thanks to the creative metaforce of Emergence, the Progenitor from which all life has come, and to the Process of Sustaining, through which all things continue and that we all take part."
If I were with a group of people I might modify it thus:
"We are gathered here now for this meal [name] has prepared for us. We are reminded of and grateful for this Life Given that we Take and Sustain ourselves. We are grateful we are together to share in this Sustenence. May the Life Given Sustain us and make us whole so we may continue. Thanks to the creative metaforce of Emergence, the Progenitor from which all Life has come, and the Process of Sustaining, of which we all take part."
So, how does that sound, too contrived? It more or less came out spontaneously and then I put it on paper.
Bits and pieces, I know, but little things like this that are part of every day experience are what makes religion (and ritual) real for people, and invites introspection.
my prayer would be,
"sorry cow, I was hungry, and you taste sooooooo good. Next time YOU learn how to use a pointy stick."
Sounds too much like native American hippie crap.
I feel no need to thank or apologize to a fucking cow.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 12, 2009, 10:12:00 PM
Sounds too much like native American hippie crap.
I feel no need to thank or apologize to a fucking cow.
Hey.
Quote from: Nigel on July 12, 2009, 11:40:27 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 12, 2009, 10:12:00 PM
Sounds too much like native American hippie crap.
I feel no need to thank or apologize to a fucking cow.
Hey.
Allow me to restate that:
QuoteSounds too much like what hippies think native Americans did.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 13, 2009, 12:00:02 AM
Quote from: Nigel on July 12, 2009, 11:40:27 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 12, 2009, 10:12:00 PM
Sounds too much like native American hippie crap.
I feel no need to thank or apologize to a fucking cow.
Hey.
Allow me to restate that:
QuoteSounds too much like what hippies think native Americans did.
MUCH better! :D
It is actually true that we are supposed to recognize and appreciate the value of that which we consume or destroy in order to sustain our lives. I do this by loving the shit out of things.
Quote from: Nigel on July 13, 2009, 12:38:30 AM
It is actually true that we are supposed to recognize and appreciate the value of that which we consume or destroy in order to sustain our lives. I do this by loving the shit out of things.
I do it by eating them.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 13, 2009, 12:47:29 AM
Quote from: Nigel on July 13, 2009, 12:38:30 AM
It is actually true that we are supposed to recognize and appreciate the value of that which we consume or destroy in order to sustain our lives. I do this by loving the shit out of things.
I do it by eating them.
Rev Roger cuts right to the still-beating heart of the matter.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 13, 2009, 12:47:29 AM
Quote from: Nigel on July 13, 2009, 12:38:30 AM
It is actually true that we are supposed to recognize and appreciate the value of that which we consume or destroy in order to sustain our lives. I do this by loving the shit out of things.
I do it by eating them.
:lulz:
Fucking Cornish.
Quote from: Kai on July 08, 2009, 01:45:45 PM
So, we fear death, we loose touch of our roots and the Process that goes on around us, and we try to control It in ways that are ultimately damaging for ourselves and our species. We loose our sense of awe, our communion with Life, and our respect for Life and the Process of Sustaing.
The solution to this starts with an awareness of ones own agency, and extends to the understanding of agency in all Life. It may not be conscious, but all living things have an end, a teleos, and a continuance. You let your mind sweep back across time to see the lineages bind together at the root in the Progenitor and see just how connected all life is by this chain of continuance. Life leads to Life, there is no lack of life inbetween. This is a 3.5 billion year unbroken chain. You go back further, see the atoms within us are a continuance of the atoms that came at the first moment, the energy there is the energy that has been since the Beginning, and the particular compositions of our bodies, these atoms were formed in the depths of stars. So, we too are connected to the greater cosmos in that way.
And we can reach out with our minds and see all the connections going on here on Earth in the Process of Sustaining, all the Giving and Taking and how it forms this giant network so incredibly complex and yet so simply in continuance, and realize we share in this. All these connections generate a sense of of great awe in me, liberating awe.
We can go a step further and consider our own death, but what is death really? If we are not just our minds in our bodies but our minds as part of our bodies, then our bodies don't really end. At the moment of death, other life begins taking of our sustainence. Our atoms continue in the earth, in the air, but mostly in other living things. So, we don't really end at death, we continue as part of Life.
All of these things instill a great sense of awe, respect, and fearlessness of death in me. When people realize what they are part of they will no longer fight death with illusions of forever taking. This is not saying utopia, or an end of pain, but those individual humans who choose to see it will know that we are not alone, that we all share in this Process, we're all together in this. We will cease being a destructive force in our own ecology, simply from awareness over time. Awareness breeds empathy, and empathy for each other and for our place in the Process is what we need now, more than anything. Thats how it starts. And I in this at least will not fear death.
I've heard this "death is no biggie, after all, our atoms will still be around." argument before. Honestly, it doesn't do much for me. You could use the same argument to defend book burning. The information is destroyed, but hay, look... atoms!
The atoms in our corpses aren't even our original atoms. We poop those out several several times in our lifespans. Are our poop atoms any more or less sacred than our corpse atoms?
The point I'm getting at is: The part that we leave behind that really matters, the part that is
really us, isn't our physical remains, but our memes.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on August 01, 2009, 04:07:25 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 08, 2009, 01:45:45 PM
So, we fear death, we loose touch of our roots and the Process that goes on around us, and we try to control It in ways that are ultimately damaging for ourselves and our species. We loose our sense of awe, our communion with Life, and our respect for Life and the Process of Sustaing.
The solution to this starts with an awareness of ones own agency, and extends to the understanding of agency in all Life. It may not be conscious, but all living things have an end, a teleos, and a continuance. You let your mind sweep back across time to see the lineages bind together at the root in the Progenitor and see just how connected all life is by this chain of continuance. Life leads to Life, there is no lack of life inbetween. This is a 3.5 billion year unbroken chain. You go back further, see the atoms within us are a continuance of the atoms that came at the first moment, the energy there is the energy that has been since the Beginning, and the particular compositions of our bodies, these atoms were formed in the depths of stars. So, we too are connected to the greater cosmos in that way.
And we can reach out with our minds and see all the connections going on here on Earth in the Process of Sustaining, all the Giving and Taking and how it forms this giant network so incredibly complex and yet so simply in continuance, and realize we share in this. All these connections generate a sense of of great awe in me, liberating awe.
We can go a step further and consider our own death, but what is death really? If we are not just our minds in our bodies but our minds as part of our bodies, then our bodies don't really end. At the moment of death, other life begins taking of our sustainence. Our atoms continue in the earth, in the air, but mostly in other living things. So, we don't really end at death, we continue as part of Life.
All of these things instill a great sense of awe, respect, and fearlessness of death in me. When people realize what they are part of they will no longer fight death with illusions of forever taking. This is not saying utopia, or an end of pain, but those individual humans who choose to see it will know that we are not alone, that we all share in this Process, we're all together in this. We will cease being a destructive force in our own ecology, simply from awareness over time. Awareness breeds empathy, and empathy for each other and for our place in the Process is what we need now, more than anything. Thats how it starts. And I in this at least will not fear death.
I've heard this "death is no biggie, after all, our atoms will still be around." argument before. Honestly, it doesn't do much for me. You could use the same argument to defend book burning. The information is destroyed, but hay, look... atoms!
The atoms in our corpses aren't even our original atoms. We poop those out several several times in our lifespans. Are our poop atoms any more or less sacred than our corpse atoms?
The point I'm getting at is: The part that we leave behind that really matters, the part that is really us, isn't our physical remains, but our memes.
(http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/4442/welovememe.jpg)
Some Day You Will Die Somehow and Something's Going to Steal Your Carbon. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k_h9g4eoAI)
Quote from: Roaring Biscuit! on August 01, 2009, 06:45:45 PM
Some Day You Will Die Somehow and Something's Going to Steal Your Carbon. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k_h9g4eoAI)
:mittens:
fuckin tune.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on August 01, 2009, 04:07:25 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 08, 2009, 01:45:45 PM
So, we fear death, we loose touch of our roots and the Process that goes on around us, and we try to control It in ways that are ultimately damaging for ourselves and our species. We loose our sense of awe, our communion with Life, and our respect for Life and the Process of Sustaing.
The solution to this starts with an awareness of ones own agency, and extends to the understanding of agency in all Life. It may not be conscious, but all living things have an end, a teleos, and a continuance. You let your mind sweep back across time to see the lineages bind together at the root in the Progenitor and see just how connected all life is by this chain of continuance. Life leads to Life, there is no lack of life inbetween. This is a 3.5 billion year unbroken chain. You go back further, see the atoms within us are a continuance of the atoms that came at the first moment, the energy there is the energy that has been since the Beginning, and the particular compositions of our bodies, these atoms were formed in the depths of stars. So, we too are connected to the greater cosmos in that way.
And we can reach out with our minds and see all the connections going on here on Earth in the Process of Sustaining, all the Giving and Taking and how it forms this giant network so incredibly complex and yet so simply in continuance, and realize we share in this. All these connections generate a sense of of great awe in me, liberating awe.
We can go a step further and consider our own death, but what is death really? If we are not just our minds in our bodies but our minds as part of our bodies, then our bodies don't really end. At the moment of death, other life begins taking of our sustainence. Our atoms continue in the earth, in the air, but mostly in other living things. So, we don't really end at death, we continue as part of Life.
All of these things instill a great sense of awe, respect, and fearlessness of death in me. When people realize what they are part of they will no longer fight death with illusions of forever taking. This is not saying utopia, or an end of pain, but those individual humans who choose to see it will know that we are not alone, that we all share in this Process, we're all together in this. We will cease being a destructive force in our own ecology, simply from awareness over time. Awareness breeds empathy, and empathy for each other and for our place in the Process is what we need now, more than anything. Thats how it starts. And I in this at least will not fear death.
I've heard this "death is no biggie, after all, our atoms will still be around." argument before. Honestly, it doesn't do much for me. You could use the same argument to defend book burning. The information is destroyed, but hay, look... atoms!
The atoms in our corpses aren't even our original atoms. We poop those out several several times in our lifespans. Are our poop atoms any more or less sacred than our corpse atoms?
The point I'm getting at is: The part that we leave behind that really matters, the part that is really us, isn't our physical remains, but our memes.
I've been thinking about your post for almost a month now but I don't even know where to begin addressing it. On the other hand I know I need to address it because the "dissolution of self from death" in relation to the meaning of human existence, Emergence and The Process of Sustaining is an important discussion.
I'm going to come at this from an athiestic nihilistic perspective for a moment.
If neurobiology is correct and our consciousness is an emergent property of our many many neurons in network throughout our bodies, then we are our bodies, or at least, the I is emergent from our bodies and part of. I am nothing more than a lineage of processed sensory information interacting with the universe. When that network ceases to function, this transient emergent system will cease to occur. I will be gone forever. This existence is short and devoid of meaning, just something that happened to happen, and when it's over, its over.
That particular line of thinking doesn't appeal to me. I know you aren't a nihilist, was not saying you were. I needed to take the extreme on that to work back from it.
It's true we can't avoid completely the death of our neural networks, but most of us spend our whole lives in fear of the end. I'm not saying that we should seek out our demises. To do so is foolish, stupid and a misuse of our emergent teleos. Since we can continue, everything points towards continuing. There is a difference between not fearing death, and seeking it out. All life works for its own continuance.
There seems to be some meaning in this teleosic continuation. We're all part of the same great lineage, and all striving to continue, yet we don't all continue. In order to get through the next day, I have to take life to sustain myself. In the process I destroy that teleos (and neural network) to keep my own teleos and neural network going. Yet in this way, the whole network of life in this emergence system the Process of Sustaining goes on. Death of some leads to life for others. The whole thing keeps going. It seems to me that there is only one reason that I /couldn't/ draw meaning from this, and that is if I thought humans were somehow separate from The Process. I am part of this bigger thing and this bigger Process is part of me. Even if my neural networks don't continue the whole Process continues and therefore I in some way also continue. To follow the ideas of Antero Alli, its only a paradox until you consider that death and continuing are both aspects of being human, and of being Life.
Ecology isn't the only greater Emergence system we are part of. Consciousness connecting with Consciousness leads to social networks and the wide human experience we call culture. Though I don't like the word "meme", there is continuation in social networks as there is in ecology. Finding meaning in one certainly doesn't exclude finding meaning in the other. What we pass out and on and forward in ideas is just as meaningful. :)
I hope that begins to address these issues.
And to the other issue. I recognize my bias as having a background in catholicism with a deep feeling for ritual. Formally stating my feelings and thanks goes along with it. It focuses me, and its meaningful for me. Nobody else necessarily shares that, and I'm okay with that.
~Kai,
Absurdist to the core.
Kai, just wanted to say I agree with that. Nothing to add.
Quote from: Kai on August 29, 2009, 08:15:29 PM
It's true we can't avoid completely the death of our neural networks, but most of us spend our whole lives in fear of the end. I'm not saying that we should seek out our demises. To do so is foolish, stupid and a misuse of our emergent teleos. Since we can continue, everything points towards continuing. There is a difference between not fearing death, and seeking it out. All life works for its own continuance.
Two points:
1. I don't think I know anybody who spends their whole life, or even a large portion of it, in fear of the end. Maybe they do and I just haven't twigged on yet, or it's the kind of thing people keep to themselves (and do a very good job of it.) Maybe it's because most of the people I know are younger and not yet at the point where worrying about dying is fashionable? I know I personally am more afraid that I might end up in situation where the most correct option is to kill someone, do so, and then not feel remorse afterwards - which is a highly improbable situation, especially when compared to the certainty of my expiring. (Unless Quantum Immortality is correct, which would be
awesome.)
2. I'm not saying we should seek out unfavored energy states. To do so is foolish, stupid, and a misuse of our potential energy. Since we can undergo decomposition, everything points to breaking chemical bonds. There is a difference between respecting temporary high-energy states, and greedily clinging to them. All order works for the increase of universal entropy.
Quote from: GA on August 31, 2009, 01:28:17 AM
Quote from: Kai on August 29, 2009, 08:15:29 PM
It's true we can't avoid completely the death of our neural networks, but most of us spend our whole lives in fear of the end. I'm not saying that we should seek out our demises. To do so is foolish, stupid and a misuse of our emergent teleos. Since we can continue, everything points towards continuing. There is a difference between not fearing death, and seeking it out. All life works for its own continuance.
Two points:
1. I don't think I know anybody who spends their whole life, or even a large portion of it, in fear of the end. Maybe they do and I just haven't twigged on yet, or it's the kind of thing people keep to themselves (and do a very good job of it.) Maybe it's because most of the people I know are younger and not yet at the point where worrying about dying is fashionable? I know I personally am more afraid that I might end up in situation where the most correct option is to kill someone, do so, and then not feel remorse afterwards - which is a highly improbable situation, especially when compared to the certainty of my expiring. (Unless Quantum Immortality is correct, which would be awesome.)
2. I'm not saying we should seek out unfavored energy states. To do so is foolish, stupid, and a misuse of our potential energy. Since we can undergo decomposition, everything points to breaking chemical bonds. There is a difference between respecting temporary high-energy states, and greedily clinging to them. All order works for the increase of universal entropy.
1. I'm not sure how to address this point right now. When I have a way for it, I'll get back to you.
2. I don't respond to
argumentum ad absurdum.
I have nothing to add... other then I wanna get cremated just to deny those bastard worms their meal
:argh!:
Kai, this really does takes some thought. I like where you're going with this.
Quote from: LMNO on August 31, 2009, 03:03:43 PM
Kai, this really does takes some thought. I like where you're going with this.
I don't think I'd be taking it seriously if I didn't. If this is my religion, that is, if this is truly a central myth supported by ancillary and emotional strategies for social cohesion and personal well being, then I really do need to take it seriously and consider the hard questions. I also like how it challenges and betters the system I already have.
For GA's assertion I have a feeling I need to go reread The Process of Sustaining, especially the part about the delusion of taking without giving.
Quote from: GA on August 31, 2009, 01:28:17 AM
Quote from: Kai on August 29, 2009, 08:15:29 PM
It's true we can't avoid completely the death of our neural networks, but most of us spend our whole lives in fear of the end. I'm not saying that we should seek out our demises. To do so is foolish, stupid and a misuse of our emergent teleos. Since we can continue, everything points towards continuing. There is a difference between not fearing death, and seeking it out. All life works for its own continuance.
Two points:
1. I don't think I know anybody who spends their whole life, or even a large portion of it, in fear of the end. Maybe they do and I just haven't twigged on yet, or it's the kind of thing people keep to themselves (and do a very good job of it.) Maybe it's because most of the people I know are younger and not yet at the point where worrying about dying is fashionable? I know I personally am more afraid that I might end up in situation where the most correct option is to kill someone, do so, and then not feel remorse afterwards - which is a highly improbable situation, especially when compared to the certainty of my expiring. (Unless Quantum Immortality is correct, which would be awesome.)
I guess I interpret "fear of the end", not as a nail-biting terror but anywhere on the spectrum from that towards a simple preference for not "ending", based upon whatever reasons the individual has.
In other words, the background perception and actions required to avoid the end while it is deemed as unnecessary. In those terms you would seem to be both discussing the same thing.
I do respect the fact that you're putting work into this, and holding up the results for criticism, refinement, and potential mockery.
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 02:20:56 AM
2. I don't respond to argumentum ad absurdum.
If p -> q and p -> !q, then !p. Just saying.
I have two major problems with this entire concept:
1. Breaking even is a losing strategy, and
2. Entropy always wins.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 08:28:16 PM
I have two major problems with this entire concept:
1. Breaking even is a losing strategy, and
2. Entropy always wins.
1. Breaking even works well enough for long enough, at least within the time scale of this planet within this solar system.
2. Entropy looses often enough.
Quote from: fictionpuss on August 31, 2009, 06:45:47 PM
Quote from: GA on August 31, 2009, 01:28:17 AM
Quote from: Kai on August 29, 2009, 08:15:29 PM
It's true we can't avoid completely the death of our neural networks, but most of us spend our whole lives in fear of the end. I'm not saying that we should seek out our demises. To do so is foolish, stupid and a misuse of our emergent teleos. Since we can continue, everything points towards continuing. There is a difference between not fearing death, and seeking it out. All life works for its own continuance.
Two points:
1. I don't think I know anybody who spends their whole life, or even a large portion of it, in fear of the end. Maybe they do and I just haven't twigged on yet, or it's the kind of thing people keep to themselves (and do a very good job of it.) Maybe it's because most of the people I know are younger and not yet at the point where worrying about dying is fashionable? I know I personally am more afraid that I might end up in situation where the most correct option is to kill someone, do so, and then not feel remorse afterwards - which is a highly improbable situation, especially when compared to the certainty of my expiring. (Unless Quantum Immortality is correct, which would be awesome.)
I guess I interpret "fear of the end", not as a nail-biting terror but anywhere on the spectrum from that towards a simple preference for not "ending", based upon whatever reasons the individual has.
In other words, the background perception and actions required to avoid the end while it is deemed as unnecessary. In those terms you would seem to be both discussing the same thing.
You're off, but thanks.
I meant it when I said I needed to go back and read The Process.
Quote from: GA on August 31, 2009, 08:18:51 PM
I do respect the fact that you're putting work into this, and holding up the results for criticism, refinement, and potential mockery.
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 02:20:56 AM
2. I don't respond to argumentum ad absurdum.
If p -> q and p -> !q, then !p. Just saying.
Thanks.
Also, I don't know what you're talking about.
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 08:35:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 08:28:16 PM
I have two major problems with this entire concept:
1. Breaking even is a losing strategy, and
2. Entropy always wins.
1. Breaking even works well enough for long enough, at least within the time scale of this planet within this solar system.
2. Entropy looses often enough.
1. Nonsense, unless your religion is designed to cater to the planet itself, rather than life (presumably humans).
2. Entropy *never* loses, except on a local scale, and then only temporarily. However, I wasn't really talking about the Earth as a system, but rather the way societies, nations, and people work.
Quote from: GA on August 31, 2009, 08:18:51 PM
If p -> q and p -> !q, then !p. Just saying.
Argle bargle schwartz.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 08:38:47 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 08:35:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 08:28:16 PM
I have two major problems with this entire concept:
1. Breaking even is a losing strategy, and
2. Entropy always wins.
1. Breaking even works well enough for long enough, at least within the time scale of this planet within this solar system.
2. Entropy looses often enough.
1. Nonsense, unless your religion is designed to cater to the planet itself, rather than life (presumably humans).
2. Entropy *never* loses, except on a local scale, and then only temporarily. However, I wasn't really talking about the Earth as a system, but rather the way societies, nations, and people work.
One of the property of emergence systems is that the less local the individual parts become and the more different they become the easier it is for the system to fall back to a lower emergence system. Physics seems to be robust enough for immense differences in space and scale, and chemistry is rather robust as well. Biology is a bit more tenuous and consciousness even more so. If consciousness interacting with consciousness leads to sociality, then societies and culture are even more unstable. The further up you get from energy the less stable the system will be due to the dissimilarity and disconnection between the parts.
Too long; didn't read: Social emergence systems end up being quite unstable in nature, which is just something a person has to be aware of and adjust for.
That addresses your final point. The other ones:
1. Clarification: What goes on at the scale of upon this planet, within this system, ie the past 3.5 billion years of life.
2. Entropy (ie returning to the background energy, or whatever it is that quantum fluctuations are made of) is staved off long enough for all this (on the scale of life on this planet). It's enough.
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 08:52:32 PM
One of the property of emergence systems is that the less local the individual parts become and the more different they become the easier it is for the system to fall back to a lower emergence system. Physics seems to be robust enough for immense differences in space and scale, and chemistry is rather robust as well. Biology is a bit more tenuous and consciousness even more so. If consciousness interacting with consciousness leads to sociality, then societies and culture are even more unstable. The further up you get from energy the less stable the system will be due to the dissimilarity and disconnection between the parts.
Too long; didn't read: Social emergence systems end up being quite unstable in nature, which is just something a person has to be aware of and adjust for.
That addresses your final point. The other ones:
1. Clarification: What goes on at the scale of upon this planet, within this system, ie the past 3.5 billion years of life.
2. Entropy (ie returning to the background energy, or whatever it is that quantum fluctuations are made of) is staved off long enough for all this (on the scale of life on this planet). It's enough.
Okay, I'm now lost. Please explain, inside of a paragraph, the central tenets of your religion. Please keep it simple, because I'm all fucked up on Clonazapam.
unfortunately most of the cool life on this planet has already went extinct
:cry:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 08:55:07 PM
Okay, I'm now lost. Please explain, inside of a paragraph, the central tenets of your religion. Please keep it simple, because I'm all fucked up on Clonazapam.
Dumb hippy shit mixed with good science.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 31, 2009, 08:56:05 PM
unfortunately most of the cool life on this planet has already went extinct
:cry:
We have giant squid. And colossal squid
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 09:03:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 08:55:07 PM
Okay, I'm now lost. Please explain, inside of a paragraph, the central tenets of your religion. Please keep it simple, because I'm all fucked up on Clonazapam.
Dumb hippy shit mixed with good science.
Um, okay then, don't. I'm sorry I fucking asked.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 09:05:33 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 09:03:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 08:55:07 PM
Okay, I'm now lost. Please explain, inside of a paragraph, the central tenets of your religion. Please keep it simple, because I'm all fucked up on Clonazapam.
Dumb hippy shit mixed with good science.
Um, okay then, don't. I'm sorry I fucking asked.
I'm sorry. I was really trying to make it simple. Unfortunatly I couldn't think of any way to make it simple except that.
Its not really easy like "the first humans dined in the garden on forbidden fruit and were forever cursed until god came to earth in human form, died and ressurected so the curse could be removed". Its a whole lot of good science of ecology and biology mixed in with Emergence theory and some morality and well, dumb hippy shit.
I'm sorry.
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 09:17:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 09:05:33 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 09:03:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 08:55:07 PM
Okay, I'm now lost. Please explain, inside of a paragraph, the central tenets of your religion. Please keep it simple, because I'm all fucked up on Clonazapam.
Dumb hippy shit mixed with good science.
Um, okay then, don't. I'm sorry I fucking asked.
I'm sorry. I was really trying to make it simple. Unfortunatly I couldn't think of any way to make it simple except that.
Its not really easy like "the first humans dined in the garden on forbidden fruit and were forever cursed until god came to earth in human form, died and ressurected so the curse could be removed". Its a whole lot of good science of ecology and biology mixed in with Emergence theory and some morality and well, dumb hippy shit.
I'm sorry.
S'ok, I thought you were being facetious.
However, if you want this religion to apply to more than yourself and other specialized scientists, you're going to have to simplify it some. Also, spelling things out clearly has an additional advantage...300 years from now, it will be less likely to be used as an excuse to kill people. Jesus' followers wrote down what they did under the assumption that people would take certain things as givens, and look what happened.
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 09:04:59 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 31, 2009, 08:56:05 PM
unfortunately most of the cool life on this planet has already went extinct
:cry:
We have giant squid. And colossal squid
...Which hardly ever attack cities.
I feel ripped off.
Thats where I'm trying to go with this. :) I think I explained somewhat in summary a few pages back.
QuoteWhen people realize what they are part of they will no longer fight death with illusions of forever taking. This is not saying utopia, or an end of pain, but those individual humans who choose to see it will know that we are not alone, that we all share in this Process, we're all together in this. We will cease being a destructive force in our own ecology, simply from awareness over time. Awareness breeds empathy, and empathy for each other and for our place in the Process is what we need now, more than anything. Thats how it starts. And I in this at least will not fear death.
In other terms, an end of delusion as to our place as part of a greater ecology via awareness. The delusion is much like what Buddha was on about with aversion and greed (what I call the illusion of taking without giving). The benefit is we will slowly cease being a destructive force in our own ecology, thus saving humans from going extinct from their own wasting in the next several centuries. Like all religions (and social systems) it has a great possibility of being ignored and misused. I admit that.
So, the purpose is to build awareness and save our sorry asses. There's some optimism in there, the beginnings of something.. Like I said at the end, at least I won't be afraid.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 09:34:10 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 09:04:59 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 31, 2009, 08:56:05 PM
unfortunately most of the cool life on this planet has already went extinct
:cry:
We have giant squid. And colossal squid
...Which hardly ever attack cities.
I feel ripped off.
So do I. Probably was humans that did the big mammals in. All the large sauropod reptiles are gone, done in by an impact and/or more 65 mya.
I should start introducing myself by saying "Hi, I'm Kai, and I'd just like to thank you and your ancestors for killing off all the giant sloths."
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 09:45:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 09:34:10 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 09:04:59 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 31, 2009, 08:56:05 PM
unfortunately most of the cool life on this planet has already went extinct
:cry:
We have giant squid. And colossal squid
...Which hardly ever attack cities.
I feel ripped off.
So do I. Probably was humans that did the big mammals in. All the large sauropod reptiles are gone, done in by an impact and/or more 65 mya.
I should start introducing myself by saying "Hi, I'm Kai, and I'd just like to thank you and your ancestors for killing off all the giant sloths."
I'm fairly certain I don't miss the giant sloths. I mean, how scary would they be?
OH SHIT, A GIANT SLOTH IS ATTACKING! WE BETTER WALK A LITTLE FASTER!
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 09:41:25 PM
Thats where I'm trying to go with this. :) I think I explained somewhat in summary a few pages back.
QuoteWhen people realize what they are part of they will no longer fight death with illusions of forever taking. This is not saying utopia, or an end of pain, but those individual humans who choose to see it will know that we are not alone, that we all share in this Process, we're all together in this. We will cease being a destructive force in our own ecology, simply from awareness over time. Awareness breeds empathy, and empathy for each other and for our place in the Process is what we need now, more than anything. Thats how it starts. And I in this at least will not fear death.
In other terms, an end of delusion as to our place as part of a greater ecology via awareness. The delusion is much like what Buddha was on about with aversion and greed (what I call the illusion of taking without giving). The benefit is we will slowly cease being a destructive force in our own ecology, thus saving humans from going extinct from their own wasting in the next several centuries. Like all religions (and social systems) it has a great possibility of being ignored and misused. I admit that.
So, the purpose is to build awareness and save our sorry asses. There's some optimism in there, the beginnings of something.. Like I said at the end, at least I won't be afraid.
Sort of like a hive personality thingie, on a religious level?
Also, this seems - and perhaps I'm just not reading it right - that it contains the same fallacy as communism...ie, that people will act in the best interests of their species (or even in their own best interests, period).
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 09:47:06 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 09:45:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 09:34:10 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 09:04:59 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 31, 2009, 08:56:05 PM
unfortunately most of the cool life on this planet has already went extinct
:cry:
We have giant squid. And colossal squid
...Which hardly ever attack cities.
I feel ripped off.
So do I. Probably was humans that did the big mammals in. All the large sauropod reptiles are gone, done in by an impact and/or more 65 mya.
I should start introducing myself by saying "Hi, I'm Kai, and I'd just like to thank you and your ancestors for killing off all the giant sloths."
I'm fairly certain I don't miss the giant sloths. I mean, how scary would they be?
OH SHIT, A GIANT SLOTH IS ATTACKING! WE BETTER WALK A LITTLE FASTER!
Oh, yeah, TODAY the sloths are actually slow. The giant ground sloths of the past were more like giant bears with dagger sharp claws.
(http://exurbanpedestrian.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/ground-sloth.jpg)
like a mammalian t-rex. sure it eats leaves and berries, but so do grizzly bears.
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 09:53:18 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 09:47:06 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 09:45:16 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 09:34:10 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 09:04:59 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 31, 2009, 08:56:05 PM
unfortunately most of the cool life on this planet has already went extinct
:cry:
We have giant squid. And colossal squid
...Which hardly ever attack cities.
I feel ripped off.
So do I. Probably was humans that did the big mammals in. All the large sauropod reptiles are gone, done in by an impact and/or more 65 mya.
I should start introducing myself by saying "Hi, I'm Kai, and I'd just like to thank you and your ancestors for killing off all the giant sloths."
I'm fairly certain I don't miss the giant sloths. I mean, how scary would they be?
OH SHIT, A GIANT SLOTH IS ATTACKING! WE BETTER WALK A LITTLE FASTER!
Oh, yeah, TODAY the sloths are actually slow. The giant ground sloths of the past were more like giant bears with dagger sharp claws.
(http://exurbanpedestrian.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/ground-sloth.jpg)
like a mammalian t-rex. sure it eats leaves and berries, but so do grizzly bears.
How do we know they weren't slow?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 09:49:08 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 09:41:25 PM
Thats where I'm trying to go with this. :) I think I explained somewhat in summary a few pages back.
QuoteWhen people realize what they are part of they will no longer fight death with illusions of forever taking. This is not saying utopia, or an end of pain, but those individual humans who choose to see it will know that we are not alone, that we all share in this Process, we're all together in this. We will cease being a destructive force in our own ecology, simply from awareness over time. Awareness breeds empathy, and empathy for each other and for our place in the Process is what we need now, more than anything. Thats how it starts. And I in this at least will not fear death.
In other terms, an end of delusion as to our place as part of a greater ecology via awareness. The delusion is much like what Buddha was on about with aversion and greed (what I call the illusion of taking without giving). The benefit is we will slowly cease being a destructive force in our own ecology, thus saving humans from going extinct from their own wasting in the next several centuries. Like all religions (and social systems) it has a great possibility of being ignored and misused. I admit that.
So, the purpose is to build awareness and save our sorry asses. There's some optimism in there, the beginnings of something.. Like I said at the end, at least I won't be afraid.
Sort of like a hive personality thingie, on a religious level?
Also, this seems - and perhaps I'm just not reading it right - that it contains the same fallacy as communism...ie, that people will act in the best interests of their species (or even in their own best interests, period).
No, no hivemind. Just awareness of humans in the greater picture. When I wrote The Process of Sustaining, I had in my mind the most amazing understanding of the greater network that humans were part of, was a real religious experience (seeing a bush spontaneously burst into flame and start talking to you is a religious experience for others but this was more my kind of religious experience). I understood that it was the network itself that allowed the whole thing to continue, and that any part in isolation or domination would cut it up so it no longer sustained that way.
Thats how emergence systems work. For a metaphor, the Internet. While you can think of it as individual computers its the overall large scale networking that makes it work, the networks of computers together. Try to control or dominate it and the whole thing falls apart. This forum. Delusions of controling an empire, taking taxes without giving back, sitting in your palace away from the people in fear, and one day they come along and revolt, there is no control. "E tu, Brute" and its all over for now.
I expect people will do whatever, but I'm rolling with it anyway. No regrets and no apologies. "first, you've got to get mad!"
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 09:55:06 PM
How do we know they weren't slow?
Bone structure. Comparative anatomy. Fossils can tell you a whole lot about a species. You can tell what they ate, and how they moved. Bones have muscle attachment scars, showing where the muscles were and how big they were relative to the rest of the body. You think about elephants, how big and lumbering they seem, but oh man I would not want to piss one off.
The reason sloth species today can get away with being so slow is they live in the treetops, camouflaged, and rarely come to the ground. The three toed sloth actually swims quite well, and will slash you bad if you fuck with it.
The giant sloths were conspicuous very large mammals with big claws. They probably didn't spend their time cooling it slow and steady in the treetops. And they had to stand their ground against the big toothed cats back then.
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 10:16:30 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 09:55:06 PM
How do we know they weren't slow?
Bone structure. Comparative anatomy. Fossils can tell you a whole lot about a species. You can tell what they ate, and how they moved. Bones have muscle attachment scars, showing where the muscles were and how big they were relative to the rest of the body. You think about elephants, how big and lumbering they seem, but oh man I would not want to piss one off.
The reason sloth species today can get away with being so slow is they live in the treetops, camouflaged, and rarely come to the ground. The three toed sloth actually swims quite well, and will slash you bad if you fuck with it.
The giant sloths were conspicuous very large mammals with big claws. They probably didn't spend their time cooling it slow and steady in the treetops. And they had to stand their ground against the big toothed cats back then.
Then we should call it something else. Like "That big bad motherfucker that still went extinct". Only in Latin.
MegatheriumQuoteThere is a common misbelief that the sabre-toothed cat Smilodon hunted Megatherium, but healthy adult sloths were far too large for Smilodon to attack. Richard Fariña and Ernesto Blanco of the Universidad de la República in Montevideo have analysed a fossil skeleton of M. americanum and discovered that its olecranon - the part of the elbow to which the triceps muscle attaches - was very short. This adaptation is found in carnivores and optimises speed rather than strength. The researchers say this would have enabled M. americanum to use its claws like daggers.
From Wikipedia.
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 10:26:34 PM
Megatherium
QuoteThere is a common misbelief that the sabre-toothed cat Smilodon hunted Megatherium, but healthy adult sloths were far too large for Smilodon to attack. Richard Fariña and Ernesto Blanco of the Universidad de la República in Montevideo have analysed a fossil skeleton of M. americanum and discovered that its olecranon - the part of the elbow to which the triceps muscle attaches - was very short. This adaptation is found in carnivores and optimises speed rather than strength. The researchers say this would have enabled M. americanum to use its claws like daggers.
From Wikipedia.
...And it still failed vs tiny primates with sticks.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 31, 2009, 08:56:05 PM
unfortunately most of the cool life on this planet has already went extinct
:cry:
So untrue! There are four-foot-long bright turquoise earthworms! Even shit like chickens are pretty damn cool... little tiny omnivorous dinosaurs. Cool life is EVERYWHERE.
The tiny primates with sticks were unfortunately smarter. However, the people around THESE days...
I swear, the paleolithic humans probably could have taken down some of the large sauropods, T. rex and raptors of the Cretaceous, but people these days would just end up like the poor schmucks in Jurassic Park.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on August 31, 2009, 10:39:30 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 31, 2009, 08:56:05 PM
unfortunately most of the cool life on this planet has already went extinct
:cry:
So untrue! There are four-foot-long bright turquoise earthworms! Even shit like chickens are pretty damn cool... little tiny omnivorous dinosaurs. Cool life is EVERYWHERE.
Yes. Very yes.
I think I've written a rant about this.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on August 31, 2009, 10:39:30 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 31, 2009, 08:56:05 PM
unfortunately most of the cool life on this planet has already went extinct
:cry:
So untrue! There are four-foot-long bright turquoise earthworms! Even shit like chickens are pretty damn cool... little tiny omnivorous dinosaurs. Cool life is EVERYWHERE.
How much of it stomps around cities throwing busses around? Huh?
FYI my friend PIGD was raised by parents who had made up their own religion when they were young and still adhere to it. I think it's pretty cool.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 10:45:16 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on August 31, 2009, 10:39:30 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 31, 2009, 08:56:05 PM
unfortunately most of the cool life on this planet has already went extinct
:cry:
So untrue! There are four-foot-long bright turquoise earthworms! Even shit like chickens are pretty damn cool... little tiny omnivorous dinosaurs. Cool life is EVERYWHERE.
How much of it stomps around cities throwing busses around? Huh?
The problem with cities is that by their very nature they protect against attacks by giant enemies.
That's why all the scary killers now are tiny.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on August 31, 2009, 10:47:28 PM
The problem with cities is that by their very nature they protect against attacks by giant enemies.
No, they protect against attack by other primates. A gigantic fucking lizard loose in Chicago would be damn near impossible to stop.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on August 31, 2009, 10:46:27 PM
FYI my friend PIGD was raised by parents who had made up their own religion when they were young and still adhere to it. I think it's pretty cool.
That is cool. :)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 10:48:50 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on August 31, 2009, 10:47:28 PM
The problem with cities is that by their very nature they protect against attacks by giant enemies.
No, they protect against attack by other primates. A gigantic fucking lizard loose in Chicago would be damn near impossible to stop.
The reason they protect against attacks by giant, say, lizards/bears/angry elephants/etc. is because there is no habitat here to speak of. A giant lizard in Chicago would, just like a small lizard in Chicago, end up dying of dehydration or cold within a few days. Plus it would have no reason to be near Chicago in the first place; someone would have to bring it there.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 09:34:10 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 09:04:59 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 31, 2009, 08:56:05 PM
unfortunately most of the cool life on this planet has already went extinct
:cry:
We have giant squid. And colossal squid
...Which hardly ever attack cities.
I feel ripped off.
one day hopefully we'll find a way to bring back some creatures ala Jurassic park style
and if I still have access to the DNA lab that day I'll be bringing back all sorts of weird creatures
:lulz:
This makes me want to genetically engineer some giant warmblooded carnivorous sauropods and set the loose on the great plains in family groups.
They could live on humans! Its a win-win!
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on August 31, 2009, 10:54:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 10:48:50 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on August 31, 2009, 10:47:28 PM
The problem with cities is that by their very nature they protect against attacks by giant enemies.
No, they protect against attack by other primates. A gigantic fucking lizard loose in Chicago would be damn near impossible to stop.
The reason they protect against attacks by giant, say, lizards/bears/angry elephants/etc. is because there is no habitat here to speak of. A giant lizard in Chicago would, just like a small lizard in Chicago, end up dying of dehydration or cold within a few days. Plus it would have no reason to be near Chicago in the first place; someone would have to bring it there.
Please stop fucking up my dreams with your hideous reality. :argh!:
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 31, 2009, 10:56:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 09:34:10 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 09:04:59 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 31, 2009, 08:56:05 PM
unfortunately most of the cool life on this planet has already went extinct
:cry:
We have giant squid. And colossal squid
...Which hardly ever attack cities.
I feel ripped off.
one day hopefully we'll find a way to bring back some creatures ala Jurassic park style
and if I still have access to the DNA lab that day I'll be bringing back all sorts of weird creatures
:lulz:
http://www.physorg.com/news170426405.html
QuoteAfter years spent hunting for the buried remains of prehistoric animals, a Canadian paleontologist now plans to manipulate chicken embryos to show he can create a dinosaur.
Hans Larsson, the Canada Research Chair in Macro Evolution at Montreal's McGill University, said he aims to develop dinosaur traits that disappeared millions of years ago in birds.
Larsson believes by flipping certain genetic levers during a chicken embryo's development, he can reproduce the dinosaur anatomy, he told AFP in an interview.
Though still in its infancy, the research could eventually lead to hatching live prehistoric animals, but Larsson said there are no plans for that now, for ethical and practical reasons -- a dinosaur hatchery is "too large an enterprise."
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on August 31, 2009, 11:00:07 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 31, 2009, 10:56:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 09:34:10 PM
Quote from: Kai on August 31, 2009, 09:04:59 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 31, 2009, 08:56:05 PM
unfortunately most of the cool life on this planet has already went extinct
:cry:
We have giant squid. And colossal squid
...Which hardly ever attack cities.
I feel ripped off.
one day hopefully we'll find a way to bring back some creatures ala Jurassic park style
and if I still have access to the DNA lab that day I'll be bringing back all sorts of weird creatures
:lulz:
http://www.physorg.com/news170426405.html
I just wanna say
that is not me
I swear
but I do wanna join his group
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 10:59:23 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on August 31, 2009, 10:54:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 10:48:50 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on August 31, 2009, 10:47:28 PM
The problem with cities is that by their very nature they protect against attacks by giant enemies.
No, they protect against attack by other primates. A gigantic fucking lizard loose in Chicago would be damn near impossible to stop.
The reason they protect against attacks by giant, say, lizards/bears/angry elephants/etc. is because there is no habitat here to speak of. A giant lizard in Chicago would, just like a small lizard in Chicago, end up dying of dehydration or cold within a few days. Plus it would have no reason to be near Chicago in the first place; someone would have to bring it there.
Please stop fucking up my dreams with your hideous reality. :argh!:
I have to... it's a sickness.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on August 31, 2009, 10:54:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 10:48:50 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on August 31, 2009, 10:47:28 PM
The problem with cities is that by their very nature they protect against attacks by giant enemies.
No, they protect against attack by other primates. A gigantic fucking lizard loose in Chicago would be damn near impossible to stop.
The reason they protect against attacks by giant, say, lizards/bears/angry elephants/etc. is because there is no habitat here to speak of. A giant lizard in Chicago would, just like a small lizard in Chicago, end up dying of dehydration or cold within a few days. Plus it would have no reason to be near Chicago in the first place; someone would have to bring it there.
he could just get scared and go on a rampage ala circus elephant
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on August 31, 2009, 11:03:37 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on August 31, 2009, 10:54:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on August 31, 2009, 10:48:50 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on August 31, 2009, 10:47:28 PM
The problem with cities is that by their very nature they protect against attacks by giant enemies.
No, they protect against attack by other primates. A gigantic fucking lizard loose in Chicago would be damn near impossible to stop.
The reason they protect against attacks by giant, say, lizards/bears/angry elephants/etc. is because there is no habitat here to speak of. A giant lizard in Chicago would, just like a small lizard in Chicago, end up dying of dehydration or cold within a few days. Plus it would have no reason to be near Chicago in the first place; someone would have to bring it there.
he could just get scared and go on a rampage ala circus elephant
Naw, just send in the Bears.
Apologies if this was already posted, but I can't be bothered to read seven pages just to say something clever...
Shouldn't an emergence-based religion occur on its own? :P
Quote from: Anton on September 01, 2009, 01:32:39 AM
Shouldn't an emergence-based religion occur on its own? :P
It is.
Quote from: Anton on September 01, 2009, 01:32:39 AM
Apologies if this was already posted, but I can't be bothered to read seven pages just to say something clever...
Shouldn't an emergence-based religion occur on its own? :P
It is.
Quote from: Anton on September 01, 2009, 01:37:06 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 01, 2009, 01:35:42 AM
Quote from: Anton on September 01, 2009, 01:32:39 AM
Shouldn't an emergence-based religion occur on its own? :P
It is.
Is it?
If my consciousness is an emergence system based in bio/bio connections, then I am Emergence, therefore Emergence-based religion is occurring on it's (Emergence's) own. 8) (cleverness given in return; mental masturbation, ALL OF IT)
Also, I didn't have to force these conclusions if you know what I mean.
I'm one of those weird carbon based proteinaceous beings with dioxyribonucleotide storage of genetic material. Don't know if that makes me living or not, but I'm going with "living" anyway.
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 02:56:26 AM
I'm one of those weird carbon based proteinaceous beings with dioxyribonucleotide storage of genetic material. Don't know if that makes me living or not, but I'm going with "living" anyway.
Beats the alternative. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 03:03:58 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 02:56:26 AM
I'm one of those weird carbon based proteinaceous beings with dioxyribonucleotide storage of genetic material. Don't know if that makes me living or not, but I'm going with "living" anyway.
Beats the alternative. :lulz:
Yeah. I mean, crystalline latticeworks are pretty and all, but try BEING one for a while. Must be boring as fuck.
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 03:06:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 03:03:58 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 02:56:26 AM
I'm one of those weird carbon based proteinaceous beings with dioxyribonucleotide storage of genetic material. Don't know if that makes me living or not, but I'm going with "living" anyway.
Beats the alternative. :lulz:
Yeah. I mean, crystalline latticeworks are pretty and all, but try BEING one for a while. Must be boring as fuck.
Well, that's not what I meant, but sure. My first wife was like that.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 03:07:29 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 03:06:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 03:03:58 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 02:56:26 AM
I'm one of those weird carbon based proteinaceous beings with dioxyribonucleotide storage of genetic material. Don't know if that makes me living or not, but I'm going with "living" anyway.
Beats the alternative. :lulz:
Yeah. I mean, crystalline latticeworks are pretty and all, but try BEING one for a while. Must be boring as fuck.
Well, that's not what I meant, but sure. My first wife was like that.
Just sitting around, undergoing nucleation process....eating salts and silicon....
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 03:12:20 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 03:07:29 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 03:06:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 03:03:58 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 02:56:26 AM
I'm one of those weird carbon based proteinaceous beings with dioxyribonucleotide storage of genetic material. Don't know if that makes me living or not, but I'm going with "living" anyway.
Beats the alternative. :lulz:
Yeah. I mean, crystalline latticeworks are pretty and all, but try BEING one for a while. Must be boring as fuck.
Well, that's not what I meant, but sure. My first wife was like that.
Just sitting around, undergoing nucleation process....eating salts and silicon....
Well, it's an excuse to sit on the beach.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 03:12:48 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 03:12:20 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 03:07:29 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 03:06:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 03:03:58 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 02:56:26 AM
I'm one of those weird carbon based proteinaceous beings with dioxyribonucleotide storage of genetic material. Don't know if that makes me living or not, but I'm going with "living" anyway.
Beats the alternative. :lulz:
Yeah. I mean, crystalline latticeworks are pretty and all, but try BEING one for a while. Must be boring as fuck.
Well, that's not what I meant, but sure. My first wife was like that.
Just sitting around, undergoing nucleation process....eating salts and silicon....
Well, it's an excuse to sit on the beach.
I guess so...
Anyway, no, I'm not one of those. Definitly. I mean, if you gave me one of those DoT worksheets and it had the check boxes "Are you: Living? Non-living? Deceased? Undead?" I'd definitely check the "Living" box.
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 03:17:47 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 03:12:48 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 03:12:20 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 03:07:29 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 03:06:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 03:03:58 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 02:56:26 AM
I'm one of those weird carbon based proteinaceous beings with dioxyribonucleotide storage of genetic material. Don't know if that makes me living or not, but I'm going with "living" anyway.
Beats the alternative. :lulz:
Yeah. I mean, crystalline latticeworks are pretty and all, but try BEING one for a while. Must be boring as fuck.
Well, that's not what I meant, but sure. My first wife was like that.
Just sitting around, undergoing nucleation process....eating salts and silicon....
Well, it's an excuse to sit on the beach.
I guess so...
Anyway, no, I'm not one of those. Definitly. I mean, if you gave me one of those DoT worksheets and it had the check boxes "Are you: Living? Non-living? Deceased? Undead?" I'd definitely check the "Living" box.
Me? Depends? Is there an "other" box? Actually applies in my case. :lulz:
Oh geez, I forgot! :oops:
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 03:24:15 AM
Oh geez, I forgot! :oops:
Forgot what? I'm in the same condition as any other human. It's just that I have a better idea of the how and the when.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 03:25:10 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 03:24:15 AM
Oh geez, I forgot! :oops:
Forgot what? I'm in the same condition as any other human. It's just that I have a better idea of the how and the when.
Well, rain gods need to fill out their DoT forms too. And
profits prophets. Standard bureaucratic procedure.
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 03:29:38 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 03:25:10 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 03:24:15 AM
Oh geez, I forgot! :oops:
Forgot what? I'm in the same condition as any other human. It's just that I have a better idea of the how and the when.
Well, rain gods need to fill out their DoT forms too. And profits prophets. Standard bureaucratic procedure.
Yep. But that's not what I thought you were talking about. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 03:30:28 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 03:29:38 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 03:25:10 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 03:24:15 AM
Oh geez, I forgot! :oops:
Forgot what? I'm in the same condition as any other human. It's just that I have a better idea of the how and the when.
Well, rain gods need to fill out their DoT forms too. And profits prophets. Standard bureaucratic procedure.
Yep. But that's not what I thought you were talking about. :lulz:
I always thought you'd go out in a fiery blaze of exploding toilets and propane while laughing and cursing at the same time. And then the earth would be covered by darkness for three days.
And then, rain would be different once in a while, smelling faintly of urine.
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 03:33:27 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 03:30:28 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 03:29:38 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 03:25:10 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 03:24:15 AM
Oh geez, I forgot! :oops:
Forgot what? I'm in the same condition as any other human. It's just that I have a better idea of the how and the when.
Well, rain gods need to fill out their DoT forms too. And profits prophets. Standard bureaucratic procedure.
Yep. But that's not what I thought you were talking about. :lulz:
I always thought you'd go out in a fiery blaze of exploding toilets and propane while laughing and cursing at the same time. And then the earth would be covered by darkness for three days.
And then, rain would be different once in a while, smelling faintly of urine.
You know, that's not a half-bad idea...
And thus, another apocalypse story is born...
...Getting back to the OP, and TGRR's request for a short synopsis: I'm fairly good at condensing information; I'll try to really sit down with your material and see what I can do, if that's all right with you, Kai.
Quote from: LMNO on September 01, 2009, 01:22:32 PM
And thus, another apocalypse story is born...
...Getting back to the OP, and TGRR's request for a short synopsis: I'm fairly good at condensing information; I'll try to really sit down with your material and see what I can do, if that's all right with you, Kai.
Sure. I'd appreciate that. :)
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 02:41:34 AM
Quote from: Anton on September 01, 2009, 01:37:06 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 01, 2009, 01:35:42 AM
Quote from: Anton on September 01, 2009, 01:32:39 AM
Shouldn't an emergence-based religion occur on its own? :P
It is.
Is it?
Unless Kai isn't a biological life form. Is that the position you wish to take?
Actually, if one is arguing from the standpoint of Kai as a plurality, this is easily done.
However, emergence is not specifically limited to biological (or non-biological) systems.
The position I wish to take is that "I'm making a religion based on Emergence" is contrary to the spirit of Emergence, in that it posits an independent self that is acting on the world to
construct a religion.
Quote from: Anton on September 01, 2009, 10:02:05 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 02:41:34 AM
Quote from: Anton on September 01, 2009, 01:37:06 AM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 01, 2009, 01:35:42 AM
Quote from: Anton on September 01, 2009, 01:32:39 AM
Shouldn't an emergence-based religion occur on its own? :P
It is.
Is it?
Unless Kai isn't a biological life form. Is that the position you wish to take?
Actually, if one is arguing from the standpoint of Kai as a plurality, this is easily done.
However, emergence is not specifically limited to biological (or non-biological) systems.
The position I wish to take is that "I'm making a religion based on Emergence" is contrary to the spirit of Emergence, in that it posits an independent self that is acting on the world to construct a religion.
1. We don't talk about that here.
2. I don't give a shit. You're getting annoying with your "cleverness".
Quote from: Anton on September 01, 2009, 10:02:05 PM
The position I wish to take is that "I'm making a religion based on Emergence" is contrary to the spirit of Emergence, in that it posits an independent self that is acting on the world to construct a religion.
No, it posits that we are not independent selves, but pawns of emergence. As all religions are constructed, I'm not sure how else you expect a religion to come into existence.
Are you suggesting a more appropriate construction would be for an "Emergent Bible" to appear fully formed, printed and bound, without any human interaction? That's mythical, not emergent.
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 01, 2009, 10:13:55 PM
Quote from: Anton on September 01, 2009, 10:02:05 PM
The position I wish to take is that "I'm making a religion based on Emergence" is contrary to the spirit of Emergence, in that it posits an independent self that is acting on the world to construct a religion.
No, it posits that we are not independent selves, but pawns of emergence. As all religions are constructed, I'm not sure how else you expect a religion to come into existence.
Are you suggesting a more appropriate construction would be for an "Emergent Bible" to appear fully formed, printed and bound, without any human interaction? That's mythical, not emergent.
No, it would gradually come together out of the work of many individuals, in such a way that you could not predict that the Emergent Bible was occurring by looking at affairs at the level of the individual, only by looking at the societal or cultural level.
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 01, 2009, 10:13:55 PM
Quote from: Anton on September 01, 2009, 10:02:05 PM
The position I wish to take is that "I'm making a religion based on Emergence" is contrary to the spirit of Emergence, in that it posits an independent self that is acting on the world to construct a religion.
No, it posits that we are not independent selves, but pawns of emergence. As all religions are constructed, I'm not sure how else you expect a religion to come into existence.
Are you suggesting a more appropriate construction would be for an "Emergent Bible" to appear fully formed, printed and bound, without any human interaction? That's mythical, not emergent.
Can you please quit telling people what MY religion posits and doesn't posit? PLEASE? Nowhere did I say anything about "not independent selves" or of being pawns of anything. You're putting words in my mouth.
Quote from: GA on September 01, 2009, 10:15:53 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 01, 2009, 10:13:55 PM
Quote from: Anton on September 01, 2009, 10:02:05 PM
The position I wish to take is that "I'm making a religion based on Emergence" is contrary to the spirit of Emergence, in that it posits an independent self that is acting on the world to construct a religion.
No, it posits that we are not independent selves, but pawns of emergence. As all religions are constructed, I'm not sure how else you expect a religion to come into existence.
Are you suggesting a more appropriate construction would be for an "Emergent Bible" to appear fully formed, printed and bound, without any human interaction? That's mythical, not emergent.
No, it would gradually come together out of the work of many individuals, in such a way that you could not predict that the Emergent Bible was occurring by looking at affairs at the level of the individual, only by looking at the societal or cultural level.
Who says it hasn't come together out of the work of many individuals? I'm not working in a vacuum here.
Quote from: Jesus Christ, 2000 years ago
Can you please quit telling people what MY religion posits and doesn't posit? PLEASE?
It's deja vu all over again! :lol:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 10:19:34 PM
Quote from: Jesus Christ, 2000 years ago
Can you please quit telling people what MY religion posits and doesn't posit? PLEASE?
It's deja vu all over again! :lol:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 10:21:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 10:19:34 PM
Quote from: Jesus Christ, 2000 years ago
Can you please quit telling people what MY religion posits and doesn't posit? PLEASE?
It's deja vu all over again! :lol:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
My only mistake last page was assuming it would take 300 years for this to happen. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 10:23:13 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 10:21:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 10:19:34 PM
Quote from: Jesus Christ, 2000 years ago
Can you please quit telling people what MY religion posits and doesn't posit? PLEASE?
It's deja vu all over again! :lol:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
My only mistake last page was assuming it would take 300 years for this to happen. :lulz:
To be fair, it IS fictionpuss.
MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEMEMEME MEMEMEME MEMEMEME MEMEMEME MEMEMEME MEMEMEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEMEMEME MEME MEME MEME
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 10:17:17 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 01, 2009, 10:13:55 PM
Quote from: Anton on September 01, 2009, 10:02:05 PM
The position I wish to take is that "I'm making a religion based on Emergence" is contrary to the spirit of Emergence, in that it posits an independent self that is acting on the world to construct a religion.
No, it posits that we are not independent selves, but pawns of emergence. As all religions are constructed, I'm not sure how else you expect a religion to come into existence.
Are you suggesting a more appropriate construction would be for an "Emergent Bible" to appear fully formed, printed and bound, without any human interaction? That's mythical, not emergent.
Can you please quit telling people what MY religion posits and doesn't posit? PLEASE? Nowhere did I say anything about "not independent selves" or of being pawns of anything. You're putting words in my mouth.
Fine! Then I'm making an offshoot religion based upon your religion based upon emergence. Religious Schism FTW.
:jihaad:
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 10:25:10 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 10:23:13 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 10:21:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 10:19:34 PM
Quote from: Jesus Christ, 2000 years ago
Can you please quit telling people what MY religion posits and doesn't posit? PLEASE?
It's deja vu all over again! :lol:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
My only mistake last page was assuming it would take 300 years for this to happen. :lulz:
To be fair, it IS fictionpuss.
MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEMEMEME MEMEMEME MEMEMEME MEMEMEME MEMEMEME MEMEMEME MEME MEME MEME MEME MEMEMEME MEME MEME MEME
And Anton. Either one could be the next Paul of Tarsus.
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 01, 2009, 10:25:47 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 10:17:17 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 01, 2009, 10:13:55 PM
Quote from: Anton on September 01, 2009, 10:02:05 PM
The position I wish to take is that "I'm making a religion based on Emergence" is contrary to the spirit of Emergence, in that it posits an independent self that is acting on the world to construct a religion.
No, it posits that we are not independent selves, but pawns of emergence. As all religions are constructed, I'm not sure how else you expect a religion to come into existence.
Are you suggesting a more appropriate construction would be for an "Emergent Bible" to appear fully formed, printed and bound, without any human interaction? That's mythical, not emergent.
Can you please quit telling people what MY religion posits and doesn't posit? PLEASE? Nowhere did I say anything about "not independent selves" or of being pawns of anything. You're putting words in my mouth.
Fine! Then I'm making an offshoot religion based upon your religion based upon emergence. Religious Schism FTW.
:jihaad:
Sounds like we need an inquisition to put a stop to these heretical offshoots.
I laugh at your emergent inquisition.
Quote from: Anton on September 01, 2009, 10:27:28 PM
I laugh at your emergent inquisition.
You'll be laughing out the other side of your neck, heretic.
Remember the Gnostics? Neither do I.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 10:29:14 PM
Quote from: Anton on September 01, 2009, 10:27:28 PM
I laugh at your emergent inquisition.
You'll be laughing out the other side of your neck, heretic.
Remember the Gnostics? Neither do I.
Precisely - inquisitions were the brainchild of the heretical offshoots.
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 01, 2009, 10:25:47 PM
Fine! Then I'm making an offshoot religion based upon your religion based upon emergence. Religious Schism FTW.
:jihaad:
Okay. Except everything I've written about Sustaining is copyright. Where reference to previous sources is due, I have given it. That means you can't use The Process of Sustaining, The Progenitor, or Emergence as the creative metaforce without my permission.
Good luck trying to come up with different material as coherent, whole and fulfilling as mine.
Kai,
Knows Jesus wishes he had copyright.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 10:29:14 PM
Quote from: Anton on September 01, 2009, 10:27:28 PM
I laugh at your emergent inquisition.
You'll be laughing out the other side of your neck, heretic.
Remember the Gnostics? Neither do I.
Ha! I will launch an attack upon the Orthodoxy with an army of Jeff Goldblum clones before it has its emergent pants on!
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 01, 2009, 10:32:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 10:29:14 PM
Quote from: Anton on September 01, 2009, 10:27:28 PM
I laugh at your emergent inquisition.
You'll be laughing out the other side of your neck, heretic.
Remember the Gnostics? Neither do I.
Precisely - inquisitions were the brainchild of the heretical offshoots.
WTF?
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 10:34:47 PM
Knows Jesus wishes he had copyright.
History class would have been boring, though.
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 10:38:04 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 10:36:46 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 10:34:47 PM
Knows Jesus wishes he had copyright.
History class would have been boring, though.
All those wars avoided and all.
Blarg. It would have read like the more boring parts of Livy, without all the cool stuff.
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 10:34:47 PM
Okay. Except everything I've written about Sustaining is copyright. Where reference to previous sources is due, I have given it. That means you can't use The Process of Sustaining, The Progenitor, or Emergence as the creative metaforce without my permission.
Good luck trying to come up with different material as coherent, whole and fulfilling as mine.
Kai,
Knows Jesus wishes he had copyright.
You can copyright text, but you can't copyright a concept.
ITT: EMERGENT SERIOUS BUSINESS
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 01, 2009, 10:39:04 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 10:34:47 PM
Okay. Except everything I've written about Sustaining is copyright. Where reference to previous sources is due, I have given it. That means you can't use The Process of Sustaining, The Progenitor, or Emergence as the creative metaforce without my permission.
Good luck trying to come up with different material as coherent, whole and fulfilling as mine.
Kai,
Knows Jesus wishes he had copyright.
You can copyright text, but you can't copyright a concept.
I can force you to quit misrepresenting me though.
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 01, 2009, 10:39:04 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 10:34:47 PM
Okay. Except everything I've written about Sustaining is copyright. Where reference to previous sources is due, I have given it. That means you can't use The Process of Sustaining, The Progenitor, or Emergence as the creative metaforce without my permission.
Good luck trying to come up with different material as coherent, whole and fulfilling as mine.
Kai,
Knows Jesus wishes he had copyright.
You can copyright text, but you can't copyright a concept.
Good luck writing down the concept without using the copyrighted text. Also, trademarking is fun, and the only actual proof of original authorship is having the earliest verifiable date/time stamping.
Quote from: Anton on September 01, 2009, 10:39:42 PM
ITT: EMERGENT SERIOUS BUSINESS
ITT: SENSELESS THREADJACK BY A 3RD RATE TROLL.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 10:41:48 PM
Quote from: Anton on September 01, 2009, 10:39:42 PM
ITT: EMERGENT SERIOUS BUSINESS
ITT: SENSELESS THREADJACK BY A 3RD RATE TROLL.
ITT: SELF-CONGRATULATORY PSEUDOINTELLECTUAL FAPPERY
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 10:40:00 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 01, 2009, 10:39:04 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 10:34:47 PM
Okay. Except everything I've written about Sustaining is copyright. Where reference to previous sources is due, I have given it. That means you can't use The Process of Sustaining, The Progenitor, or Emergence as the creative metaforce without my permission.
Good luck trying to come up with different material as coherent, whole and fulfilling as mine.
Kai,
Knows Jesus wishes he had copyright.
You can copyright text, but you can't copyright a concept.
I can force you to quit misrepresenting me though.
I think what Kai means to say here is that he took my interpretation of emergence as somehow being his religious canon.
Kai, let me know when you want the topic split.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 10:41:01 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 01, 2009, 10:39:04 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 10:34:47 PM
Okay. Except everything I've written about Sustaining is copyright. Where reference to previous sources is due, I have given it. That means you can't use The Process of Sustaining, The Progenitor, or Emergence as the creative metaforce without my permission.
Good luck trying to come up with different material as coherent, whole and fulfilling as mine.
Kai,
Knows Jesus wishes he had copyright.
You can copyright text, but you can't copyright a concept.
Good luck writing down the concept without using the copyrighted text. Also, trademarking is fun, and the only actual proof of original authorship is having the earliest verifiable date/time stamping.
Which I have. Earliest date/time for The Process of Sustaining is June, 2006.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 10:44:24 PM
Kai, let me know when you want the topic split.
Thanks. I'm just sorta running with this for now. I figure this thread is a long term topic so more or less immune to destructive threadjack in the long term.
Quote from: fictionpuss
I think what Kai means to say here is that he took my interpretation of emergence as somehow being his religious canon.
No, what I was saying was I don't want you misrepresenting what I was saying. Which you were, and have, SEVERAL times in this thread.
The post starting with:
QuoteNo, it posits...
being the most recent offense.
In other words, I'LL answer for what I wrote.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 10:36:01 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 01, 2009, 10:32:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 10:29:14 PM
Quote from: Anton on September 01, 2009, 10:27:28 PM
I laugh at your emergent inquisition.
You'll be laughing out the other side of your neck, heretic.
Remember the Gnostics? Neither do I.
Precisely - inquisitions were the brainchild of the heretical offshoots.
WTF?
The only way this makes sense is that the Catholic Church is a heresy against the original teachings of Christ.
Quote from: LMNO on September 01, 2009, 10:54:39 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 10:36:01 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 01, 2009, 10:32:03 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 01, 2009, 10:29:14 PM
Quote from: Anton on September 01, 2009, 10:27:28 PM
I laugh at your emergent inquisition.
You'll be laughing out the other side of your neck, heretic.
Remember the Gnostics? Neither do I.
Precisely - inquisitions were the brainchild of the heretical offshoots.
WTF?
The only way this makes sense is that the Catholic Church is a heresy against the original teachings of Christ.
Not even then. It's more like he was saying that the Gnostics exterminated themselves.
[insert suicide cult joke here]
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 10:53:32 PM
No, what I was saying was I don't want you misrepresenting what I was saying. Which you were, and have, SEVERAL times in this thread.
The post starting with:
QuoteNo, it posits...
being the most recent offense.
In other words, I'LL answer for what I wrote.
Anton was referencing basic emergent theory in his position, and I was replying in those terms.
Look, I'm sorry this upset you. I do think you are over-reacting though, as no-one is likely to confuse my interpretation of emergence, with your thoughts on a religion based upon emergence.
Please don't try to tell me that I can't make a posit based upon standard emergent theory though, just because you've started making a religion based upon it.
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 01, 2009, 11:02:32 PM
Look, I'm sorry this upset you. I do think you are over-reacting though, as no-one is likely to confuse my interpretation of emergence, with your thoughts on a religion based upon emergence.
I am, given that I have no fucking clue what emergence is.
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 01, 2009, 11:02:32 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 10:53:32 PM
No, what I was saying was I don't want you misrepresenting what I was saying. Which you were, and have, SEVERAL times in this thread.
The post starting with:
QuoteNo, it posits...
being the most recent offense.
In other words, I'LL answer for what I wrote.
Anton was referencing basic emergent theory in his position, and I was replying in those terms.
Look, I'm sorry this upset you. I do think you are over-reacting though, as no-one is likely to confuse my interpretation of emergence, with your thoughts on a religion based upon emergence.
Please don't try to tell me that I can't make a posit based upon standard emergent theory though, just because you've started making a religion based upon it.
Being as you don't have a fucking clue about emergence theory, I can attack you on other grounds as well. For example, nowhere in emergence theory is the claim that people are pawns to emergence, nor is there any talk of people not having independent selves.
Emergence is, stated simply, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It's an anti reductionist hypothesis about systems. Emergence occurs when you have a large number of similar parts in close proximity and interaction. The resulting system of interaction is such that it cannot be completely explained by the activities of one part of the whole system. The resulting system is emergent because it's properties are different than the system it emerges from. With this comes creative novelity. In biology, the whole of all the processes comes from a simple strand of phosphates and ribose sugars joined to a sequence of nucleic acids, just four base pairs (the four being uracil or thymine), coding for only 20 amino acids present in the environment which then provide the structure for all life. Life gos so far and above chemistry as a whole of intermolecular networks of interactions that it is emergent from chemistry, the whole only makes sense as a whole, the individual units cannot explain the creative output of the whole system.
Also, just so you know, Emergence didn't come into the picture till last year. I've been talking about The Process of Sustaining for over 3 years now, with incorporation of emergence theory (with great results) happening only recently.
Another part of emergence theory is that reductionism can't predict the creative output of emergent systems. Try as you may, you can't predict, for example, the heart, via just physics. You'd have to work from the level of living organisms to understand the function of the heart. Another example is fluid dynamics. You can't determine fluid dynamics from the properties of one molecule of the fluid. The equations of fluid dynamics can't even be derived from atomic physics. This is molecules interacting with molecules, chemical emergence.
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 11:31:54 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 01, 2009, 11:02:32 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 10:53:32 PM
No, what I was saying was I don't want you misrepresenting what I was saying. Which you were, and have, SEVERAL times in this thread.
The post starting with:
QuoteNo, it posits...
being the most recent offense.
In other words, I'LL answer for what I wrote.
Anton was referencing basic emergent theory in his position, and I was replying in those terms.
Look, I'm sorry this upset you. I do think you are over-reacting though, as no-one is likely to confuse my interpretation of emergence, with your thoughts on a religion based upon emergence.
Please don't try to tell me that I can't make a posit based upon standard emergent theory though, just because you've started making a religion based upon it.
Being as you don't have a fucking clue about emergence theory,
:hosrie:
Jebus, what crawled up your crotch?
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 11:31:54 PM
I can attack you on other grounds as well. For example, nowhere in emergence theory is the claim that people are pawns to emergence, nor is there any talk of people not having independent selves.
Anton invoked the perspective where a religion based upon emergence was stated to exist, its own creation determined by emergence as the "creative metaforce" in this universe. In that case, humans - as part of the emergent system which created that religion - cannot have accurately predicted or controlled the process, and can be considered 'pawns' from the perspective of that external domain.
In other words, they are 'pawns' because their individual actions are just part of a subset of a large potential set of interactions which have the same outcome - a vague definition of "a religion based upon emergence".
From the internal perspective of any one of these individual processes the individuals may indeed have "free will" or not, but it is entirely irrelevant as that's not the perspective or domain which was being discussed.
Honestly though, I think he was stringing out his joke as neither his point, nor my rebuttal, seem controversial.
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 11:31:54 PM
Emergence is, stated simply, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It's an anti reductionist hypothesis about systems. Emergence occurs when you have a large number of similar parts in close proximity and interaction. The resulting system of interaction is such that it cannot be completely explained by the activities of one part of the whole system. The resulting system is emergent because it's properties are different than the system it emerges from. With this comes creative novelity.
I know this. I live and breathe this. I've been viewing the world through this lens for over a decade now. I'm not sure why you feel the need to put me down just because I don't always use the same terms as you.
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 11:31:54 PM
Also, just so you know, Emergence didn't come into the picture till last year. I've been talking about The Process of Sustaining for over 3 years now, with incorporation of emergence theory (with great results) happening only recently.
If I take the time to read that are you going to attack me with the same vigour as I work through a process of understanding it?
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 11:31:54 PM
Being as you don't have a fucking clue about emergence theory, I can attack you on other grounds as well.
BUT WHY DO WE HAVE TO FIGHT? :cry:
Pawns indicates some sort of control.
I don't think you would ascribe control to a non-physical impersonal metaentity, not even an entity, and metaforce, not even a physically real force.
Quote from: Kai on September 02, 2009, 01:43:42 AM
Pawns indicates some sort of control.
I don't think you would ascribe control to a non-physical impersonal metaentity, not even an entity, and metaforce, not even a physically real force.
I see what you mean, and I agree with you. What I was talking about was the solution space where every possibility was mapped out, so while an individuals actions would be defined on any particular path, they can only be described as 'pawns' if you introduce a narrative element, which I am prone to do. Confusing things.
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 02, 2009, 01:59:21 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 02, 2009, 01:43:42 AM
Pawns indicates some sort of control.
I don't think you would ascribe control to a non-physical impersonal metaentity, not even an entity, and metaforce, not even a physically real force.
I see what you mean, and I agree with you. What I was talking about was the solution space where every possibility was mapped out, so while an individuals actions would be defined on any particular path, they can only be described as 'pawns' if you introduce a narrative element, which I am prone to do. Confusing things.
Well, I think the whole idea is that nothing is mapped out. Emergence changes a deterministic, static universe into a dynamic creative one. The increase in complexity allows for novel randomness.
I really like the term "irreducible complexity", but since the creationists took it over it feels dirty. Maybe I should re-coup it.
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 02, 2009, 01:18:03 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 11:31:54 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 01, 2009, 11:02:32 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 10:53:32 PM
No, what I was saying was I don't want you misrepresenting what I was saying. Which you were, and have, SEVERAL times in this thread.
The post starting with:
QuoteNo, it posits...
being the most recent offense.
In other words, I'LL answer for what I wrote.
Anton was referencing basic emergent theory in his position, and I was replying in those terms.
Look, I'm sorry this upset you. I do think you are over-reacting though, as no-one is likely to confuse my interpretation of emergence, with your thoughts on a religion based upon emergence.
Please don't try to tell me that I can't make a posit based upon standard emergent theory though, just because you've started making a religion based upon it.
Being as you don't have a fucking clue about emergence theory,
:hosrie:
Jebus, what crawled up your crotch?
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 11:31:54 PM
I can attack you on other grounds as well. For example, nowhere in emergence theory is the claim that people are pawns to emergence, nor is there any talk of people not having independent selves.
Anton invoked the perspective where a religion based upon emergence was stated to exist, its own creation determined by emergence as the "creative metaforce" in this universe. In that case, humans - as part of the emergent system which created that religion - cannot have accurately predicted or controlled the process, and can be considered 'pawns' from the perspective of that external domain.
In other words, they are 'pawns' because their individual actions are just part of a subset of a large potential set of interactions which have the same outcome - a vague definition of "a religion based upon emergence".
From the internal perspective of any one of these individual processes the individuals may indeed have "free will" or not, but it is entirely irrelevant as that's not the perspective or domain which was being discussed.
Honestly though, I think he was stringing out his joke as neither his point, nor my rebuttal, seem controversial.
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 11:31:54 PM
Emergence is, stated simply, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It's an anti reductionist hypothesis about systems. Emergence occurs when you have a large number of similar parts in close proximity and interaction. The resulting system of interaction is such that it cannot be completely explained by the activities of one part of the whole system. The resulting system is emergent because it's properties are different than the system it emerges from. With this comes creative novelity.
I know this. I live and breathe this. I've been viewing the world through this lens for over a decade now. I'm not sure why you feel the need to put me down just because I don't always use the same terms as you.
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 11:31:54 PM
Also, just so you know, Emergence didn't come into the picture till last year. I've been talking about The Process of Sustaining for over 3 years now, with incorporation of emergence theory (with great results) happening only recently.
If I take the time to read that are you going to attack me with the same vigour as I work through a process of understanding it?
-10,000 points for incorrect use of magickal hosrie.
Quote from: Kai on September 01, 2009, 10:19:18 PM
Quote from: GA on September 01, 2009, 10:15:53 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 01, 2009, 10:13:55 PM
Quote from: Anton on September 01, 2009, 10:02:05 PM
The position I wish to take is that "I'm making a religion based on Emergence" is contrary to the spirit of Emergence, in that it posits an independent self that is acting on the world to construct a religion.
No, it posits that we are not independent selves, but pawns of emergence. As all religions are constructed, I'm not sure how else you expect a religion to come into existence.
Are you suggesting a more appropriate construction would be for an "Emergent Bible" to appear fully formed, printed and bound, without any human interaction? That's mythical, not emergent.
No, it would gradually come together out of the work of many individuals, in such a way that you could not predict that the Emergent Bible was occurring by looking at affairs at the level of the individual, only by looking at the societal or cultural level.
Who says it hasn't come together out of the work of many individuals? I'm not working in a vacuum here.
Certainly not me. (just want to distance myself from fictokitty.)
out before flamewar proper starts
i think he flamewar just been cooled a bit. which I am glad for, cause it's a cool subject that doesnt gain much from bickering. after all, it's a new religion based on emergence, not Discord ;-)
Hey Kai, the term has been mangled beyond recognition these days, and I hesitate to use it with Ben Mack so close by, but what you're talking about seems to have a mild similarity to what Buckminster Fuller called "synergy".
Quote from: LMNO on September 02, 2009, 12:55:58 PM
Hey Kai, the term has been mangled beyond recognition these days, and I hesitate to use it with Ben Mack so close by, but what you're talking about seems to have a mild similarity to what Buckminster Fuller called "synergy".
Synergy is a term that I have seen used in relation to emergence theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence)
There some interesting terms in that article that I've not seen before:
categorical novum: a property that is not contained in the individual parts of the system but is a property of a system as a whole; an irreducible emergence property.
Unintended consequence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequence): the result of a particular action that was not the intended results (ie serendipity, murphy's law).
Fallacy of Division (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division): "when one reasons logically that if something is true of a thing it must be true of all or some of its parts" (ie individual neurons do not possess consciousness).
Weak Emergence: Where the emergent property is reducible to its individual parts, and the property is a model that is needed to describe a system's behavior.
Strong Emergence: Where the emergent property is not reducible to its individual parts (and therefore a
categorical novum). This is the type of emergence I've been using, and the way S Kauffman uses the term in Reinventing the Sacred.
QuoteAlong that same thought, Arthur Koestler stated, "it is the synergistic effects produced by wholes that are the very cause of the evolution of complexity in nature" and used the metaphor of Janus to illustrate how the two perspectives (strong or holistic vs. weak or reductionistic) should be treated as perspectives, not exclusives, and should work together to address the issues of emergence.(Koestler 1969)
There the term synergy is used.
Also, another nice quote:
QuoteThe ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe..The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties of scale and complexity. At each level of complexity entirely new properties appear. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry. We can now see that the whole becomes not merely more, but very different from the sum of its parts.
Emergentism: "the belief in emergence, particularly as it involves consciousness and the philosophy of mind, and as it contrasts (or not) with reductionism"
There's also the section about first second and third order emergence structures, which is similar to what I mean by emergence level but not the same.
There also seems to be an echo of some parts of Godel Escher Bach... Aunt Hill, for example; or the bits about what it is that happens between the neuron and the appearance of "mind".
Quote from: LMNO on September 02, 2009, 02:35:17 PM
There also seems to be an echo of some parts of Godel Escher Bach... Aunt Hill, for example; or the bits about what it is that happens between the neuron and the appearance of "mind".
I still need to read both that and I Am A Strange Loop.
Also, holy shit a lot of stuff to read, going back to Aristotle and even Chuangtse said something about spontaneous order. "Good order results spontaneously when things are let alone." Almost every era has had at least one person thinking and writing about emergence, self-organization and/or spontaneous order.
PRECEDENT!
Quote from: LMNO on September 02, 2009, 02:55:08 PM
PRECEDENT!
What do you mean by that?
You mean, recognition due to precedence?
More like you're probably on to something, if others have also given it some thought.
Quote from: LMNO on September 02, 2009, 03:03:13 PM
More like you're probably on to something, if others have also given it some thought.
Even if I look at religious naturalism, which is a more recent phenomenon, I can draw roots back to Spinoza and his naturalistic pantheism. Thats more than 400 years of history alone.
Quote from: GA on August 31, 2009, 01:28:17 AM
2. I'm not saying we should seek out unfavored energy states. To do so is foolish, stupid, and a misuse of our potential energy. Since we can undergo decomposition, everything points to breaking chemical bonds. There is a difference between respecting temporary high-energy states, and greedily clinging to them. All order works for the increase of universal entropy.
Okay, I see what you're saying now. The answer is no, and the reasons are threefold.
1. Strong Emergence is irreducible. That means different emergence systems have different
categorical nova and are not equivalent. Biology is not equatable to chemistry. All arrows do not point down.
2. Emergence systems have properties of coherence and correlation. They are sustained over periods of time. This points to an at least temporary limitation of entropy.
3. Death actually sustains a higher emergence system, ecology. I'm not willing to go as far as supervenience, but I do think that The Process is what sustains the diversity of life on this planet over the long term.
Topic split, Kai.
Thanks.
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2009, 01:15:26 PM
Quote from: GA on August 31, 2009, 01:28:17 AM
2. I'm not saying we should seek out unfavored energy states. To do so is foolish, stupid, and a misuse of our potential energy. Since we can undergo decomposition, everything points to breaking chemical bonds. There is a difference between respecting temporary high-energy states, and greedily clinging to them. All order works for the increase of universal entropy.
Okay, I see what you're saying now. The answer is no, and the reasons are threefold.
1. Strong Emergence is irreducible. That means different emergence systems have different categorical nova and are not equivalent. Biology is not equatable to chemistry. All arrows do not point down.
2. Emergence systems have properties of coherence and correlation. They are sustained over periods of time. This points to an at least temporary limitation of entropy.
3. Death actually sustains a higher emergence system, ecology. I'm not willing to go as far as supervenience, but I do think that The Process is what sustains the diversity of life on this planet over the long term.
I guess what I don't understand in general is how you (seem?) to be taking descriptive statements about how the world works (emergent systems) and turning them into normative statements. Emergent systems
are sustained over periods of time => Emergent systems
should be sustained over periods of time. (Or is that not what you're saying? I'm having trouble parsing you, although that's probably at my end.)
To specific point number 1 - Chemistry is not essential to that argument. It could just as easily be that we should hurry up and get eaten by our natural predators and/or be recycled by fungus and/or be a host to as many bacteria as possible.
Thinking a little more, it seems that (at least in the case of humans) we're capable of supporting more than one emergent system. Emergent culture, emergent economics, emergent nations, emergent ecosystems, if not more. But the three are at least slightly mutually exclusive - if we don't limit our economics, we'll end up converting all of Earth into raw materials and eventually waste storage, which would eventually destroy the ecosystem as we know it. (Or would you submit that the ecosystem of Mr. Rumpke is just as valuable as an ecosystem anywhere else?) Nations can find themselves in serious trouble if the culture of their constituents changes to something not conducive to social harmony (or at least, China thinks it will.) And if culture shifts to being favorable of war, bad things happen to every system. Humans are like the proverbial bull in a china shop, unable to move without breaking
something.
It's a completely selfish attempt to stave off destroying ourselves.
There, are you happy now?
Quote from: Kai on September 18, 2009, 12:24:54 AM
It's a completely selfish attempt to stave off destroying ourselves.
There, are you happy now?
Who's "ourselves?" The remaining 1/12 woud be better off if the right 11/12ths died.
..."right 11/12ths" [sic]? Who dat?
Everyone except the dolphins, naturally.
Quote from: GA on September 20, 2009, 05:40:33 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 18, 2009, 12:24:54 AM
It's a completely selfish attempt to stave off destroying ourselves.
There, are you happy now?
Who's "ourselves?" The remaining 1/12 woud be better off if the right 11/12ths died.
As funny as I think Bhode's argument was, it doesn't belong here.
Quote from: Kai on September 20, 2009, 12:56:53 PM
Quote from: GA on September 20, 2009, 05:40:33 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 18, 2009, 12:24:54 AM
It's a completely selfish attempt to stave off destroying ourselves.
There, are you happy now?
Who's "ourselves?" The remaining 1/12 would be better off if the right 11/12ths died.
As funny as I think Bhode's argument was, it doesn't belong here.
Why doesn't it belong?
From a purely selfish standpoint, if one segment of people could do better without all the other people, they should eliminate the others. The biggest competitor for resources is almost always a member of the same species; humans are no exception. If the right mix of farmers, laborers, scientists, engineers, etc were the only ones left on earth, they could have a higher standard of living simply by virtue of having more resources than people and not having to worry about wars with other social groups.
If you want
all humanity to work together for the benefit of all humanity, that's a non-trivial assertion. Why should I work for all humanity when I could just work for those humans I happen to like instead?
I would agree with you, except it would make me an /unfunny ASSHOLE/.
Quote from: Kai on September 20, 2009, 06:31:00 PM
I would agree with you, except it would make me an /unfunny ASSHOLE/.
So your religion is essentially just to promote a self image which you like?
In which case, what determines what self images you find acceptable?
Quote from: GA on September 20, 2009, 06:38:33 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 20, 2009, 06:31:00 PM
I would agree with you, except it would make me an /unfunny ASSHOLE/.
So your religion is essentially just to promote a self image which you like?
In which case, what determines what self images you find acceptable?
Roger, and his mind control lazers.
Quote from: Kai on September 20, 2009, 06:41:30 PM
Quote from: GA on September 20, 2009, 06:38:33 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 20, 2009, 06:31:00 PM
I would agree with you, except it would make me an /unfunny ASSHOLE/.
So your religion is essentially just to promote a self image which you like?
In which case, what determines what self images you find acceptable?
Roger, and his mind control lazers.
I find your lack of original content disturbing.
Quote from: GA on September 20, 2009, 06:42:12 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 20, 2009, 06:41:30 PM
Quote from: GA on September 20, 2009, 06:38:33 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 20, 2009, 06:31:00 PM
I would agree with you, except it would make me an /unfunny ASSHOLE/.
So your religion is essentially just to promote a self image which you like?
In which case, what determines what self images you find acceptable?
Roger, and his mind control lazers.
I find your lack of original content disturbing.
I stopped taking you seriously when you started spouting "11/12ths".
Quote from: Kai on September 20, 2009, 06:44:08 PM
Quote from: GA on September 20, 2009, 06:42:12 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 20, 2009, 06:41:30 PM
Quote from: GA on September 20, 2009, 06:38:33 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 20, 2009, 06:31:00 PM
I would agree with you, except it would make me an /unfunny ASSHOLE/.
So your religion is essentially just to promote a self image which you like?
In which case, what determines what self images you find acceptable?
Roger, and his mind control lazers.
I find your lack of original content disturbing.
I stopped taking you seriously when you started spouting "11/12ths".
I was being serious, though.
Quote from: GA on September 20, 2009, 06:46:10 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 20, 2009, 06:44:08 PM
Quote from: GA on September 20, 2009, 06:42:12 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 20, 2009, 06:41:30 PM
Quote from: GA on September 20, 2009, 06:38:33 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 20, 2009, 06:31:00 PM
I would agree with you, except it would make me an /unfunny ASSHOLE/.
So your religion is essentially just to promote a self image which you like?
In which case, what determines what self images you find acceptable?
That Bhodes for you.
Roger, and his mind control lazers.
I find your lack of original content disturbing.
I stopped taking you seriously when you started spouting "11/12ths".
I was being serious, though.
I went back and reread the thread (or at least most of it that contained content) and I think I can better clarify my position/questions.
So, being aware of the emergent systems will inspire respect and awe for the systems we're a part of, and our realization of our place in the universe will help us to stop trying to be greedy selfish bastards trying to use up everything for ourselves to avoid death and such - the "taking without giving." (Please tell me if I'm misunderstanding that - if I am then most of my posts here are coming from a misunderstanding.)
This is probably my individualistic bias showing through: but so what? Yes, I'm a part of this big awesome system (several big awesome systems, actually, some of which are the part of other big awesome systems) and in fact I even contain several big awesome systems, but why should I care? Why shouldn't I keep taking what I can get away with and only give when it's convenient or helps me too?
Maybe I'm just one of those people who lost or never had proper respect for nature and communion, but the fact that the world is bigger than I am just doesn't do anything for me. I still want to understand as many parts of it as I can, I still want feel joy and love before I die, I still want that heady feel of power when you figure out how something works well enough to control it. The fact that the world will keep spinning after I'm gone doesn't really help there - if anything it makes me want to do something huge and crazy so I'll be remembered for longer. I have a place in the universe. So what? Maybe I want a different place in the universe.
Quote from: GA on September 20, 2009, 07:18:28 PM
I went back and reread the thread (or at least most of it that contained content) and I think I can better clarify my position/questions.
So, being aware of the emergent systems will inspire respect and awe for the systems we're a part of, and our realization of our place in the universe will help us to stop trying to be greedy selfish bastards trying to use up everything for ourselves to avoid death and such - the "taking without giving." (Please tell me if I'm misunderstanding that - if I am then most of my posts here are coming from a misunderstanding.)
This is probably my individualistic bias showing through: but so what? Yes, I'm a part of this big awesome system (several big awesome systems, actually, some of which are the part of other big awesome systems) and in fact I even contain several big awesome systems, but why should I care? Why shouldn't I keep taking what I can get away with and only give when it's convenient or helps me too?
Maybe I'm just one of those people who lost or never had proper respect for nature and communion, but the fact that the world is bigger than I am just doesn't do anything for me. I still want to understand as many parts of it as I can, I still want feel joy and love before I die, I still want that heady feel of power when you figure out how something works well enough to control it. The fact that the world will keep spinning after I'm gone doesn't really help there - if anything it makes me want to do something huge and crazy so I'll be remembered for longer. I have a place in the universe. So what? Maybe I want a different place in the universe.
This would only be an issue if I was stuck in the Emergence/Process of Sustaining reality filter 24/7. I'm not.
Kai,
Is one of those people who can switch reality filters at will. Useful.
So your religion does have problems, but only if you sincerely believe in it? :?
I've read this thread twice, and I still don't understand the basic premise.
TGRR,
Dumb as a stump.
Without delving too deeply into the text (sorry Kai. I swear it's in the queue), I understand it to be that if a large amount of one-process "things" get together, a new process will spontaneously emerge.
how many times has this thread been split so far ??
i have a theory...
if you start a thread on the creation of a religion based on emergence the individual posts will get together, and a "trolled thread' will spontaneously emerge.. :wink:
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: LMNO on September 21, 2009, 06:57:47 PM
Without delving too deeply into the text (sorry Kai. I swear it's in the queue), I understand it to be that if a large amount of one-process "things" get together, a new process will spontaneously emerge.
Sort of like the Department of Motor Vehicles? That's when you smash 300 functionaries into one building, and they spontaneously generate new and largely undocumented processes?
I'm gonna say, "kinda", but since I'm not the expert on this, I'll leave it to Kai to spit his coffee on his keyboard.
Quote from: LMNO on September 21, 2009, 07:48:16 PM
I'm gonna say, "kinda", but since I'm not the expert on this, I'll leave it to Kai to spit his coffee on his keyboard.
You have to examine these sorts of things. People like Jesus and James Madison counted on common sense, and we all know the results.
I just sorta want to let the thread die a quiet death at this point.
I get these ideas sometimes. I bring them here and run with them. People here are good at what they do, which is tearing things apart to see how they work.
Then I walk away with a better understanding of what I was talking about.
Maybe I'll actually get the courage to make an Emergence religion someday.
eristic destruction ITT
Quote from: Kai on September 22, 2009, 03:51:29 AM
I just sorta want to let the thread die a quiet death at this point.
I get these ideas sometimes. I bring them here and run with them. People here are good at what they do, which is tearing things apart to see how they work.
Then I walk away with a better understanding of what I was talking about.
Maybe I'll actually get the courage to make an Emergence religion someday.
Cowboy up, Kai. You aren't going to let MONKEYS shove you around, are you?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 04:34:28 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 22, 2009, 03:51:29 AM
I just sorta want to let the thread die a quiet death at this point.
I get these ideas sometimes. I bring them here and run with them. People here are good at what they do, which is tearing things apart to see how they work.
Then I walk away with a better understanding of what I was talking about.
Maybe I'll actually get the courage to make an Emergence religion someday.
Cowboy up, Kai. You aren't going to let MONKEYS shove you around, are you?
The monkeys around here are a bit more imposing than the majority of the population.
Quote from: Kai on September 22, 2009, 05:27:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 04:34:28 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 22, 2009, 03:51:29 AM
I just sorta want to let the thread die a quiet death at this point.
I get these ideas sometimes. I bring them here and run with them. People here are good at what they do, which is tearing things apart to see how they work.
Then I walk away with a better understanding of what I was talking about.
Maybe I'll actually get the courage to make an Emergence religion someday.
Cowboy up, Kai. You aren't going to let MONKEYS shove you around, are you?
The monkeys around here are a bit more imposing than the majority of the population.
So what? It's still just chest thumping.
It's only a bit louder here.
Wake the fuck up. Their opinions are not your reality.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 05:28:44 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 22, 2009, 05:27:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 04:34:28 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 22, 2009, 03:51:29 AM
I just sorta want to let the thread die a quiet death at this point.
I get these ideas sometimes. I bring them here and run with them. People here are good at what they do, which is tearing things apart to see how they work.
Then I walk away with a better understanding of what I was talking about.
Maybe I'll actually get the courage to make an Emergence religion someday.
Cowboy up, Kai. You aren't going to let MONKEYS shove you around, are you?
The monkeys around here are a bit more imposing than the majority of the population.
So what? It's still just chest thumping.
It's only a bit louder here.
Wake the fuck up. Their opinions are not your reality.
This is the correct monkey motorcycle.
We have good and loud opinions here, but they're still just opinions.
(http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb163/wompcabal/forum/youropinionmanlebowski.jpg)
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 05:28:44 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 22, 2009, 05:27:12 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 04:34:28 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 22, 2009, 03:51:29 AM
I just sorta want to let the thread die a quiet death at this point.
I get these ideas sometimes. I bring them here and run with them. People here are good at what they do, which is tearing things apart to see how they work.
Then I walk away with a better understanding of what I was talking about.
Maybe I'll actually get the courage to make an Emergence religion someday.
Cowboy up, Kai. You aren't going to let MONKEYS shove you around, are you?
The monkeys around here are a bit more imposing than the majority of the population.
So what? It's still just chest thumping.
It's only a bit louder here.
Wake the fuck up. Their opinions are not your reality.
They aren't. Reality however is that I like it around here, and the more contentious and contradictory I get (or unwillingness to put up with certain "stupid" questions) the more likely someone is to take the piss and then all the bullshit drama starts up.
I have enough drama here in South Carolina to keep me busy.
Oh fuck it. THIS IS WHAT I MENTALLY FAP TO (IE BELIEVE/RELIGION) AND IF YOU GIVE ME SHIT I'LL YOU IN THE NADS. THE /NADS/! 8)
Quote from: Kai on September 22, 2009, 11:09:15 PM
Oh fuck it. THIS IS WHAT I MENTALLY FAP TO (IE BELIEVE/RELIGION) AND IF YOU GIVE ME SHIT I'LL YOU IN THE NADS. THE /NADS/! 8)
This.
Criticism is a good thing, in cases like this, because it can point out flaws that you might have missed.
Also, it's good training for your PhD defense, which will make this place look like a veritable paradise.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 11:11:25 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 22, 2009, 11:09:15 PM
Oh fuck it. THIS IS WHAT I MENTALLY FAP TO (IE BELIEVE/RELIGION) AND IF YOU GIVE ME SHIT I'LL YOU IN THE NADS. THE /NADS/! 8)
This.
Criticism is a good thing, in cases like this, because it can point out flaws that you might have missed.
Also, it's good training for your PhD defense, which will make this place look like a veritable paradise.
Gotta get through my master's defense before I can ever consider a PhD. :x
I've been following this thread, Kai, and I see some real potential in the metaphors you are shaping this belief system out of.
I'd have more to say, but I got fired today for barely missing a sales quota for 2 weeks, so I'm not exactly thinking straight. :kingmeh:
Quote from: Kai on September 22, 2009, 11:36:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 11:11:25 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 22, 2009, 11:09:15 PM
Oh fuck it. THIS IS WHAT I MENTALLY FAP TO (IE BELIEVE/RELIGION) AND IF YOU GIVE ME SHIT I'LL YOU IN THE NADS. THE /NADS/! 8)
This.
Criticism is a good thing, in cases like this, because it can point out flaws that you might have missed.
Also, it's good training for your PhD defense, which will make this place look like a veritable paradise.
Gotta get through my master's defense before I can ever consider a PhD. :x
Do you? My father got his PhD in biochemistry without a masters. My boss got his PhD in chemical engineering without a masters.
Quote from: Telarus on September 23, 2009, 12:45:55 AM
I've been following this thread, Kai, and I see some real potential in the metaphors you are shaping this belief system out of.
I'd have more to say, but I got fired today for barely missing a sales quota for 2 weeks, so I'm not exactly thinking straight. :kingmeh:
That blows. What kind of sales job was it, and is there any way we can make your ex boss miserable?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2009, 03:05:05 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 22, 2009, 11:36:26 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 22, 2009, 11:11:25 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 22, 2009, 11:09:15 PM
Oh fuck it. THIS IS WHAT I MENTALLY FAP TO (IE BELIEVE/RELIGION) AND IF YOU GIVE ME SHIT I'LL YOU IN THE NADS. THE /NADS/! 8)
This.
Criticism is a good thing, in cases like this, because it can point out flaws that you might have missed.
Also, it's good training for your PhD defense, which will make this place look like a veritable paradise.
Gotta get through my master's defense before I can ever consider a PhD. :x
Do you? My father got his PhD in biochemistry without a masters. My boss got his PhD in chemical engineering without a masters.
Yes I do. Departmental requirement. and I sorta think it's necessary or otherwise I'd jump off the deep end.
If I haven't already. :cry:
Quote from: Kai on September 23, 2009, 04:39:47 AM
Yes I do. Departmental requirement. and I sorta think it's necessary or otherwise I'd jump off the deep end.
If I haven't already. :cry:
What's with the low self-esteem Kai? You rock!
(http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/spiff_bucket/sunset_boulder.jpg)
Literally.
Just the whole mess from yesterday, right now.
I really hope they don't bring it to student ethics committee.
Quote from: Kai on September 23, 2009, 12:48:42 PM
Just the whole mess from yesterday, right now.
I really hope they don't bring it to student ethics committee.
Suerly, you can defend yourself there.
Also, if they do, revenge. Win or lose, revenge. Buddhism can't help you now.
Unless you channel the BUDDHA OF VENGEFUL WRATH.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2009, 02:43:27 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 23, 2009, 12:48:42 PM
Just the whole mess from yesterday, right now.
I really hope they don't bring it to student ethics committee.
Suerly, you can defend yourself there.
Also, if they do, revenge. Win or lose, revenge. Buddhism can't help you now.
Oh, I will if they do. I have a list of emails and phone numbers that I'll eventually shred and delete, but were they to interfere in my life I'd find some way to interfere with theirs. It's not a threat or anything, since I'm not willing to become passive aggressive over this bullshit, just a nice present if they decided to be assholes.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2009, 02:43:27 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 23, 2009, 12:48:42 PM
Just the whole mess from yesterday, right now.
I really hope they don't bring it to student ethics committee.
Suerly, you can defend yourself there.
Also, if they do, revenge. Win or lose, revenge. Buddhism can't help you now.
Please to meet, the "Will Kill A Motherfucker Buddha"
(http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/3717/fudo.th.jpg) (http://img132.imageshack.us/i/fudo.jpg/)
Quote from: Mangrove on September 26, 2009, 11:39:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 23, 2009, 02:43:27 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 23, 2009, 12:48:42 PM
Just the whole mess from yesterday, right now.
I really hope they don't bring it to student ethics committee.
Suerly, you can defend yourself there.
Also, if they do, revenge. Win or lose, revenge. Buddhism can't help you now.
Please to meet, the "Will Kill A Motherfucker Buddha"
(http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/3717/fudo.th.jpg) (http://img132.imageshack.us/i/fudo.jpg/)
:lulz:
HAHAHAHAHA And the couple at the bottom, the left one looks like he'a about to backslap a ho.
Is there any more material available to read about Emergence as it is quite interesting?
I have a couple of ebooks on the subject (surprise surprise), only I'm not sure where. Kai might be able to tell you the name of the book I sent him on Emergence - its a broad overview from several authors, IIRC, and so is quite suited as a high-level introduction to the topic.
Quote from: Cain on October 17, 2009, 03:04:04 PM
I have a couple of ebooks on the subject (surprise surprise), only I'm not sure where. Kai might be able to tell you the name of the book I sent him on Emergence - its a broad overview from several authors, IIRC, and so is quite suited as a high-level introduction to the topic.
I don't know where it went now. :? If I find it I'll post here.
Stuart Kauffman's book Reinventing the Sacred is the only other book I can recommend, as most of the books on emergence theory are mathematical texts.
Theres a long list of references at the end of the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
Quote from: Kai on October 17, 2009, 06:55:22 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 17, 2009, 03:04:04 PM
I have a couple of ebooks on the subject (surprise surprise), only I'm not sure where. Kai might be able to tell you the name of the book I sent him on Emergence - its a broad overview from several authors, IIRC, and so is quite suited as a high-level introduction to the topic.
I don't know where it went now. :? If I find it I'll post here.
Stuart Kauffman's book Reinventing the Sacred is the only other book I can recommend, as most of the books on emergence theory are mathematical texts.
Theres a long list of references at the end of the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
Do you have any other text pertaining to your religion, other than the blog post which I could read?
It's a bit old now, but I found "Artificial Life" by Steven Levy a good introduction if you're coming from a computer background.
Quote from: Photoautotroph Herbert on October 17, 2009, 07:25:49 PM
Quote from: Kai on October 17, 2009, 06:55:22 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 17, 2009, 03:04:04 PM
I have a couple of ebooks on the subject (surprise surprise), only I'm not sure where. Kai might be able to tell you the name of the book I sent him on Emergence - its a broad overview from several authors, IIRC, and so is quite suited as a high-level introduction to the topic.
I don't know where it went now. :? If I find it I'll post here.
Stuart Kauffman's book Reinventing the Sacred is the only other book I can recommend, as most of the books on emergence theory are mathematical texts.
Theres a long list of references at the end of the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence
Do you have any other text pertaining to your religion, other than the blog post which I could read?
Aside from the stuff in this thread and the scattered writings around this forum, there's nothing else.
I'm starting a religion based on the belief that everything that is wrong in the world should be blamed on gay marriages :fnord:
Quote from: D.A.N on November 09, 2009, 02:28:40 PM
I'm starting a religion based on the belief that everything that is wrong in the world should be blamed on gay marriages :fnord:
ha ha ha, ho ho ho, you are WAY too late for that . . . maybe you'll be late for your own funeral too
I'll have you know that I was the one who came up with the idea first, they stole it from me...dammit I think I should sue!!
:kingmeh:
BUMP
Kai I know you have some new thoughts on Emergence, yes?
I got my head spilled open yesterday and it got me really charged about Emergence. I was watching a chapter of Cosmos called The Persistence of Memory...
For now, you can watch it here: http://www.hulu.com/watch/63322/cosmos-the-persistence-of-memory
...during the course of this episode, sagan draws parallels between the information storage systems we've been using. First, our DNA, then, oral tradition, then writing, then the internet... Each step in the progression allows us to better communicate knowledge through the ages, allows us a wider range of input to select from in choosing what is relevant.
And sagan also talks about the brain - how it evolved in stages. First we have the subcortex - the reptile brain, something "not unlike a crocodile." Then outside of that we have the mammalian brain, the limbic system. And finally we have the newest part, the cortex, the frontal lobe, the part that facilitates language, certain types of complexity, a lot of the stuff that makes us human. Sagan says that our cortex allows us to overcome those ancient responses. We can finally overcome the reptilian territorial responses, we are no longer victim to our mammalian brain, we can choose our actions.
Sagan draws another parallel between the brain and a city. As technology advances, cities must change too, but they do it by updating and renovating existing systems. When main street switched from horse and carriage to cars, things had to change, but main street stayed more or less the same. Sagan says that brains are different because they have all these old drives, competing and contradicting, eventually our behavior emerges from these zillions of invisible interrelated systems. So if you were standing on a city street corner inside your brain, you wouldn't just see cars, you'd also see horses and buggies, old trolleys, guys walking around with spears and warpaint...
It's so fascinating that all of these complex systems more or less look the same. The brain, the community, the city, the internet. The network. The Art of Memetics describes it pretty well - you have these nodes of varying importance, and they're connected in different ways. And certain systems rely on other systems, and in the end the behavior emerges from these numerous competing systems. If a city decides to renovate some old apartment building, there will be forces supporting and resisting that decision. Just as if you are trying to kick an old habit, there are forces in your brain supporting and resisting that decision.
So we, as humans, are on our honor to pick the best behaviors for the organisms we belong to. As humans we can use our cortex to overcome our lizard and monkeybrain. And if we can get a group of people using their cerebral cortex, we can overcome, to some degree, the lizard and monkeybrain systems present in our cities and societies.
It is a hopeful message.
Quote from: Cramulus on July 15, 2010, 02:51:45 PM
BUMP
Kai I know you have some new thoughts on Emergence, yes?
I got my head spilled open yesterday and it got me really charged about Emergence. I was watching a chapter of Cosmos called The Persistence of Memory...
For now, you can watch it here: http://www.hulu.com/watch/63322/cosmos-the-persistence-of-memory
...during the course of this episode, sagan draws parallels between the information storage systems we've been using. First, our DNA, then, oral tradition, then writing, then the internet... Each step in the progression allows us to better communicate knowledge through the ages, allows us a wider range of input to select from in choosing what is relevant.
And sagan also talks about the brain - how it evolved in stages. First we have the subcortex - the reptile brain, something "not unlike a crocodile." Then outside of that we have the mammalian brain, the limbic system. And finally we have the newest part, the cortex, the frontal lobe, the part that facilitates language, certain types of complexity, a lot of the stuff that makes us human. Sagan says that our cortex allows us to overcome those ancient responses. We can finally overcome the reptilian territorial responses, we are no longer victim to our mammalian brain, we can choose our actions.
Sagan draws another parallel between the brain and a city. As technology advances, cities must change too, but they do it by updating and renovating existing systems. When main street switched from horse and carriage to cars, things had to change, but main street stayed more or less the same. Sagan says that brains are different because they have all these old drives, competing and contradicting, eventually our behavior emerges from these zillions of invisible interrelated systems. So if you were standing on a city street corner inside your brain, you wouldn't just see cars, you'd also see horses and buggies, old trolleys, guys walking around with spears and warpaint...
It's so fascinating that all of these complex systems more or less look the same. The brain, the community, the city, the internet. The network. The Art of Memetics describes it pretty well - you have these nodes of varying importance, and they're connected in different ways. And certain systems rely on other systems, and in the end the behavior emerges from these numerous competing systems. If a city decides to renovate some old apartment building, there will be forces supporting and resisting that decision. Just as if you are trying to kick an old habit, there are forces in your brain supporting and resisting that decision.
So we, as humans, are on our honor to pick the best behaviors for the organisms we belong to. As humans we can use our cortex to overcome our lizard and monkeybrain. And if we can get a group of people using their cerebral cortex, we can overcome, to some degree, the lizard and monkeybrain systems present in our cities and societies.
It is a hopeful message.
Different model, but expressing the same kind of emergence that Leary and others have theorized. The Reptile Brain = Bio Survival, Monkey Brain = Territorial, Frontal Lobe = Semantic&Social/Sexual (3rd and 4th together). I also like that Sagan and Leary come to the same conclusions that the emerging/evolving process allows humans to overcome the older parts of the system. It's a very hopeful concept.
And, after looking through history... we have our problems, but it does seem that many humans are attempting to overcome their reptile and monkey brains.
isn't (nearly) everybody continuously overcoming their 'reptile brain' to various degrees?
and is it implied here that completely overcoming it is desirable? as if it is wholly an encumbering vestige of a past long gone?
Probably isn't possible or likely. Awareness, however, is and should be encouraged at minimum.
Quote from: Iptuous on July 15, 2010, 04:21:17 PM
isn't (nearly) everybody continuously overcoming their 'reptile brain' to various degrees?
and is it implied here that completely overcoming it is desirable? as if it is wholly an encumbering vestige of a past long gone?
I think that would be a bad plan. It seems beneficial to me, to be able to identify when the reptile or monkey brain is trying to do something so that you can tell it to fuck off, or listen to it, based on the situation. Sometimes "Fight or Flee" is the right part of the brain for that situation... like a gang of thugs jumping you in a dark alley.
I tend to apply the Cosmic Schmuck principle to these...
The more often you realize you're using your reptile/monkey brain, the more likely you are to control the imprints/impulses/automated responses and act like a human being. If you rarely, or never realize that you're using your reptile/monkey brain, then you'll probably act like a reptilian monkey for the rest of your life.
:lulz:
ETA:
So in other words, what is emerging is the 'potential' to modify ourselves, the tools to 'metaprogram'... the ability to consider the system, from within the system.
right.
just wanted to make that distinction.
:)
Quote from: Cramulus on July 15, 2010, 02:51:45 PM
BUMP
Kai I know you have some new thoughts on Emergence, yes?
I got my head spilled open yesterday and it got me really charged about Emergence. I was watching a chapter of Cosmos called The Persistence of Memory...
For now, you can watch it here: http://www.hulu.com/watch/63322/cosmos-the-persistence-of-memory
...during the course of this episode, sagan draws parallels between the information storage systems we've been using. First, our DNA, then, oral tradition, then writing, then the internet... Each step in the progression allows us to better communicate knowledge through the ages, allows us a wider range of input to select from in choosing what is relevant.
And sagan also talks about the brain - how it evolved in stages. First we have the subcortex - the reptile brain, something "not unlike a crocodile." Then outside of that we have the mammalian brain, the limbic system. And finally we have the newest part, the cortex, the frontal lobe, the part that facilitates language, certain types of complexity, a lot of the stuff that makes us human. Sagan says that our cortex allows us to overcome those ancient responses. We can finally overcome the reptilian territorial responses, we are no longer victim to our mammalian brain, we can choose our actions.
Sagan draws another parallel between the brain and a city. As technology advances, cities must change too, but they do it by updating and renovating existing systems. When main street switched from horse and carriage to cars, things had to change, but main street stayed more or less the same. Sagan says that brains are different because they have all these old drives, competing and contradicting, eventually our behavior emerges from these zillions of invisible interrelated systems. So if you were standing on a city street corner inside your brain, you wouldn't just see cars, you'd also see horses and buggies, old trolleys, guys walking around with spears and warpaint...
It's so fascinating that all of these complex systems more or less look the same. The brain, the community, the city, the internet. The network. The Art of Memetics describes it pretty well - you have these nodes of varying importance, and they're connected in different ways. And certain systems rely on other systems, and in the end the behavior emerges from these numerous competing systems. If a city decides to renovate some old apartment building, there will be forces supporting and resisting that decision. Just as if you are trying to kick an old habit, there are forces in your brain supporting and resisting that decision.
So we, as humans, are on our honor to pick the best behaviors for the organisms we belong to. As humans we can use our cortex to overcome our lizard and monkeybrain. And if we can get a group of people using their cerebral cortex, we can overcome, to some degree, the lizard and monkeybrain systems present in our cities and societies.
It is a hopeful message.
My change in understanding of Emergence has come from reading the Less Wrong sequences (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences), and is twofold:
1. Emergence often gets thrown around as a semantic stopsign (http://lesswrong.com/lw/it/semantic_stopsigns/) which prevents further exploration. Therefore I don't want to wield it that way.
2. The universe really does reduce to elementary fields. If I use emergence as explanatory, the explanation of everything above elementary fields is "Emergence!" How useful is that really?
Instead of being an explanatory item, my new use of emergence is the universal tendency of interacting elementary fields to produce
categorical nova.
For the moment anyway. I'm sorta struggling with this right now.
I really like the Semantic Stopsign concept... its very similar to "Dogma" as used by RAW, but without the necessarily religious baggage tied to the word. Thanks Kai!!
I think that a key aspect to any 'system' of religion it to constrain itself to what it can usefully talk about and what it cannot necessarily talk about. We can certainly discuss current human consciousnesss in terms of emergence, even carbon based life forms in those terms... but when it comes to Life, The Universe and Everything... 'emergence' is probably as useful as '42'.
;-)
If you are careful about what you're modeling and how far reaching your model is, I think you could avoid the semantic stopsign issue. One of the best defenses against Dogma is "I don't know, but I'm interested in ideas on the subject"
Quote from: Kai on July 15, 2010, 05:29:23 PM
2. The universe really does reduce to elementary fields. If I use emergence as explanatory, the explanation of everything above elementary fields is "Emergence!" How useful is that really?
well, it's at least as useful as the explanatory power of those who say, 'cause God made it that way!'. which is to say, that it gives an ultimate answer to the question that, while not satisfying the desire to understand the more specific mechanisms, doesn't leave the question dangling entirely loose.
that's gotta be worth
something...
Quote from: Iptuous on July 15, 2010, 05:49:48 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 15, 2010, 05:29:23 PM
2. The universe really does reduce to elementary fields. If I use emergence as explanatory, the explanation of everything above elementary fields is "Emergence!" How useful is that really?
well, it's at least as useful as the explanatory power of those who say, 'cause God made it that way!'. which is to say, that it gives an ultimate answer to the question that, while not satisfying the desire to understand the more specific mechanisms, doesn't leave the question dangling entirely loose.
that's gotta be worth something...
It's one of those fake explanations, it doesn't really EXPLAIN anything, and the universe isn't any less mysterious or understood after the explanation.
My strength of understanding is based upon how much more I am confused by fiction than reality. If my model of reality (in this case, emergence) can explain any event equally, than I am completely unable to anticipate reality. In other words, I have zero knowledge. The same goes for "god made it that way".
true. it's unsatisfying as a predictive mechanism.
but its more palatable an explanation for the original genesis of stuff and complexity, than some anthropomorphic deity, no?
but i understand what you're saying.
it requires some universal characteristics of how emergence works regardless of the scale and medium that it occurs in, i guess?
Quote from: Iptuous on July 15, 2010, 06:04:35 PM
true. it's unsatisfying as a predictive mechanism.
but its more palatable an explanation for the original genesis of stuff and complexity, than some anthropomorphic deity, no?
but i understand what you're saying.
it requires some universal characteristics of how emergence works regardless of the scale and medium that it occurs in, i guess?
Why do we need to posit a fake explanation? Why can't we just say, "I don't know"?
well... i guess it's because we have a burning desire to at least label it, and the label almost certainly carries some implications to some degree or another. or will pick them up by our natural tendency.
if you give it some abstract label like 'emergence', it seems less likely to pick up bad baggage, than 'sky daddy', right?
so it's still better in that sense, i guess.
i mean, it always will be an 'i don't know', for all we know, and we abhor such a thing...
Quote from: Kai on July 15, 2010, 06:13:22 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on July 15, 2010, 06:04:35 PM
true. it's unsatisfying as a predictive mechanism.
but its more palatable an explanation for the original genesis of stuff and complexity, than some anthropomorphic deity, no?
but i understand what you're saying.
it requires some universal characteristics of how emergence works regardless of the scale and medium that it occurs in, i guess?
Why do we need to posit a fake explanation? Why can't we just say, "I don't know"?
THIS is the correct motorcycle!
Quote from: Iptuous on July 15, 2010, 06:17:57 PM
well... i guess it's because we have a burning desire to at least label it, and the label almost certainly carries some implications to some degree or another. or will pick them up by our natural tendency.
if you give it some abstract label like 'emergence', it seems less likely to pick up bad baggage, than 'sky daddy', right?
so it's still better in that sense, i guess.
i mean, it always will be an 'i don't know', for all we know, and we abhor such a thing...
Labels are models/maps and model/maps often lead to bad baggage. See QUANTUMZ! for an example.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 15, 2010, 06:30:01 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 15, 2010, 06:13:22 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on July 15, 2010, 06:04:35 PM
true. it's unsatisfying as a predictive mechanism.
but its more palatable an explanation for the original genesis of stuff and complexity, than some anthropomorphic deity, no?
but i understand what you're saying.
it requires some universal characteristics of how emergence works regardless of the scale and medium that it occurs in, i guess?
Why do we need to posit a fake explanation? Why can't we just say, "I don't know"?
THIS is the correct motorcycle!
Quote from: Iptuous on July 15, 2010, 06:17:57 PM
well... i guess it's because we have a burning desire to at least label it, and the label almost certainly carries some implications to some degree or another. or will pick them up by our natural tendency.
if you give it some abstract label like 'emergence', it seems less likely to pick up bad baggage, than 'sky daddy', right?
so it's still better in that sense, i guess.
i mean, it always will be an 'i don't know', for all we know, and we abhor such a thing...
Labels are models/maps and model/maps often lead to bad baggage. See QUANTUMZ! for an example.
I press
Worship at the question "Why is there a tendency for elementary fields in interaction to produce categorical nova?"
Otherwise, I press
Explain.
yeah, but 'i don't know' is a knowledge vacuum, and will be filled with something by somebody.
something abstract and impersonal seems less likely to get the bad baggage. that's all i'm saying.
even if the notion is benevolent, imagining something personal and all powerful will lead to bad things.
"It's the StayPuft Marshmallow Man...."
So plugging the hole with something more benign seems like a good idea to me....
Quote from: Kai on July 15, 2010, 06:34:41 PM
I press Worship at the question "Why is there a tendency for elementary fields in interaction to produce categorical nova?"
Otherwise, I press Explain.
I like that.
:)
Quote from: Iptuous on July 15, 2010, 06:37:55 PM
yeah, but 'i don't know' is a knowledge vacuum, and will be filled with something by somebody.
something abstract and impersonal seems less likely to get the bad baggage. that's all i'm saying.
even if the notion is benevolent, imagining something personal and all powerful will lead to bad things.
"It's the StayPuft Marshmallow Man...."
So plugging the hole with something more benign seems like a good idea to me....
:lmnuendo:
Quote from: Iptuous on July 15, 2010, 06:38:26 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 15, 2010, 06:34:41 PM
I press Worship at the question "Why is there a tendency for elementary fields in interaction to produce categorical nova?"
Otherwise, I press Explain.
I like that.
:)
You all seriously need to read the Less Wrong sequences.
Quote from: Kai on July 15, 2010, 09:25:52 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on July 15, 2010, 06:38:26 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 15, 2010, 06:34:41 PM
I press Worship at the question "Why is there a tendency for elementary fields in interaction to produce categorical nova?"
Otherwise, I press Explain.
I like that.
:)
You all seriously need to read the Less Wrong sequences.
This x 100
started digging into it.
good stuff.
I've been reading those lately. They're very accessible, but not in the way the word is usually meant (doesn't go 'deep').
"Sometimes the notion of self-organization is conflated with that of the related concept of emergence..." This is where it really gets interesting, although we would have to agree that the consequences might create some contention? Do I care? Yes and no. On the one hand it seems necessary. On the other I would prefer to forget? I do not presume to have it all figured out, nor do I want to produce more interference already, however, I would be remiss to die without making a difference. Not because I want to make a difference, change the world, shine the light e.t.c. but because one way or the other, this is going to happen soon. A full system could be developed in two years... (blue-print already exists, just need to funnel it into integrated circuit ;-). Radical difference cleaved onto continuity is the trick here. "Mimesis: its not just how you think" ;-)
self-organization is key to this, but the wording is not good.
gathering we are all big fans of thermodynamics and dynamic systems,
self-organization sounds counter-intuitive. "Dis-z-organized"...
I was reading the "changing images of man" and 'they' also saw the then
current implementation of decentralized anarchy as ineffectual.
Not being a philosopher, I have no idea what they are talking about,
however, I think a shared value system is coming ;-)
KAI: "taking and giving" -> sharing (relational, not personal?)
move translational to radial: taking-giving -> centrifugal / centripetal?
(still not there but beyond the vector we go...)
Quote from: Kai on July 15, 2010, 05:29:23 PM
My change in understanding of Emergence has come from reading the Less Wrong sequences (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences), and is twofold:
1. Emergence often gets thrown around as a semantic stopsign (http://lesswrong.com/lw/it/semantic_stopsigns/) which prevents further exploration. Therefore I don't want to wield it that way.
2. The universe really does reduce to elementary fields. If I use emergence as explanatory, the explanation of everything above elementary fields is "Emergence!" How useful is that really?
Instead of being an explanatory item, my new use of emergence is the universal tendency of interacting elementary fields to produce categorical nova.
For the moment anyway. I'm sorta struggling with this right now.
I personally always used it as an "exploratory item", if that makes sense. Sort of like, "hey all these systems kind of do this thing, in a sort of vague but fundamentally similar way, I wonder what's up with that". Also, it allows me to believe that certain things are possible, like intelligence or self-consciousness emerging from a deterministic system. And while it doesn't explain me
how these things are possible, I actually like that Emergence allows me to sidestep that question for a moment, to suspend disbelief, so to say, in order to research the conditions under which this phenomenon takes place. Then, as you let the system run, the magic emerging trick will (might) happen, and you got this new thing. Without having to understand how the system itself does it.
But that's me. I want to create emergent systems. Been programming tiny complex systems since I was 17. It's just too easy to create a system of such complexity that it becomes impossible to understand what exactly is going on. And I think it's a shame to just ignore those systems because you cannot and probably will never truly fathom their inner workings.
Useless spamming removed.
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 26, 2010, 01:10:24 AM
Quote from: Kai on July 15, 2010, 05:29:23 PM
My change in understanding of Emergence has come from reading the Less Wrong sequences (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences), and is twofold:
1. Emergence often gets thrown around as a semantic stopsign (http://lesswrong.com/lw/it/semantic_stopsigns/) which prevents further exploration. Therefore I don't want to wield it that way.
2. The universe really does reduce to elementary fields. If I use emergence as explanatory, the explanation of everything above elementary fields is "Emergence!" How useful is that really?
Instead of being an explanatory item, my new use of emergence is the universal tendency of interacting elementary fields to produce categorical nova.
For the moment anyway. I'm sorta struggling with this right now.
I personally always used it as an "exploratory item", if that makes sense. Sort of like, "hey all these systems kind of do this thing, in a sort of vague but fundamentally similar way, I wonder what's up with that". Also, it allows me to believe that certain things are possible, like intelligence or self-consciousness emerging from a deterministic system. And while it doesn't explain me how these things are possible, I actually like that Emergence allows me to sidestep that question for a moment, to suspend disbelief, so to say, in order to research the conditions under which this phenomenon takes place. Then, as you let the system run, the magic emerging trick will (might) happen, and you got this new thing. Without having to understand how the system itself does it.
But that's me. I want to create emergent systems. Been programming tiny complex systems since I was 17. It's just too easy to create a system of such complexity that it becomes impossible to understand what exactly is going on. And I think it's a shame to just ignore those systems because you cannot and probably will never truly fathom their inner workings.
Since we are alwyas dealing in models, I think its OK to have a stop sign in the model... because the model can't model everything. Now, of course having a model of the stopsign in deeper detail would be extra useful ;-)
"And X in this model happens because of Emergence!*"
*see model E for a detailed look at Emergence
Quote from: Ratatosk on August 27, 2010, 04:16:39 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on July 26, 2010, 01:10:24 AM
Quote from: Kai on July 15, 2010, 05:29:23 PM
My change in understanding of Emergence has come from reading the Less Wrong sequences (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences), and is twofold:
1. Emergence often gets thrown around as a semantic stopsign (http://lesswrong.com/lw/it/semantic_stopsigns/) which prevents further exploration. Therefore I don't want to wield it that way.
2. The universe really does reduce to elementary fields. If I use emergence as explanatory, the explanation of everything above elementary fields is "Emergence!" How useful is that really?
Instead of being an explanatory item, my new use of emergence is the universal tendency of interacting elementary fields to produce categorical nova.
For the moment anyway. I'm sorta struggling with this right now.
I personally always used it as an "exploratory item", if that makes sense. Sort of like, "hey all these systems kind of do this thing, in a sort of vague but fundamentally similar way, I wonder what's up with that". Also, it allows me to believe that certain things are possible, like intelligence or self-consciousness emerging from a deterministic system. And while it doesn't explain me how these things are possible, I actually like that Emergence allows me to sidestep that question for a moment, to suspend disbelief, so to say, in order to research the conditions under which this phenomenon takes place. Then, as you let the system run, the magic emerging trick will (might) happen, and you got this new thing. Without having to understand how the system itself does it.
But that's me. I want to create emergent systems. Been programming tiny complex systems since I was 17. It's just too easy to create a system of such complexity that it becomes impossible to understand what exactly is going on. And I think it's a shame to just ignore those systems because you cannot and probably will never truly fathom their inner workings.
Since we are alwyas dealing in models, I think its OK to have a stop sign in the model... because the model can't model everything. Now, of course having a model of the stopsign in deeper detail would be extra useful ;-)
"And X in this model happens because of Emergence!*"
*see model E for a detailed look at Emergence
Eh. All of reality boils down to complex amplitudes in distinct configuration. Which means that categorical nova are a product of configurations of exponentially increasing complexity.
Hoooooooookay. I have just read through every single post in this thread, because I find it really interesting, but there's a lot to go through and a lot of points I want to make in a short time. So, here goes.
1) The first thing I want to ask is what are the implications of these beliefs as far as morality goes? A key factor of all religions is a set of morals which describe how humans should interact with each other, and with the world around them. For Sustainability, what are the set of morals, and how do the key beliefs lend themselves to those morals? Basically, if you are going to write this book (which I think you should) what will the list look like that says, "This is what people should do, and why?"
2) This point is me stating honestly again what I see, and please don't get angry with me, I'm just trying to point something out that could be fixed. As of right now, the way you describe your beliefs seem very pretentious. You get angry at "stupid questions" and yet as far as I can tell, there is not yet one all-encompassing description of what this belief is and what its implications are in a basic and easy to understand format. The thing is, any religion HAS to be tolerant of the "stupid" questions and be able to answer them, because you can't expect that everyone, or even ANYONE else will have the same beliefs or core ideals as you. You can't just brush away the stupid questions like they don't matter, because they do in fact matter a lot, and it's only after those questions have been addressed and answered that you can begin to debate the higher implications of your beliefs with those who have a basic understanding of where you're coming from.
3) I will argue that this religion SHOULD in fact be written and published in a book easily accessible to the masses. Why? Because a religion based on emergence where the purpose is to allow people to understand that they are a part of a huger world so that they can work together for the common good of that world becomes totally ineffective if it is left as a religion for one person alone. Besides, I've seen the basics of this idea bumping around in the heads of a LOT of people, but no one as far as I know has gone so far as to try to make a coherent religion out of it. I think you would find a wider audience than you expect. BUT--in order to succeed in this, you will have to beat out your ideas a lot more, until you can conceivably make all the basic fundamentals and profound realizations contained in a single book. Yes you could add some of the cool science, and some semantic arguments, but in the end it would have to be a religion, and the core of any religion is the fundamental beliefs and morals, and as far as this religion goes, it would have to leave room to allow science to grow and change and still remain relevant.
4) As far as writing this goes, I would actually suggest following a format similar to the Koran. I'm not a Muslim, but I have read bits and pieces of it before, and the way it is written is very simple, but also very beautiful and profound. It is truly a literary accomplishment worthy of awe, and if you want to make a religion based on the beliefs of a single individual be accepted widely around the world, I can think of no better example than Mohamed the Prophet.
I think those were all the points I wanted to make. Anyway, I definitely think you should go for this Kai, actually write this book and create this religion, because I think this is one that will really find a wide audience, and may actually find its footing as a serious philosophy among many. And from all the people I've ever talked to, you have the best background and the most knowledge to actually make this a possibility. So don't lose hope, just keep working on sculpting your ideals into a recognizable masterpiece. :D
Quote from: The Great Pope of OUTSIDE on September 26, 2010, 06:03:15 PM
Hoooooooookay. I have just read through every single post in this thread, because I find it really interesting, but there's a lot to go through and a lot of points I want to make in a short time. So, here goes.
1) The first thing I want to ask is what are the implications of these beliefs as far as morality goes? A key factor of all religions is a set of morals which describe how humans should interact with each other, and with the world around them. For Sustainability, what are the set of morals, and how do the key beliefs lend themselves to those morals? Basically, if you are going to write this book (which I think you should) what will the list look like that says, "This is what people should do, and why?"
2) This point is me stating honestly again what I see, and please don't get angry with me, I'm just trying to point something out that could be fixed. As of right now, the way you describe your beliefs seem very pretentious. You get angry at "stupid questions" and yet as far as I can tell, there is not yet one all-encompassing description of what this belief is and what its implications are in a basic and easy to understand format. The thing is, any religion HAS to be tolerant of the "stupid" questions and be able to answer them, because you can't expect that everyone, or even ANYONE else will have the same beliefs or core ideals as you. You can't just brush away the stupid questions like they don't matter, because they do in fact matter a lot, and it's only after those questions have been addressed and answered that you can begin to debate the higher implications of your beliefs with those who have a basic understanding of where you're coming from.
3) I will argue that this religion SHOULD in fact be written and published in a book easily accessible to the masses. Why? Because a religion based on emergence where the purpose is to allow people to understand that they are a part of a huger world so that they can work together for the common good of that world becomes totally ineffective if it is left as a religion for one person alone. Besides, I've seen the basics of this idea bumping around in the heads of a LOT of people, but no one as far as I know has gone so far as to try to make a coherent religion out of it. I think you would find a wider audience than you expect. BUT--in order to succeed in this, you will have to beat out your ideas a lot more, until you can conceivably make all the basic fundamentals and profound realizations contained in a single book. Yes you could add some of the cool science, and some semantic arguments, but in the end it would have to be a religion, and the core of any religion is the fundamental beliefs and morals, and as far as this religion goes, it would have to leave room to allow science to grow and change and still remain relevant.
4) As far as writing this goes, I would actually suggest following a format similar to the Koran. I'm not a Muslim, but I have read bits and pieces of it before, and the way it is written is very simple, but also very beautiful and profound. It is truly a literary accomplishment worthy of awe, and if you want to make a religion based on the beliefs of a single individual be accepted widely around the world, I can think of no better example than Mohamed the Prophet.
I think those were all the points I wanted to make. Anyway, I definitely think you should go for this Kai, actually write this book and create this religion, because I think this is one that will really find a wide audience, and may actually find its footing as a serious philosophy among many. And from all the people I've ever talked to, you have the best background and the most knowledge to actually make this a possibility. So don't lose hope, just keep working on sculpting your ideals into a recognizable masterpiece. :D
I don't necessarily anticipate reality the way I did when I first wrote this thread. In other words, my anticipations of reality (=beliefs) have changed. For example, I now know that using "emergence" as a godhead is an undescriptive copout. It doesn't explain anything. And if it seems somewhat pretentious, then perhaps thats because it /is/. I'm not planing on writing a book anytime in the near future, assuming that I haven't already completely abandoned this project, and if I did, it would be more like The Process of Sustaining, which is very much in the style of the Tao Te Ching.
I still consider myself a religious naturalist, but my beliefs change as I learn. Right now, the Less Wrong Sequences have had a large impact. Next year it might be something else. I like this thread because it catalogs part of my journey. And I've glad you've taken an interest, as flawed as the subject matter may be.
are we done with analysis?
The subtraction of synthesis from unity, you understand?-)
do you have a question or comment or something?
Awesome!
Incredible! He's masking his brilliant insights in the form of blatant non-sequiturs! It's edgy! It's fresh! We love it! Now get out!
a mindless recapitulation:
1) the theory of emergence points to how we are interactively processing its project
2) the source of emergence is the future
3) the project of emergence is the future
4) the future is waiting for us to catch-up ;-)
just in from the cracker:
I'm sorry to hear about the damage to your place, and hope things will be okay?
I've also come across Michio Kaku and find him quite compelling, although my
knowledge of the field is that of a layman. The turn physics has taken re:
quantum mechanics / string / multiverse, I think, is what eventually led me
to philosophy. The "radical-idealism" that then emerges is something I
can only conceptualize, and not deal with mathematically. One of the thoughts
on the matter that I fall back on is that: the travesty of philosophy
is not that
we cannot reconcile materialism with idealism, rather, the problem is that the
question of an "external" world was ever posed in the first place. My radical-
idealism is one that deconstructs the relationship between subject and object,
leaving me with a kind of "temporal-idealism". For me the
distinctions that occur
in nature are primarily temporal, not spatial. Space lends itself to
the logic of
non-contradiction. Two things cannot occupy the same space: a thing cannot
be both itself and not. Now we know on the quantum level this is not
true, furthermore
most of the problems we have in philosophy cannot be solved using traditional
logic. I cannot formally articulate my new logic, however, I can
start thinking
in the right way when picking away at time's internal structure. Stripping away
any linear conception of time we are only left with the Present Moment.
Now, this Present Now is particular because it has three entirely different
aspects that co-exist: the sense of having been, the sense of being present,
and the sense of becoming. Referring to past, present, and future,
respectively.
If we were to think of these phases of time conceptually, using a
spatial framework
we run-up against a kind of incompleteness theorem whereby we cannot provide
a ground of their unity. The simple way I think of this is asking
"how is it that
I have this sense of already having been?" I love the deceptive simplicity.
But down the rabbit hole we go. The past is clearly not what we think it is,
as a matter of fact, it hardly ever is. We seem to forget that all of what we
think of in the past is actually imagination at work in the present.
Things and
events from the past are created retroactively. Great, we've all had
that thought,
so what? Well, the past is not comprised of things, there are no
things in the past.
If nothing is in the past, it may as well not exist. But surely
that's not true?
The past does exist, but how it presents itself to us, is only as a
horizon of already
having been. One way to describe it is as a positive indeterminate.
Looking-back,
the past is blank, indeterminate, but it is "there", thus extant in a
"positive" manner,
representing a plenum rather than an absence. Once this hurdle of thought can
be overcome, I start thinking about what it means to have this sense of already
having been? How is it possibly to understand "already"? Logically, we think
the past is "already" retained for us so we can understand what it means to
reproduce something in our imagination as referring to the same event that
happened before in the past. How do we retain events? How is it possible to
distinguish memory from pure imagination? How do we know it actually happened?
Again, back to the question, simple, how do we know anything ever happened?
The crude answer: I was there! The retort: how do you know? The same
problems occur when questioning the persistence of identity through time:
how am I or things both the same and different? Subconsciously, I think we
all make recourse to the shadow of a transcendental identity that
unifies everything.
That again just begs the question of what unifies the transcendental
and the empirical.
Well, now, that was quite a rant and still did not answer any
questions. Forgive me
but it has been a while since I engaged in this kind of thinking.
There are a few
more steps that need to be fleshed out, however, I think it would be
miserable to
have read this far without anything really being said. So, long story
short, the
unity of time is expressed in the interdependence of the three phases. The key
to this elaboration being how the becoming of now is now as the anticipation of
becoming, unlocking now as having been through becoming. I know this does
not seem to say much but there is a hint there for an ontological framework
that maybe I should work on some more ;-)
Been lurking this thread, on and off for a while now, so I just re-read it all, and although it doesn't always sequence it's factors in a equational or mathematically formulaic model, and often seems to shy away from a linear or causal logic, it really doesn't matter that it's factors have a sliding scale of relevance. This seems to be a necessary quality, and permeates the whole project like an algorithm that ties where you are, with any of the potential points of emergence. So theoretically, if I can find the prime moment, & synchronise the tenses, then source, time, and awareness should all emerge as one accessible, subjective point in the spaces between the project's "less wrong" sequences.
(Tell me if I'm not getting it) The only hidden variable, to me, is exactly where emergence becomes the moment of understanding. :? Even as I write this, I can see that doesn't matter because it's already become accessible, it's just not been realised yet. The point of emergence is always going to be the last factor, of the least wrong sequence. And the realisation, is the first point of the next sequence.
The moment of understanding is the only part of the whole project that is never fixed into any other part. :eek:
I'm losing it a bit now, but that's necessary too, because part of the next less wrong sequence, is to find it again.
Onwards, and upwards.
>The moment of understanding is the only part of the whole project that is never fixed into any other part.
Are you asking for an admission of trans-humanism?
or,
When does memory become telescopic instead of prosthetic ;-)
Discordianism is a joke and you not funny. Don't belive before eris is a cuntbag. Propaganda is your dumb. No i not troling I iz mad at you for your face. It has zits and you are fat! You hae no ejucation and are dumb. You went to colledge and then say fight the man and your not worthy. They told yu everythjing you know and yuo blived it all. I am a person. You arent
Quote from: Daego on October 24, 2010, 07:22:14 PM
Discordianism is a joke and you not funny. Don't belive before eris is a cuntbag. Propaganda is your dumb. No i not troling I iz mad at you for your face. It has zits and you are fat! You hae no ejucation and are dumb. You went to colledge and then say fight the man and your not worthy. They told yu everythjing you know and yuo blived it all. I am a person. You arent
Quid est? You aren't even trying.
Quote from: Daego on October 24, 2010, 07:22:14 PM
Discordianism is a joke and you not funny. Don't belive before eris is a cuntbag. Propaganda is your dumb. No i not troling I iz mad at you for your face. It has zits and you are fat! You hae no ejucation and are dumb. You went to colledge and then say fight the man and your not worthy. They told yu everythjing you know and yuo blived it all. I am a person. You arent
This is that spag from Indiana.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 24, 2010, 07:52:20 PM
Quote from: Daego on October 24, 2010, 07:22:14 PM
Discordianism is a joke and you not funny. Don't belive before eris is a cuntbag. Propaganda is your dumb. No i not troling I iz mad at you for your face. It has zits and you are fat! You hae no ejucation and are dumb. You went to colledge and then say fight the man and your not worthy. They told yu everythjing you know and yuo blived it all. I am a person. You arent
This is that spag from Indiana.
Previous ban or just doubling up?
Quote from: Phox on October 24, 2010, 07:55:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 24, 2010, 07:52:20 PM
Quote from: Daego on October 24, 2010, 07:22:14 PM
Discordianism is a joke and you not funny. Don't belive before eris is a cuntbag. Propaganda is your dumb. No i not troling I iz mad at you for your face. It has zits and you are fat! You hae no ejucation and are dumb. You went to colledge and then say fight the man and your not worthy. They told yu everythjing you know and yuo blived it all. I am a person. You arent
This is that spag from Indiana.
Previous ban or just doubling up?
Doubling up. IIRC, he was a useless ass in his earlier incarnation, so he came in here to fail again.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 24, 2010, 07:56:47 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 24, 2010, 07:55:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 24, 2010, 07:52:20 PM
Quote from: Daego on October 24, 2010, 07:22:14 PM
Discordianism is a joke and you not funny. Don't belive before eris is a cuntbag. Propaganda is your dumb. No i not troling I iz mad at you for your face. It has zits and you are fat! You hae no ejucation and are dumb. You went to colledge and then say fight the man and your not worthy. They told yu everythjing you know and yuo blived it all. I am a person. You arent
This is that spag from Indiana.
Previous ban or just doubling up?
Doubling up. IIRC, he was a useless ass in his earlier incarnation, so he came in here to fail again.
Meh, seems pretty weak. Ignore mode on.
Quote from: Phox on October 24, 2010, 07:59:32 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 24, 2010, 07:56:47 PM
Quote from: Phox on October 24, 2010, 07:55:12 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 24, 2010, 07:52:20 PM
Quote from: Daego on October 24, 2010, 07:22:14 PM
Discordianism is a joke and you not funny. Don't belive before eris is a cuntbag. Propaganda is your dumb. No i not troling I iz mad at you for your face. It has zits and you are fat! You hae no ejucation and are dumb. You went to colledge and then say fight the man and your not worthy. They told yu everythjing you know and yuo blived it all. I am a person. You arent
This is that spag from Indiana.
Previous ban or just doubling up?
Doubling up. IIRC, he was a useless ass in his earlier incarnation, so he came in here to fail again.
Meh, seems pretty weak. Ignore mode on.
I'd give it .5 Wades and .66 Cowass.
Not ready for prime time.
So, yeah, ignore on.
Hah, non sequiturs.
Quote from: Liam on October 25, 2010, 07:02:16 AM
QuoteAre you asking for an admission of trans-humanism?
Whats wrong with Transhumanism?
Less and less as I mature. Besides the "human" part.
Quote from: Liam on October 25, 2010, 07:02:16 AM
QuoteAre you asking for an admission of trans-humanism?
Whats wrong with Transhumanism?
I think of Transhumanism as yet another system where its focus is on transcending this existence (Peter Carrol's "Transcendent Paradigm"). They've just swapped GOD! for SCIENCE!
I see nothings wrong with liking that sort of belief system, if its the sort of belief system you like... However, most of the ones I've met tend to act a bit crackpotty, focused more on the idea of transcending than the reality of what actually exists. I've met some Transhumanists that swear technology is gonna take us to the Next Level, yet they have no understanding of the technology we have right now, thus their metaphors tend to sound more like fantasy and less like a reasonable concept. I've met far fewer that have a clue about what's really happening in technology and I find that their view are a bit less fantasy... more just extremely optimistic.
So kinda like various other religions... the loudest ones don't appear to know what they're talking about, and the ones that do seem to have a clue aren't entirely on board with the level of crazy present among their vocal peers.
Perhaps that's just my experience, though.
No, that seems pretty fair from my experience also.
any examples of the 'reasonable' transhumanists that have writings or info for perusal?
There seem to be a few writing at the Less Wrong site. I don't have any links to hand though. They seem mostly interested in life extension and smart drugs, from what I can see, which are fairly reasonable.
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 04:24:13 PM
There seem to be a few writing at the Less Wrong site. I don't have any links to hand though. They seem mostly interested in life extension and smart drugs, from what I can see, which are fairly reasonable.
Eliezer Yudowsky is generally reasonable about it, yes. He is the reason why it seems more sensible to me than previously.
I haven't seen much from Yudowsky himself except for life extension and IIRC, cryogenics, but I've been only skimming Less Wrong up until now.
Quote from: Liam on October 25, 2010, 07:02:16 AM
QuoteAre you asking for an admission of trans-humanism?
Whats wrong with Transhumanism?
We should probably perfect the "human" part before we go all transhuman.
You don't build the house when the foundation isn't dry.
I've argued that before. In fact, I've name that argument the "immortal Dick Cheney uploaded onto the internet" thesis.
Quote from: Cain on October 25, 2010, 08:06:08 PM
I've argued that before. In fact, I've name that argument the "immortal Dick Cheney uploaded onto the internet" thesis.
I can't imagine the idea of the average primate running around with MORE personal abilities/firepower than he has now.
"Asking for a caped superhuman to solve your problems is a good way to get killed."
- Warren Ellis,
Supergod.
ferreting into sub-human primates can cause paralysis and hallucinations...
re:"Asking for a caped superhuman to solve your problems is a good way to get killed."
- Warren Ellis, Supergod.
its... ophthichal...
Quote from: LuciferX on October 26, 2010, 04:22:05 AM
ferreting into sub-human primates can cause paralysis and hallucinations...
I'm sure that made sense when you wrote it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:26:06 AM
Quote from: LuciferX on October 26, 2010, 04:22:05 AM
ferreting into sub-human primates can cause paralysis and hallucinations...
I'm sure that made sense when you wrote it.
none of you're wax then?
Quote from: LuciferX on October 26, 2010, 04:31:20 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on October 26, 2010, 04:26:06 AM
Quote from: LuciferX on October 26, 2010, 04:22:05 AM
ferreting into sub-human primates can cause paralysis and hallucinations...
I'm sure that made sense when you wrote it.
none of you're wax then?
Right, then. I'll just be leaving you to your word salad.
Bye.
Quote"Asking for a caped superhuman to solve your problems is a good way to get killed."
- Warren Ellis, Supergod.
Sorry to threadjack, but how is Supergod? I haven't been able to find any issues.
Quote from: James Semaj on October 26, 2010, 04:41:43 AM
Quote"Asking for a caped superhuman to solve your problems is a good way to get killed."
- Warren Ellis, Supergod.
Sorry to threadjack, but how is Supergod? I haven't been able to find any issues.
Well, standard Warren Ellis. 4/5 really good issues, then he fucked off and started something else instead of finishing.
I am beginning to hate that man.
QuoteWell, standard Warren Ellis. 4/5 really good issues, then he fucked off and started something else instead of finishing.
I am beginning to hate that man.
How many active projects does that make?
Quote from: James Semaj on October 26, 2010, 04:47:52 AM
QuoteWell, standard Warren Ellis. 4/5 really good issues, then he fucked off and started something else instead of finishing.
I am beginning to hate that man.
How many active projects does that make?
more than a dozen, by my count.
If he doesn't finish Fell and Doktor Sleepless soon, I am flying to England with a harpoon. That fat bastard has damn near gone too far.
Quotemore than a dozen, by my count.
If he doesn't finish Fell and Doktor Sleepless soon, I am flying to England with a harpoon. That fat bastard has damn near gone too far.
Goddamn. The man needs a little discipline.
Anyway, back to the thread topic at hand.
Quote from: James Semaj on October 26, 2010, 04:50:46 AM
Quotemore than a dozen, by my count.
If he doesn't finish Fell and Doktor Sleepless soon, I am flying to England with a harpoon. That fat bastard has damn near gone too far.
Goddamn. The man needs a little discipline.
Anyway, back to the thread topic at hand.
What, lucitard X making word salad?
and we have a hit... its...
[wait, where's classified(s) place?]
QuoteWhat, lucitard X making word salad?
Nah, the tranhumanism thing. As soon as he pulled out the word salad, I just told my eyes to filter out whatever he posts. Much happier that way.
Honestly, I think the future we're heading towards will look a lot like Transmetro, Snow Crash, and a William Gibson novel, though a little less dramatic and a fair bit less dystopian. The basic idea of using science and technology to improve humanity doesn't seem like a bad idea mostly.
Some of the technologies that are going to be coming through in the next couple of decades are really interesting. Carbon nanotubes for instance are going to revolutionize the entire goddamn planet. Bulletproof clothing, better heat conduits, all kinds of amazing things.
I'm looking forward to the next couple of decades just because of the sheer amount of interesting/horrible things that are going to happen.
Quote from: James Semaj on October 26, 2010, 05:02:15 AM
QuoteWhat, lucitard X making word salad?
Nah, the tranhumanism thing. As soon as he pulled out the word salad, I just told my eyes to filter out whatever he posts. Much happier that way.
Point. I'll do the same.
Quote from: James Semaj on October 26, 2010, 05:02:15 AM
Honestly, I think the future we're heading towards will look a lot like Transmetro, Snow Crash, and a William Gibson novel, though a little less dramatic and a fair bit less dystopian. The basic idea of using science and technology to improve humanity doesn't seem like a bad idea mostly.
Some of the technologies that are going to be coming through in the next couple of decades are really interesting. Carbon nanotubes for instance are going to revolutionize the entire goddamn planet. Bulletproof clothing, better heat conduits, all kinds of amazing things.
I'm looking forward to the next couple of decades just because of the sheer amount of interesting/horrible things that are going to happen.
Odds are, those things will involve fighting over the last of the canned food.
QuoteOdds are, those things will involve fighting over the last of the canned food.
Hmm. True, that is also a likely outcome. But I'm placing my bet on the cyberpunk-kinda future.
Quote from: James Semaj on October 26, 2010, 05:07:59 AM
QuoteOdds are, those things will involve fighting over the last of the canned food.
Hmm. True, that is also a likely outcome. But I'm placing my bet on the cyberpunk-kinda future.
mongers of influence scarcity, all of you!
[except for Bruce, he's cool ;-]
Quote from: James Semaj on October 26, 2010, 05:07:59 AM
QuoteOdds are, those things will involve fighting over the last of the canned food.
Hmm. True, that is also a likely outcome. But I'm placing my bet on the cyberpunk-kinda future.
Okay. If you win, I get cybernetic hemmoroids.
If I win, I get to eat you and take your gasoline.
QuoteOkay. If you win, I get cybernetic hemmoroids.
If I win, I get to eat you and take your gasoline.
How about if I win, you pay for my cyberarms and personal Rat Thing guard.
And sure, if you win you can eat me and take my gas.
Quote from: James Semaj on October 26, 2010, 05:12:59 AM
QuoteOkay. If you win, I get cybernetic hemmoroids.
If I win, I get to eat you and take your gasoline.
How about if I win, you pay for my cyberarms and personal Rat Thing guard.
And sure, if you win you can eat me and take my gas.
Okay.
But I get to choose the brand.
Quote from: James Semaj on October 26, 2010, 05:12:59 AM
QuoteOkay. If you win, I get cybernetic hemmoroids.
If I win, I get to eat you and take your gasoline.
How about if I win, you pay for my cyberarms and personal Rat Thing guard.
And sure, if you win you can eat me and take my gas.
Check, why burn relatives in order to get to work?
Quote
Okay.
But I get to choose the brand.
Fine, but you better not cheap out on me.
If I end up with glitch filled, poorly designed implants, then there will be words.
Quote from: James Semaj on October 26, 2010, 05:18:38 AM
Quote
Okay.
But I get to choose the brand.
Fine, but you better not cheap out on me.
If I end up with glitch filled, poorly designed implants, then there will be words.
I know a guy who knows a guy.
You'll be fine.
QuoteI know a guy who knows a guy.
You'll be fine.
Oh that sounds promising. What about the Rat Thing?
Quote from: Liam on October 25, 2010, 07:02:16 AM
QuoteAre you asking for an admission of trans-humanism?
Whats wrong with Transhumanism?
Transhumanists tend to be too optimistic about the whole thing.
:fap:
I think we should take "making" out of the title...
Quote from: James Semaj on October 26, 2010, 05:23:53 AM
QuoteI know a guy who knows a guy.
You'll be fine.
Oh that sounds promising. What about the Rat Thing?
Leave me out of your perversions.
Rat
Quote from: LuciferX on October 26, 2010, 05:31:57 AM
:fap:
I think we should take "making" out of the title...
I think we should take "LuciferX" out of PD.com.
And by "take" I mean "knee in the balls".
Quote from: Kai on October 28, 2010, 11:45:23 PM
Quote from: LuciferX on October 26, 2010, 05:31:57 AM
:fap:
I think we should take "making" out of the title...
I think we should take "LuciferX" out of PD.com.
And by "take" I mean "knee in the balls".
based on how you kneed balls?
Quote from: Liam on October 29, 2010, 09:39:08 PM
QuoteTranshumanists tend to be too optimistic about the whole thing.
I'm all up for it, but the sheer amount of redundancy needed to be built in to the whole system, if its to stand any chance against entropy is mindfuckingly amazing and highly improbable at this juncture in time, and without some amazing strides in science.
I wish life was like an Alaister Reynolds novel.
I don't mean so much the technology holding up, or worries about AIs killing us all for the hell of it. I'm more worried about humans being human, and dooming us all. We'll refuse to adapt to a post scarcity economy and unemployment will hit 90%, or we'll decide weaponized grey goo is a good idea, or some other piece of insanity.
I'm mostly concerned about our ability to create intelligent machines that are too obedient.
All the most terrible things ever are accomplished with armies of obedient agents.
I'm also worried about too human-like AI, Sig.
Quote from: Sigmatic on October 31, 2010, 08:42:50 AM
I'm mostly concerned about our ability to create intelligent machines that are too obedient.
All the most terrible things ever are accomplished with armies of obedient agents.
This.
Motherfucking this.
Welcome brother! to the brotherhood of Andoulism.
I used to call myself anarchist, back when i thought leaders were to blame for having followers.
but now i know better, it's not the leaders that are bad, its the followers.
instead of without leaders === an-archos i have decided that utopia can only be obtained when we are
without servants/slaves === an-doulos.
All hail Andoulitry!
Quote from: Regret on November 04, 2010, 05:23:59 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on October 31, 2010, 08:42:50 AM
I'm mostly concerned about our ability to create intelligent machines that are too obedient.
All the most terrible things ever are accomplished with armies of obedient agents.
This.
Motherfucking this.
Welcome brother! to the brotherhood of Andoulism.
I used to call myself anarchist, back when i thought leaders were to blame for having followers.
but now i know better, it's not the leaders that are bad, its the followers.
instead of without leaders === an-archos i have decided that utopia can only be obtained when we are
without servants/slaves === an-doulos.
All hail Andoulitry!
It likes the idea, then dismisses acceptance thereof because logical inconsistency follows.
If the idea serves reason or my taste, it cannot be andoulos.
Conversely, if it is not andoulos, I then can follow.
Andoulos is /contra/ my diction. :oops:
Quote from: Cain on November 04, 2010, 07:19:46 AM
I'm also worried about too human-like AI, Sig.
The evil you know, et cetera. I strongly anticipate that some kind of machine intelligence will be created eventually, the best thing I can think of is to create an anthropic one that is squeamish about murder, a bit lazy, and not in total control of it's own mind. Like a human. At least that's the kind of problem you can sort of model and predict.
Quote from: Regret on November 04, 2010, 05:23:59 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on October 31, 2010, 08:42:50 AM
I'm mostly concerned about our ability to create intelligent machines that are too obedient.
All the most terrible things ever are accomplished with armies of obedient agents.
This.
Motherfucking this.
Welcome brother! to the brotherhood of Andoulism.
I used to call myself anarchist, back when i thought leaders were to blame for having followers.
but now i know better, it's not the leaders that are bad, its the followers.
instead of without leaders === an-archos i have decided that utopia can only be obtained when we are
without servants/slaves === an-doulos.
All hail Andoulitry!
All that said, the reason I'm actually interested in all this machine consciousness crap is that deep down I really just want a robot butler who knows a little kung fu.
That would pretty much complete me, spiritually and emotionally.
Quote from: Sigmatic on November 06, 2010, 04:06:14 AM
Quote from: Cain on November 04, 2010, 07:19:46 AM
I'm also worried about too human-like AI, Sig.
The evil you know, et cetera. I strongly anticipate that some kind of machine intelligence will be created eventually, the best thing I can think of is to create an anthropic one that is squeamish about murder, a bit lazy, and not in total control of it's own mind. Like a human. At least that's the kind of problem you can sort of model and predict.
Quote from: Regret on November 04, 2010, 05:23:59 PM
Quote from: Sigmatic on October 31, 2010, 08:42:50 AM
I'm mostly concerned about our ability to create intelligent machines that are too obedient.
All the most terrible things ever are accomplished with armies of obedient agents.
This.
Motherfucking this.
Welcome brother! to the brotherhood of Andoulism.
I used to call myself anarchist, back when i thought leaders were to blame for having followers.
but now i know better, it's not the leaders that are bad, its the followers.
instead of without leaders === an-archos i have decided that utopia can only be obtained when we are
without servants/slaves === an-doulos.
All hail Andoulitry!
All that said, the reason I'm actually interested in all this machine consciousness crap is that deep down I really just want a robot butler who knows a little kung fu.
That would pretty much complete me, spiritually and emotionally.
I like how it likes what is prudent.
Quote from: Liam on November 04, 2010, 08:59:44 AM
QuoteI'm also worried about too human-like AI, Sig.
transitional post. this translates into;
(http://images1.memegenerator.net/Robot-as-fuck/ImageMacro/3469229/TRAIN-im-jumping-in-front-of-one.jpg)
this right! :lulz: