Technology as latest "solution" to... technology - Page 17 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15129522
ckaihatsu wrote:Are you *denying* that there is an 'inside' and an 'outside' to any given biological entity?
Yes, Erwin Schrodinger said- What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. It's impossible to exact where YOU and I begin or end when we discuss the nature of BEING present. Biological entities are the sum of working parts, most of which biological entities have little control over. My last statement appears logically fallacious, perhaps an ecological fallacy (inferring about the nature of an entity based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which that entity belongs.), but my statement explores the attributes that make a biological entity's existence possible (air, water, sustenance) instead of focusing on arbitrary features (abstractions) of the mind. In which case there isn't a definite inside or outside to any given biological entity. We've discussed duality here: viewtopic.php?f=45&t=179197 Inside and outside serve as linguistic devices. A dichotomy is an imaginative adaptation humans use to host a spectrum of meaning.

The arbitrary features of the mind, expressed by anthropocentric thinking and made manifest in the extensions of the human sensorium, reorganize the attributes or evolutionary forces that make existence possible. In this way, we can look at immaterial thought as an interference pattern in the material metaphoric matrix. In this case, a mind-matter continuum is a referent for resonant intervals of figure-ground interplay that occur in the mind-matter interface. A sensorial interface that functions as a point of interconnectivity for cybernetic-envirnmental mosaics which integrate relativistic reality continuums and form concentric ripples through a holistic field of experience that I call a metaphoric matrix, that individuated aspects of consiousness into multi-domain media that're periodically disturbed by thought patterns.

'Internal' and 'external' are *valid* terms to describe surrounding space in terms of the *subject* / entity / locus.
I advise you to reread my sentiment: The species' socialization differs from the species' acclimatization and adaption. And it's the latter that occurs at a deeper level than mass communication, and this is why we need to train our perceptive faculties in order to tune into the elusive meta-evolutionary patterns of hierarchical-biological organization which lies beyond the vanishing point of linguistic reality. Therefore not valid when explaining a reality which lies beyond the vanishing point of language. Do you really think visual space is the ultimate reality? We'd be doomed to carry on with such bias.


Ironically you're now *describing* internal-and-external, inside-and-outside, after just denouncing the delineation of such.
What do you expect? I'm using a written language to communicate and explore concepts.

I never *said* that technology is 'a solitary tool' -- you're making shit up.
Ah, but you suggest this here: Being a philosophical-*materialist*, can I just propose that we look at the *material* factors of mass communication in all of its various forms -- there's the past broadcast television *one-to-many* type of distribution, while conventional phone calls are *one-to-one*, while *Internet* technologies, like PoFo, are *many-to-many*. And now we're done. You describe technology as tools with specific functions. Are you not suggesting technology are solitary items in their functionality? As if we can program precisely how/what/when/where it will function? You're giving technology a solitary description. I emphasize a multiplex of signals that invigorate change in the environment.


Okay, I'll listen -- what's the 'communications philosophy' that you propose?
If we take away nuance in my metaphysics (I get it, like you said on page 16- you don't want to philosophize), I suggest all technologies (as extensions of our thoughts) reorganize and affect expressions of the biosphere and its subsequent ecology. If technology is intricately linked in a casual chain of genetic expression, we can reiterate Darwin: “The highest possible stage in moral culture is when we recognise that we ought to control our thoughts.” Meaning to say- we need to control technology; It's not neutral, all technologies redistribute developmental evolutionary biology.

@QatzelOk Precisely, it's The Treachery of Images (René Magritte). A graph (@ckaihatsu phenomena) presents a gap between language and meaning, and in a Kantian sense, will never truly reflect a thing-in-itself (noumena). Lastly, loved your commentary on subject narrative. :)

Thank you for your time and attention,


-RT
#15129686
QatzelOk wrote:
Sometimes it seems that, for you, *reality* is just something one can *graph* into submission.

Graphic design structure is not the same as reality structure either.



Do you want it in *words*, then?

It happens to correspond to *physical space*, around the locus of the individual. Here's another one like it:


[14] Bloom's Taxonomy, Illustrated

Spoiler: show
Image
#15129690
RhetoricThug wrote:
Yes, Erwin Schrodinger said- What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space.



You can *believe* that, if you like, but it's a crock of shit.

It's said that no other matter / substance is nearly as complex as the brain, so that's definitely *defining*, not to mention the surface of our skin. Thus internal, and external, and for *social structures* (institutions) as well.


RhetoricThug wrote:
[/i] It's impossible to exact where YOU and I begin or end when we discuss the nature of BEING present. Biological entities are the sum of working parts, most of which biological entities have little control over. My last statement appears logically fallacious, perhaps an ecological fallacy (inferring about the nature of an entity based solely upon aggregate statistics collected for the group to which that entity belongs.), but my statement explores the attributes that make a biological entity's existence possible (air, water, sustenance) instead of focusing on arbitrary features (abstractions) of the mind. In which case there isn't a definite inside or outside to any given biological entity. We've discussed duality here: viewtopic.php?f=45&t=179197 Inside and outside serve as linguistic devices. A dichotomy is an imaginative adaptation humans use to host a spectrum of meaning.



Why are you *bothering* with this bullshit? Do you really think that the *air atoms* external to me are equivalent to *me*, myself?


RhetoricThug wrote:
The arbitrary features of the mind, expressed by anthropocentric thinking and made manifest in the extensions of the human sensorium, reorganize the attributes or evolutionary forces that make existence possible.



Oh, you mean 'mind over matter'. Nope.


RhetoricThug wrote:
In this way, we can look at immaterial thought as an interference pattern in the material metaphoric matrix. In this case, a mind-matter continuum is a referent for resonant intervals of figure-ground interplay that occur in the mind-matter interface. A sensorial interface that functions as a point of interconnectivity for cybernetic-envirnmental mosaics which integrate relativistic reality continuums and form concentric ripples through a holistic field of experience that I call a metaphoric matrix, that individuated aspects of consiousness into multi-domain media that're periodically disturbed by thought patterns.



So this is your definition of the imagined 'noosphere'. Nope.


RhetoricThug wrote:
I advise you to reread my sentiment: The species' socialization differs from the species' acclimatization and adaption. And it's the latter that occurs at a deeper level than mass communication, and this is why we need to train our perceptive faculties in order to tune into the elusive meta-evolutionary patterns of hierarchical-biological organization which lies beyond the vanishing point of linguistic reality. Therefore not valid when explaining a reality which lies beyond the vanishing point of language. Do you really think visual space is the ultimate reality? We'd be doomed to carry on with such bias.



The proverbial 'end of the sidewalk'. Uh-huh.


---


RhetoricThug wrote:
I've given you a thorough summary of how media ecology affects a field of phenomena and how it's relative to anthropocentric thinking.

“Your skin doesn’t separate you from the world; it’s a bridge through which the external world flows into you, and you flow into it.”

"All technologies are extensions of our physical and nervous systems to increase power and speed”

“Any extension, whether of skin, hand, or foot, affects the whole psychic and social complex."

“With the arrival of electric technology, man has extended, or set outside himself, a live model of the central nervous system itself."



ckaihatsu wrote:
Ironically you're now *describing* internal-and-external, inside-and-outside, after just denouncing the delineation of such.



RhetoricThug wrote:
What do you expect? I'm using a written language to communicate and explore concepts.



You're using a written language to communicate about the *physical world* around us, which is inherently *structural* -- 3D space, in other words.

You could simply be more *consistent* with your descriptions, as in asserting internal-and-external, and then later *denying* internal-and-external.


---


RhetoricThug wrote:
Ah, but you suggest this here:



ckaihatsu wrote:
Being a philosophical-*materialist*, can I just propose that we look at the *material* factors of mass communication in all of its various forms -- there's the past broadcast television *one-to-many* type of distribution, while conventional phone calls are *one-to-one*, while *Internet* technologies, like PoFo, are *many-to-many*. And now we're done.



RhetoricThug wrote:
You describe technology as tools with specific functions. Are you not suggesting technology are solitary items in their functionality? As if we can program precisely how/what/when/where it will function? You're giving technology a solitary description. I emphasize a multiplex of signals that invigorate change in the environment.



I'm talking about the physical *topologies* of communication networks, which is *significant*, and even *deterministic*, since many-to-many is more *democratic* than one-to-many.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, I'll listen -- what's the 'communications philosophy' that you propose?



RhetoricThug wrote:
If we take away nuance in my metaphysics (I get it, like you said on page 16- you don't want to philosophize), I suggest all technologies (as extensions of our thoughts) reorganize and affect expressions of the biosphere and its subsequent ecology.



The biosphere *isn't conscious* -- you obviously subscribe to the 'Gaia' hypothesis.


RhetoricThug wrote:
If technology is intricately linked in a casual chain of genetic expression, we can reiterate Darwin: “The highest possible stage in moral culture is when we recognise that we ought to control our thoughts.” Meaning to say- we need to control technology; It's not neutral, all technologies redistribute developmental evolutionary biology.



We don't control technology sheerly as *individuals*, though -- society confers major control of technology to government and corporations, like anything else, so it's not merely a species-biological thing, it's a socio-*political* thing.
#15129826
Superimposed delight
ckaihatsu wrote:You can *believe* that, if you like, but it's a crock of shit.

It's said that no other matter / substance is nearly as complex as the brain, so that's definitely *defining*, not to mention the surface of our skin. Thus internal, and external, and for *social structures* (institutions) as well.
I'm not sure what you're arguing against. Schrödinger's experiment explicitly details a thought experiment that implies observer participation as a critical component in a mind-matter continuum (as described previously). Furthermore, thanks for reminding our guests that the brain, a biological instrument, is one of the most complex organs known to itself. After-all, it's responsible for all illusion and social structures. To institute implies appointment, the brain appoints abstraction and elects reason to conduct its purposes. Energetic components (and quantum electrodynamics) of the electromagnetic field stimulate nerve endings, and biological entities cannot refuse cybernetic feedback loops felt by the skin that eventually aggregate and inform cognition. Thought becomes an interference pattern, disturbing the information persisting in the metamorphic matrix. What's outside eventually becomes inside, and what's inside eventually becomes outside. So we're left with Alfred Wallace's quote: "Modification of form is admitted to be a matter of time." Time is yet another medium or substrate we pass through. A spacetime continuum that cybernetically interconnects with the mind-matter continuum.


Why are you *bothering* with this bullshit? Do you really think that the *air atoms* external to me are equivalent to *me*, myself?
Yes, because: "Individuality is only possible if it unfolds from wholeness. And thought struggles against the results, trying to avoid those unpleasant results while keeping on with that way of thinking. That is what I call 'sustained incoherence."


Oh, you mean 'mind over matter'.

It's the story of civilization. Stop denying the prowess of consciousness. It reigns supreme in the material field.


So this is your definition of the imagined 'noosphere'.

If you wish... The internet is the technological externalization of the noosphere.



The proverbial 'end of the sidewalk'.

Or linguistic reality.

You're using a written language to communicate about the *physical world* around us, which is inherently *structural* -- 3D space, in other words.
Do you understand what a written language is? It compresses experience for retrieval, and approximates recorded associations. There's a deconstruction, and it's an approach to understanding the relationship between text and meaning. 3D, :lol: only insofar as you can see, hear, and feel. Is my imagination 3D? What happens when my imagination extends my sensorium into a mathematically engineered 4th dimensional space? We'd pilot Infinite potential captured or inferred by imagination only to collapse back into finite sensibility.


I'm talking about the physical *topologies* of communication networks, which is *significant*, and even *deterministic*, since many-to-many is more *democratic* than one-to-many.
More democratic? I'm attempting to detail the transformative power of technology, not social-political conventions. Conventions that serve a purpose, a purpose invented by self-serving, biologically dissociated thinking processes.

The biosphere *isn't conscious* -- you obviously subscribe to the 'Gaia' hypothesis.
The biosphere is a sub-domain of the noosphere. Consciousness is the primary evolutionary motivator in the universe. Beyond that, can you define what's conscious and what isn't? It's like defining what's intelligent and what isn't. Intelligence is based on a spectrum of meaning, and since there isn't anything apparently more 'intelligent' than the human brain (which is an evolutionary biological phenomenon), It's hard to measure how intelligent we truly are. We may be completely incompetent once contested by a vastly superior (in a rationally abstracted sense) intelligence. Such as our engineered successors, AI.



We don't control technology sheerly as *individuals*, though -- society confers major control of technology to government and corporations, like anything else, so it's not merely a species-biological thing, it's a socio-*political* thing.
Which is an outgrowth of the species. :)
#15129889
ckaihatsu wrote:
It's said that no other matter / substance is nearly as complex as the brain, so that's definitely *defining*, not to mention the surface of our skin. Thus internal, and external, and for *social structures* (institutions) as well.



RhetoricThug wrote:
Superimposed delight
I'm not sure what you're arguing against. Schrödinger's experiment explicitly details a thought experiment that implies observer participation as a critical component in a mind-matter continuum (as described previously).



You're talking about *quantum theory*, and that's circumscribed to the wave-particle duality of subatomic particles, in the double-slit experiment. If you have some larger conclusion to make from this dynamic, please feel free.

This-all may have something to do with zero point energy / the zero-point field (see the Casimir effect), but I'm not privy to *how* the act of observation physically interferes with the wave-particle duality of subatomic particles.


RhetoricThug wrote:
Furthermore, thanks for reminding our guests that the brain, a biological instrument, is one of the most complex organs known to itself. After-all, it's responsible for all illusion and social structures. To institute implies appointment, the brain appoints abstraction and elects reason to conduct its purposes. Energetic components (and quantum electrodynamics) of the electromagnetic field stimulate nerve endings, and biological entities cannot refuse cybernetic feedback loops felt by the skin that eventually aggregate and inform cognition. Thought becomes an interference pattern, disturbing the information persisting in the metamorphic matrix. What's outside eventually becomes inside, and what's inside eventually becomes inside. So we're left with Alfred Wallace's quote: "Modification of form is admitted to be a matter of time." Time is yet another medium or substrate we pass through. A spacetime continuum that cybernetically interconnects with the mind-matter continuum.



I don't *dispute* these empirical assertions, but your original point was that there's *zero* internal-external dichotomy, and I maintain that there *is*, because of the differences in physical composition of internal *matter*, versus external *matter* (to the biological organism).

I'm arguing organic-vs.-inorganic, and you're oversimplifying internal-external phenomena, to blur the boundary altogether, which I think is inappropriate and oversimplified, since any such 'blurring' / *transmissions* will be subject to a *gradient* in either direction, thus not *everything* that's external will be internalized (received wisdom), and not everything that's internal (thought) will be *externalized* (transcribed and/or communicated).


RhetoricThug wrote:
Yes, because: "Individuality is only possible if it unfolds from wholeness. And thought struggles against the results, trying to avoid those unpleasant results while keeping on with that way of thinking. That is what I call 'sustained incoherence."



I'm sorry, but this is far too atomistic a view, per Deepak Chopra. I prefer to use *complexity theory* (fractal geometry) to find complex boundaries between the internal and the external.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Oh, you mean 'mind over matter'.



RhetoricThug wrote:
It's the story of civilization. Stop denying the prowess of consciousness. It reigns supreme in the material field.



Okay, please give me *one* example of mind-over-matter that I may be overlooking.


RhetoricThug wrote:
If you wish... The internet is the technological externalization of the noosphere.



Can we compromise and just call it 'culture'? It's less mysterious and controversial that way.


---


RhetoricThug wrote:
I advise you to reread my sentiment: The species' socialization differs from the species' acclimatization and adaption. And it's the latter that occurs at a deeper level than mass communication, and this is why we need to train our perceptive faculties in order to tune into the elusive meta-evolutionary patterns of hierarchical-biological organization which lies beyond the vanishing point of linguistic reality. Therefore not valid when explaining a reality which lies beyond the vanishing point of language. Do you really think visual space is the ultimate reality? We'd be doomed to carry on with such bias.



ckaihatsu wrote:
The proverbial 'end of the sidewalk'. Uh-huh.



RhetoricThug wrote:
Or linguistic reality.



Language is a cultural *overlay*, because the external physical world would be organically unaffected (at least in the short term) by the *absence* of all animal biological communication, and especially human languages.

To re-address your statement, though, are you attempting to indicate a more-realtime process of phenotypical impact on DNA, as some recent research has suggested?


RhetoricThug wrote:
Do you understand what a written language is? It compresses experience for retrieval, and approximates recorded associations. There's a deconstruction, and it's an approach to understanding the relationship between text and meaning. 3D, :lol: only insofar as you can see, hear, and feel. Is my imagination 3D? What happens when my imagination extends my sensorium into a mathematically engineered 4th dimensional space? We'd pilot Infinite potential captured or inferred by imagination only to collapse back into finite sensibility.



You're being *contradictory* again, because here you're arguing for a distinctly *internal* component, which is what *I've* been asserting. Also recall the diagram:


[14] Bloom's Taxonomy, Illustrated

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'm talking about the physical *topologies* of communication networks, which is *significant*, and even *deterministic*, since many-to-many is more *democratic* than one-to-many.



RhetoricThug wrote:
More democratic? I'm attempting to detail the transformative power of technology, not social-political conventions. Conventions that serve a purpose, a purpose invented by self-serving, biologically dissociated thinking processes.



'Transformative' for *whom*? The response to that will *indicate* some socio-political 'conventions', as over the use of technology by society.

You're *stereotyping* technological usage as being specific to a 'biologically dissociated thinking process', which is just absurd, cynical, and biased.


RhetoricThug wrote:
The biosphere is a sub-domain of the noosphere. Consciousness is the primary evolutionary motivator in the universe.



No, inorganic matter *isn't* conscious -- you're thinking of *negative ions*, from *volcanic rift* areas, which conferred health effects conducive to evolution.


RhetoricThug wrote:
Beyond that, can you define what's conscious and what isn't? It's like defining what's intelligent and what isn't. Intelligence is based on a spectrum of meaning, and since there isn't anything apparently more 'intelligent' than the human brain (which is an evolutionary biological phenomenon), It's hard to measure how intelligent we truly are. We may be completely incompetent once contested by a vastly superior (in a rationally abstracted sense) intelligence. Such as our engineered successors, AI.



It's still apples-and-oranges, though, because, as things are now, *Wikipedia* (or a set of encyclopedia books) is 'smarter' than any of us, sheerly by dint of *content*, but even the best AI, GPT-3, can't do *reasoning*, as we do easily, as a matter of course.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
We don't control technology sheerly as *individuals*, though -- society confers major control of technology to government and corporations, like anything else, so it's not merely a species-biological thing, it's a socio-*political* thing.



RhetoricThug wrote:
Which is an outgrowth of the species. :)



You're *oversimplifying* again, though, because technology isn't *biological*, mostly, and, more to the point, it's *engineered* and subject to socio-political dynamics that have a life of their own, like 'class'.


History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show
Image
#15133107
:lol:
ckaihatsu wrote:You're talking about *quantum theory*, and that's circumscribed to the wave-particle duality of subatomic particles, in the double-slit experiment. If you have some larger conclusion to make from this dynamic, please feel free.

This-all may have something to do with zero point energy / the zero-point field (see the Casimir effect), but I'm not privy to *how* the act of observation physically interferes with the wave-particle duality of subatomic particles.
Metaphorically (because I'm unable to scientifically demonstrate), the act of thinking operates as an interference pattern. When energy comes in, the mind is a slit for cognition, and the noosphere is a conglomerate of conscious superimposition (reality (if you like that word) follows). Consciousness cannot be a computation because a flame does not burn itself. Wave-particle duality (duality being a misnomer, as it is of better service as wave-particle unity (due to the relationship of comparisons and the contrast of meaning)) implies all objects behave unintuitively or paradoxically in a quantum field. Conscious observation redistributes energetic potential in a field of unfolding physical systems. We commandeer or pilot the wave when it collapses. Apprehension of expansion, if you will (I'm going out on a limb).

Supplemental


I don't *dispute* these empirical assertions, but your original point was that there's *zero* internal-external dichotomy, and I maintain that there *is*, because of the differences in physical composition of internal *matter*, versus external *matter* (to the biological organism).
I think this James Joyce quote sums things up nicely: In a simple sentence with very complex associations, Stephen considers fish feeding on the corpse of the drowned man: "God becomes man becomes fish becomes barnacle goose becomes featherbed mountain." The associative logic of the sentence is partly scientific, partly spiritualist, partly theological, partly legendary, partly erotic, partly mythographic—and fully poetic. Its emotional implications are largely positive.


I learned a long time ago, that a field of unfolding physical systems recycle all present energy perpetually, and in that assertion- living flora transmute dead dirt and minerals to feed living fauna. The dead sustains the living (metaphysically as well), and our myopic language seduces our mind into thinking that there's an internal-external dichotomy. Welcome to a nuanced way of living.
I'm arguing organic-vs.-inorganic, and you're oversimplifying internal-external phenomena, to blur the boundary altogether, which I think is inappropriate and oversimplified, since any such 'blurring' / *transmissions* will be subject to a *gradient* in either direction, thus not *everything* that's external will be internalized (received wisdom), and not everything that's internal (thought) will be *externalized* (transcribed and/or communicated).
Chemistry is an oversimplification (reductionism) or deduction of moving parts in a living system. This will sound outlandish, but there isn't any non-living system, because a living observer must be present to define what's living and non-living. Thus there is only a living system because all definitive boundaries (and resultant quandaries) are abstracted by living beings to explain Cogito, ergo sum (honestly I'm bored of our conversation, and wish to telepathically lobotomize our guests. Sounds like fun... I'll discover a new gadget soon, I'm sure).

I'm not sure what you mean by received wisdom; are you talking about my posts ( ;) )? All of our thoughts form as a response to what appears before us, so it doesn't need externalization to undergo a transformation (cybernetic loop). Consciousness as a hard problem places new variables in the movement, expression, and translation of a physical system.



I'm sorry, but this is far too atomistic a view, per Deepak Chopra. I prefer to use *complexity theory* (fractal geometry) to find complex boundaries between the internal and the external.
See (eye bias), you prefer to use, suggests a cognitive bias and tendency to view things as abstracted singletons. Please consider- complex systems have hidden variables that cannot be observed or are beyond human cognition. Funny, I'd think the uncertainty principle and further examination of non-linearity would make you a skeptic of political grievance and agenda. By the way, I appreciate Mandlebrot. Namaste spiral swirl.


Okay, please give me *one* example of mind-over-matter that I may be overlooking.
All interaction with physical systems. :eh:



Can we compromise and just call it 'culture'? It's less mysterious and controversial that way.
No. But I do think this study is rather interesting: Empathic Neural Responses Predict Group Allegiance

Watching another person in pain activates brain areas involved in the sensation of our own pain. Importantly, this neural mirroring is not constant; rather, it is modulated by our beliefs about their intentions, circumstances, and group allegiances. We investigated if the neural empathic response is modulated by minimally-differentiating information (e.g., a simple text label indicating another's religious belief), and if neural activity changes predict ingroups and outgroups across independent paradigms. We found that the empathic response was larger when participants viewed a painful event occurring to a hand labeled with their own religion (ingroup) than to a hand labeled with a different religion (outgroup).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6079240/

Culture, as an outgrowth of pattern recognition does influence how we interpret phenomena. :)


Language is a cultural *overlay*, because the external physical world would be organically unaffected (at least in the short term) by the *absence* of all animal biological communication, and especially human languages.

To re-address your statement, though, are you attempting to indicate a more-realtime process of phenotypical impact on DNA, as some recent research has suggested?
Yes, with an emphasis on observer participation and how technologies act as an outgrowth of biological cognition.

'Transformative' for *whom*? The response to that will *indicate* some socio-political 'conventions', as over the use of technology by society.

You're *stereotyping* technological usage as being specific to a 'biologically dissociated thinking process', which is just absurd, cynical, and biased.
Garry Kasparov stated fair points concerning technology and how it affects systems. Technological outgrowths exhibit superior performance in closed systems. Unfortunately, bureaucracy and other abstracted forms of governance- operate like chess, namely they're closed systems of organization (Due to the tasks they perform, or the business they conduct, they keep their data contained, sealed within systems of classification and intellectual property protection.). Therefore technology prevails over a majority of humans in a technological society because a technological society is by its nature a closed system.


Garry hints at the evolution of consciousness and how it expresses itself over time (explaining chess playing proficiency).







It's still apples-and-oranges, though, because, as things are now, *Wikipedia* (or a set of encyclopedia books) is 'smarter' than any of us, sheerly by dint of *content*, but even the best AI, GPT-3, can't do *reasoning*, as we do easily, as a matter of course.
AS stated earlier, thought is influenced by external reality, ergo our minds become subservient to technological systems.



You're *oversimplifying* again, though, because technology isn't *biological*, mostly, and, more to the point, it's *engineered* and subject to socio-political dynamics that have a life of their own, like 'class'.
These terms don't impress me; and the hardening of classifications prove no worth in an era of uncertainty and rapid obsolescence. Human reasoning changes when there's new information to process.


History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show
Image
Your image is frozen in time. History rhymes and consciousness evolves.













Be Seeing you,








-RT
Last edited by RhetoricThug on 06 Nov 2020 05:16, edited 5 times in total.
#15133198
Locked instide a blob of vague cogitations, RhetoricThug wrote:AS stated earlier, thought is influenced by external reality, ergo our minds become subservient to technological systems.

"Thought is influenced by external reality" sounds a bit under-stated and vague.

I prefer to think that context is what provides meaning, and that "external reality" (lived experience) is the context that allows our ideas to be tranformed into patterns of behavior.

Our original, non-tech existance of hundreds of thousands of years is the context that created our survival instincts and behavior patterns. And all technology - all innovation - interrupts and destroys the original context that created our survival instincts and behavior patterns. (uh-oh)

And this had divorced mankind from his ability to survive. (uh-oh)

(RT, your texts are gorgeous and hint at wonderful scholarship, but the all-important uh-oh's get a bit lost in them)
#15133601
QatzelOk wrote:I prefer to think that context is what provides meaning, and that "external reality" (lived experience) is the context that allows our ideas to be tranformed into patterns of behavior.
Information ecology includes a contextualization of network topologies (or physical maps of meaning). Patterns of behavior certainly excite reality and affect the conceptualization (lived experience) of instinctual interplay in a mind-matter continuum. We insert many modifiers, constraints, and relativistic forms of awareness that completely change the information ecology for developmental evolutionary biology.

Our original, non-tech existance of hundreds of thousands of years is the context that created our survival instincts and behavior patterns. And all technology - all innovation - interrupts and destroys the original context that created our survival instincts and behavior patterns. (uh-oh)
Unfortunately, there's no reason for consciousness to stop its evolution. The context from which survival instincts and our own habits arise, are variable determiners and naturally change as much as we do as the planetary conditions shift (admittedly not as quickly as human systems of organization). Technological adaptation represents our thoughts as an internalized and then externalized figure/ground feedback loop. Technology doesn't anticipate changes in an open system, so that's why we constantly offer more technology as a solution to a problem posed by old technologies. When we go extinct, there'll be more ways for consciousness to inhabit materiality. If biology is a subdomain of consciousness, it's a substrate for evolutionary potential.

And this had divorced mankind from his ability to survive. (uh-oh)

Your sentiment is reminscniecnt of Theodore Kaczynski's critique (which is enhanced but not original) of post-industrial society. Moreover, his crazed conclusions were rationally sound and logically argued, and I think it's true that our technological enslavement will lead to our extinction. Now that's in inconvenient truth. Remember, if we manage to merge with the FINAL SOLUTION :lol: (er, not funny :hmm: ) we'd be leaving the 'wise man' behind and granting a new material vessel ownership of consciousness.

RT, your texts are gorgeous and hint at wonderful scholarship
Thank your for time and attention :rainbow:









-RT
Last edited by RhetoricThug on 06 Nov 2020 04:03, edited 4 times in total.
#15133762
RhetoricThug wrote:Unfortunately, there's no reason for consciousness to stop its evolution. The context from which survival instincts and our own habits arise, are variable determiners and naturally change as much as we do as the planetary conditions shift (admittedly not as quickly as human systems of organization).


While it's true that "natureal conditions" change naturally and at their own speed, the "changes" that provide the "variables" from which our behaviors and patterns of behavior change are now mostly technological changes.

These changes don't correspond to the speed of our evolution or of any other animals - either biological or behavioral. As you yourself admit, this could very will lead to our extinction. You say "admittedly not as quickly as human systems of organization," but even our physical bodies are reaching their limits of air, water, land, and genetic pollution.

The missing "uh oh"s in your text are palpable and important. Cold taxonomy might work in an academic setting where the only "risk" is a failing grade, but as public policy, "techno change for profit" (and the "profit" part is important because it determines the speed of change) is pushing towards a "F" grade on human (and other species) survival.

This is why the "uh oh"s are so critical if education is going to be *transformative* for more than just a few well-placed monks. :excited:

Unthinking Majority wrote:@QatzelOk what do you think of the unibomber and his manifesto?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/n ... o.text.htm


I thought the propaganda campaign against the Unibomber did a good job of propping up technology... just as it was being revealed to be toxic and survival-threatening by climate change and other pollution-related atrocities.

"Look at this dangerous and violent weirdo who actually rejects technology change!"

In communist Romania, it was "vegetable oil hoarders", denounced in state media, who played the role of "rejecting the system and causing harm."
#15134068
RhetoricThug wrote:
:lol:
Metaphorically (because I'm unable to scientifically demonstrate), the act of thinking operates as an interference pattern. When energy comes in, the mind is a slit for cognition, and the noosphere is a conglomerate of conscious superimposition (reality (if you like that word) follows). Consciousness cannot be a computation because a flame does not burn itself. Wave-particle duality (duality being a misnomer, as it is of better service as wave-particle unity (due to the relationship of comparisons and the contrast of meaning)) implies all objects behave unintuitively or paradoxically in a quantum field. Conscious observation redistributes energetic potential in a field of unfolding physical systems. We commandeer or pilot the wave when it collapses. Apprehension of expansion, if you will (I'm going out on a limb).



Okay -- in my intellectual travels I'm come across increasing empirical evidence for the mind-over-matter thesis, as shocking as it is, and as grudgingly as I'd like to acknowledge it.


Proof of Mind Over Matter - The Double Slit Experiment - Physics, Dr. Quantum





The quantum mind or quantum consciousness[1] is a group of hypotheses proposing that classical mechanics cannot explain consciousness. It posits that quantum-mechanical phenomena, such as entanglement and superposition, may play an important part in the brain's function and could explain consciousness.

Assertions that consciousness is somehow quantum-mechanical can overlap with quantum mysticism, a pseudoscientific movement that assigns supernatural characteristics to various quantum phenomena such as nonlocality and the observer effect.[2]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind




There are indeed amazing feats of mind over matter like the Yogi in India who lives without food and water, the story of Coral Castle where one man cut and moved solid stones larger than those used in the pyramids, or the proven telekinetic powers of Nina Kulagina.

These cases, and others involving transcending the material world like cases of extrasensory perception (ESP), are typically viewed as paranormal events. However, these seemingly impossible phenomenon may become more widely accepted as we better understand the implications of quantum mechanics.

Quantum physics has proven that all matter at the subatomic level exists in wave form, and that matter only appears solid when we, as the observer, use our senses to decode and perceive the wave patterns in space and time. Significantly, thoughts, especially concentrated thoughts, also form measurable wave patterns. And thought waves have proven to affect observable matter in the physical world.

In his book called The Hidden Messages in Water, Masaru Emoto explains his experiments on water crystals which proved that droplets of water form different shapes when frozen with words associated to each sample. For example, the sample droplets would have phrases like I love you, thank you, or I hate you written next to them. The frozen droplets would form glorious snowflake-like crystals with the words love and thank you, but a nasty oil splotch-like design next to the word hate. As stated in the movie What the bleep do we know?, “If thoughts and words have that much power over water, imagine what they do to us,” as we are formed of between 60%-80% water, based on our age.



https://truth11.com/2011/04/28/quantum- ... er-matter/



---


RhetoricThug wrote:
Supplemental
ADiql3FG5is

I think this James Joyce quote sums things up nicely: In a simple sentence with very complex associations, Stephen considers fish feeding on the corpse of the drowned man: "God becomes man becomes fish becomes barnacle goose becomes featherbed mountain." The associative logic of the sentence is partly scientific, partly spiritualist, partly theological, partly legendary, partly erotic, partly mythographic—and fully poetic. Its emotional implications are largely positive.



Yeah, well, that's cute and everything, but it's obviously *blurring* all of those discrete stages of entity-existence together -- it's favoring the *continuous* at the expense of the *discrete*. (Also I'm not religious / 'spiritual'.)


RhetoricThug wrote:
I learned a long time ago, that a field of unfolding physical systems recycle all present energy perpetually, and in that assertion- living flora transmute dead dirt and minerals to feed living fauna. The dead sustains the living (metaphysically as well), and our myopic language seduces our mind into thinking that there's an internal-external dichotomy. Welcome to a nuanced way of living.



Again, for any given 'snapshot' in time, there *are* discrete and explicit living entities present, so this blurring-together of matter, atomistically, over time, just doesn't have much *explanatory* power. I'll grant that the focus on *life* / organisms helps to cut against the traditional / conventional Western scientific tendency of *reductionism* in approach -- often taken to the logical extension of positing an inevitable future 'universe death' through total entropy, ignoring the *constructive* / growth tendency of all life processes.


RhetoricThug wrote:
Chemistry is an oversimplification (reductionism) or deduction of moving parts in a living system. This will sound outlandish, but there isn't any non-living system, because a living observer must be present to define what's living and non-living.



No, not really, because even if all living and non-living matter went without being consciously observed, it would still *exist* as it does, and, again, the empirical distinction that can be made is that of *organic*, and *inorganic*, respectively.


RhetoricThug wrote:
Thus there is only a living system because all definitive boundaries (and resultant quandaries) are abstracted by living beings to explain Cogito, ergo sum



Well, maybe that's your problem -- philosophically you're a *dualist*, which *may* help with matters at the weird *quantum* scale, but for daily social life and living dualism is too *problematic* to be considered as valid. I'll counterpose a secular 'monism' here.


RhetoricThug wrote:
(honestly I'm bored of our conversation, and wish to telepathically lobotomize our guests. Sounds like fun... I'll discover a new gadget soon, I'm sure).


RhetoricThug wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by received wisdom; are you talking about my posts ( ;) )? All of our thoughts form as a response to what appears before us, so it doesn't need externalization to undergo a transformation (cybernetic loop). Consciousness as a hard problem places new variables in the movement, expression, and translation of a physical system.



Yes, our thoughts may be *externally* prompted, or they may be purely *internal*.

Yup, consciousness *is* a toughie -- the 'quantum consciousness' hypothesis, above, suggests that maybe it's a byproduct of the *arrangement* of matter, and I've heard the theory / hypothesis that maybe *all matter* has varying degrees of consciousness, though organic life is decidedly at the top of all of that.

Also:


How Plants Secretly Talk to Each Other

https://www.wired.com/2013/12/secret-la ... of-plants/


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'm sorry, but this is far too atomistic a view, per Deepak Chopra. I prefer to use *complexity theory* (fractal geometry) to find complex boundaries between the internal and the external.



RhetoricThug wrote:
See (eye bias), you prefer to use, suggests a cognitive bias and tendency to view things as abstracted singletons. Please consider- complex systems have hidden variables that cannot be observed or are beyond human cognition. Funny, I'd think the uncertainty principle and further examination of non-linearity would make you a skeptic of political grievance and agenda. By the way, I appreciate Mandlebrot. Namaste spiral swirl.



I don't know why you're suddenly being so *dismissive* of our major sense-input, vision, and of our use of cognition. A moment ago you were practically *praising* such abilities, and now you've swung 180-degrees around, to *disparage* such.

You're also denigrating *politics* altogether, out-of-the-blue, for whatever reason.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay, please give me *one* example of mind-over-matter that I may be overlooking.



RhetoricThug wrote:
All interaction with physical systems. :eh:



No, I mean more like *thought*-over-matter, without the use of any physical contact.


---


RhetoricThug wrote:
If you wish... The internet is the technological externalization of the noosphere.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Can we compromise and just call it 'culture'? It's less mysterious and controversial that way.



RhetoricThug wrote:
No. But I do think this study is rather interesting: Empathic Neural Responses Predict Group Allegiance

Watching another person in pain activates brain areas involved in the sensation of our own pain. Importantly, this neural mirroring is not constant; rather, it is modulated by our beliefs about their intentions, circumstances, and group allegiances. We investigated if the neural empathic response is modulated by minimally-differentiating information (e.g., a simple text label indicating another's religious belief), and if neural activity changes predict ingroups and outgroups across independent paradigms. We found that the empathic response was larger when participants viewed a painful event occurring to a hand labeled with their own religion (ingroup) than to a hand labeled with a different religion (outgroup).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6079240/

Culture, as an outgrowth of pattern recognition does influence how we interpret phenomena. :)



Yes, agreed, but then you still haven't defined or explained what the 'noosphere' is, exactly.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Language is a cultural *overlay*, because the external physical world would be organically unaffected (at least in the short term) by the *absence* of all animal biological communication, and especially human languages.

To re-address your statement, though, are you attempting to indicate a more-realtime process of phenotypical impact on DNA, as some recent research has suggested?



RhetoricThug wrote:
Yes, with an emphasis on observer participation and how technologies act as an outgrowth of biological cognition.



How does the latter part of your statement pertain to *DNA* alteration, though?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'm talking about the physical *topologies* of communication networks, which is *significant*, and even *deterministic*, since many-to-many is more *democratic* than one-to-many.



RhetoricThug wrote:
More democratic? I'm attempting to detail the transformative power of technology, not social-political conventions. Conventions that serve a purpose, a purpose invented by self-serving, biologically dissociated thinking processes.



ckaihatsu wrote:
'Transformative' for *whom*? The response to that will *indicate* some socio-political 'conventions', as over the use of technology by society.

You're *stereotyping* technological usage as being specific to a 'biologically dissociated thinking process', which is just absurd, cynical, and biased.



RhetoricThug wrote:
Garry Kasparov stated fair points concerning technology and how it affects systems. Technological outgrowths exhibit superior performance in closed systems. Unfortunately, bureaucracy and other abstracted forms of governance- operate like chess, namely they're closed systems of organization (Due to the tasks they perform, or the business they conduct, they keep their data contained, sealed within systems of classification and intellectual property protection.). Therefore technology prevails over a majority of humans in a technological society because a technological society is by its nature a closed system.



I'm not quite sure what you mean with 'technology prevails over a majority of humans...' -- you seem to be bemoaning the *balkanization* of social organization, including the distribution of technology, but you may want to elaborate on this point. This point is congruent with a Marxist critique of the capitalist institution of *private property*, by the way.


RhetoricThug wrote:
Garry hints at the evolution of consciousness and how it expresses itself over time (explaining chess playing proficiency).

hbtuHtrViPo



Okay, I'll get to that when I can, and then I may follow-up and comment on it later.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
It's still apples-and-oranges, though, because, as things are now, *Wikipedia* (or a set of encyclopedia books) is 'smarter' than any of us, sheerly by dint of *content*, but even the best AI, GPT-3, can't do *reasoning*, as we do easily, as a matter of course.



RhetoricThug wrote:
AS stated earlier, thought is influenced by external reality, ergo our minds become subservient to technological systems.



You're being *fatalistic* here -- I, for one, treat technology as a *tool*, so it's always *subservient* to my will, and I don't see how technology could be otherwise, unless people *want* to pretend that the latest AI robot chatterbot is somehow also a social being of its own.


Saudi Arabia grants citizenship to robot Sophia

https://www.dw.com/en/saudi-arabia-gran ... a-41150856


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're *oversimplifying* again, though, because technology isn't *biological*, mostly, and, more to the point, it's *engineered* and subject to socio-political dynamics that have a life of their own, like 'class'.



RhetoricThug wrote:
These terms don't impress me; and the hardening of classifications prove no worth in an era of uncertainty and rapid obsolescence. Human reasoning changes when there's new information to process.



You have some sort of intellectual problem with *classifications* -- ? Do you think that all meaning can only be expressed in *vague approximations*, like some kind of 'soup' of ever-morphing meanings?

Here's a framework of mine that equates *generalizations* with *categories*:


Generalizations-Characterizations

Spoiler: show
Image



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show
Image



RhetoricThug wrote:
Your image is frozen in time. History rhymes and consciousness evolves.



Right -- it's a *framework*, meaning that you have to *use* it by putting in concrete real-world *data*, for any / several / all of the categorical 'shelves' on the framework.

Conceivably one could use algorithms, and maybe AI, to automatically pluck detailed social info for the corresponding 'levels' of the framework, for any given historical, or current, period, so that the framework *wouldn't* be 'frozen' in time, but rather one would see historical *data*, on all levels, flowing through it as the timeframe went forward or backward.


RhetoricThug wrote:
Be Seeing you,








-RT
#15134231
@QatzelOk What if we're “the sex organs of the machine world” :eek:
ckaihatsu wrote:Okay -- in my intellectual travels I'm come across increasing empirical evidence for the mind-over-matter thesis, as shocking as it is, and as grudgingly as I'd like to acknowledge it
Knowledge is organized ignorance. The greatest scientific discovery is the discovery of ignorance. Moreso paradoxically, when you're looking for new answers to new questions, it's knowledge itself that blocks progress. Knowledge creates real ignorance. Just as wealth creates poverty. Moreover, every time a new discovery is made, enormous new areas of ignorance are opened up. Curiously, effects precede causes.

Your language provides a cloud of intellectual subterfuge, unwilling to acknowledge its vanity.


Yeah, well, that's cute and everything, but it's obviously *blurring* all of those discrete stages of entity-existence together -- it's favoring the *continuous* at the expense of the *discrete*. (Also I'm not religious / 'spiritual'.)
It's brave, fierce, and poetically daunting. Brilliant and passionate language stirs your soul and attempts to earnestly communicate that which is better left unsaid. When you reach the end of your life, with all expenses paid, you'll have a blur of existence (curriculum vitae) to contemplate.

Again, for any given 'snapshot' in time, there *are* discrete and explicit living entities present, so this blurring-together of matter, atomistically, over time, just doesn't have much *explanatory* power. I'll grant that the focus on *life* / organisms helps to cut against the traditional / conventional Western scientific tendency of *reductionism* in approach -- often taken to the logical extension of positing an inevitable future 'universe death' through total entropy, ignoring the *constructive* / growth tendency of all life processes.
Snapshots in time don't adequately describe living things or physical phenomena, rather snapshots in time explicitly approximate quantities and qualities of living things or physical phenomena. The explanatory power of anthropocentric myths detail and laden rationality with ideals of self-referential purpose. Given a different perspective, all entities are repurposed according to the refractive collage. This is evident in metamorphosis. A snapshot of a butterfly doesn't contain the life of a caterpillar, yet the Danaus plexippus contains the lifetime of a caterpillar. But you'd have to be present to observe metamorphosis take place, and it's the medium of time that acts as a modifier in this sequence of attribution. This exemplum further reinforces the notion that snapshots as compressed myths stored by the mind for communicative exploration require a conscious mind to be present before any inquiry can take place.

No, not really, because even if all living and non-living matter went without being consciously observed, it would still *exist* as it does, and, again, the empirical distinction that can be made is that of *organic*, and *inorganic*, respectively.
Of course, that's what empiricism is for, so there's no sense in me telling you otherwise. This is clinical and categorically provocative. Sleep on it, not with it.

Well, maybe that's your problem -- philosophically you're a *dualist*, which *may* help with matters at the weird *quantum* scale, but for daily social life and living dualism is too *problematic* to be considered as valid. I'll counterpose a secular 'monism' here.
:eh: I'm not a dualist (although I integrate aspects of interactionism). Statements like the one above make me believe you're not digesting my posts. Hence why"m bored of your company. A similar situation arose when we touched on existential and ontological identity (in Unbridled Progress).


Yes, our thoughts may be *externally* prompted, or they may be purely *internal*.
I advise you to experience a sensory deprivation tank. It's a nice and somewhat inexpensive thought experiment. After-all, what's Nirvana all about? Perhaps that's categorically too theological for you to sincerely consider. :lol:

Yup, consciousness *is* a toughie -- the 'quantum consciousness' hypothesis, above, suggests that maybe it's a byproduct of the *arrangement* of matter, and I've heard the theory / hypothesis that maybe *all matter* has varying degrees of consciousness, though organic life is decidedly at the top of all of that.

Also:


How Plants Secretly Talk to Each Other
I work with plants professionally. I'm well aware of their biocommunication.


Anyway, if you look around you, you'd realize everything has been transmuted or transformed by the mind. It's not that the mind is a separate entity, it's just an evolutionary exciter, redistributing physical systems. Perhaps we should discuss free-will, because this thread hints at technological determinism. And if technology is an extension of the mind, how can it be a voluntary evolutionary exciter? I'd like to hear your opinion. :)

I don't know why you're suddenly being so *dismissive* of our major sense-input, vision, and of our use of cognition. A moment ago you were practically *praising* such abilities, and now you've swung 180-degrees around, to *disparage* such.

You're also denigrating *politics* altogether, out-of-the-blue, for whatever reason.
Our scientific sensibilities rely heavily on the eye. It's going to become a problem for us when machines and artificial intelligence give better pattern recognition to other sensory processes. I praise our ability to get this close to extinction. ;) Politics as an intellectual and manipulative plight undermine our ability to get on the same page. Hence why there's a war on sense-making in the age of information ecology.



No, I mean more like *thought*-over-matter, without the use of any physical contact.
When our technological instruments become more sensitive, perhaps we'll be able to scientifically discuss just how thought achieves spooky action at a distance. After-all, we waited centuries to elucidate atomism (which you continuously assign as my favorite prescription.)


Yes, agreed, but then you still haven't defined or explained what the 'noosphere' is, exactly.
It's the total realm of metacognition before physical manifestation.



How does the latter part of your statement pertain to *DNA* alteration, though?

CRISPR-Cas9



I'm not quite sure what you mean with 'technology prevails over a majority of humans...' -- you seem to be bemoaning the *balkanization* of social organization, including the distribution of technology, but you may want to elaborate on this point. This point is congruent with a Marxist critique of the capitalist institution of *private property*, by the way.
I'll focus on the first part of your post- it's not that I'm bemoaning the balkanization or dogmatization of social hierarchy, including the utilization of technology... If I strip away notions of modernity and argue from a more simpler ground, perhaps it'll suffice to better interpret my dilemma. For instance, let's look at the implementation of a celestial calendar as a technological discovery. A calendar is a fantastic tool for empire building and provides uniformity in the perception of time. All technologies do something to us akin to a calendar. Technology wraps around us, immerses us, and reorganizes the way we interact with and define reality.


You're being *fatalistic* here -- I, for one, treat technology as a *tool*, so it's always *subservient* to my will, and I don't see how technology could be otherwise, unless people *want* to pretend that the latest AI robot chatterbot is somehow also a social being of its own.
Technology is like a beaver dam, once erected, it changes stream ecology.


You have some sort of intellectual problem with *classifications* -- ? Do you think that all meaning can only be expressed in *vague approximations*, like some kind of 'soup' of ever-morphing meanings?
I've explained this elsewhere. :)

Right -- it's a *framework*, meaning that you have to *use* it by putting in concrete real-world *data*, for any / several / all of the categorical 'shelves' on the framework.
How's the frame rate in this framework?

Conceivably one could use algorithms, and maybe AI, to automatically pluck detailed social info for the corresponding 'levels' of the framework, for any given historical, or current, period, so that the framework *wouldn't* be 'frozen' in time, but rather one would see historical *data*, on all levels, flowing through it as the timeframe went forward or backward.
:eek: ... :p Are you going to play that game?
Last edited by RhetoricThug on 07 Nov 2020 15:29, edited 3 times in total.
#15134315
ckaihatsu wrote:Proof of Mind Over Matter - The Double Slit Experiment - Physics, Dr. Quantum

How Plants Secretly Talk to Each Other


The expression 'mind over matter' seems to suggest that all natural phenomena are "understood" and that anything that we don't understand must be some kind of magic that can be "channeled" by our magical minds.

How about, instead, just admitting that humanity understand a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of natural phenomena? And that most science is "a secret" to us, and always will be.

RhetoricThug wrote:Knowledge is organized ignorance.


This means that ALL OUR TECHNOGOLY is based on incomplete knowledge, though these new technologies are sold as "definitely an improvement" by its marketers who are all competing for prestige (and not for knowledge).

Knowledge without prestige is worthless to most techno-humans. So rather than pretending to "understand things" more deeply, most of our science is about getting rewarded for pleasing the boss - just like slinging hamburgers at Mickie Ds.
#15137209
Illusion of separateness.
QatzelOk wrote:The expression 'mind over matter' seems to suggest that all natural phenomena are "understood" and that anything that we don't understand must be some kind of magic that can be "channeled" by our magical minds.

How about, instead, just admitting that humanity understand a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of natural phenomena? And that most science is "a secret" to us, and always will be.
The lure of completion destined man to become a proletariat of the mind, always working for a fulfilled panorama, only to appease the bourgeois narrative of mind. Mind and ego (the silent pores that give sweetness to the chant) act as land owners, and employ the body to accomplish rigorous ventures, which are then harnessed by capitalism (as an operating system) and confine the mind to matter and matter to mind. This cybernetic relationship appears as interactionism in one monistic network that electrifies itself to polarize its expression.

The mind is and isn't magical, and we don't understand all that's present but experience that which is present. Epistemological significance is defined by the serious problem of ecological blindness. That is to state the ignorance that human beings seem to suffer from, especially in modern culture. What we know seems inseparably related to our environment, but it looks as if we aren't. Alas, the magic of the mind presents itself as a mystery, only to elude itself before elucidating that which it knows to be true by virtue of virtuoso.

What you describe is methodical madness, yet the mind madly lords over matter whenever it can. 8)



This means that ALL OUR TECHNOGOLY is based on incomplete knowledge, though these new technologies are sold as "definitely an improvement" by its marketers who are all competing for prestige (and not for knowledge).
Culture pivots in accordance with developmental evolutionary principles produced by ecological information fields. If there's a collective belief or need for particular technologies or thought patterns, then there'll be something manifest in the society based upon our entrepreneurial ideas that complement such awareness. Incomplete notions of existential identity, informed by biological awareness, inform imaginative gestalts that render forth an image of culture; Images that capitulate to business and economic myths of social organization.


Knowledge without prestige is worthless to most techno-humans. So rather than pretending to "understand things" more deeply, most of our science is about getting rewarded for pleasing the boss - just like slinging hamburgers at Mickie Ds.
Precisely or priestly. Certainly, there's a cult of acquaintance or restricted phenomenology.

I never work. I get paid for playing. It's the mark of an educated man. ;) I don't post, I frolic.








-RT
Last edited by RhetoricThug on 17 Nov 2020 16:06, edited 2 times in total.
#15137263
RhetoricThug wrote:Illusion of separateness.
The lure of completion destined man to become a proletariat of the mind, always working for a fulfilled panorama, only to appease the bourgeois narrative of mind.

In other words, we're brainwashed into fulfilling useless tasks by useless people.


I never work. I get paid for playing. It's the mark of an educated man. ;) I don't post, I frolic.

So by reading a lot of philosophy, and writing with a complex, un-vulgarized vocabulary, you are able to not provide any useful labor to other human beings? Is this the ultimate objective of a slave-master society like the one that has been created for us by the culture of masters-in-waiting?

I can't believe you wrote "I never work" instead of something like: "I am willingly non-participatory in interactions with the production dynamic of post-industrial object-and-service-creation." :)

What I got out of your text

The ever-increasing complexity of our techno cluster-fudge masks its toxic dynamics from most people's scrutiny. Perhaps your complex vocabulary is ALSO used to protect its creator (presenter) from criticism?

Another "win" created by poison methodology?

More poison tech delivered via the route of complexity and fabricated confusion?

(I don't understand the difference between posting and frolicking, by the way. ;) )
#15139269
I got, I got, I got, I got
Loyalty, got royalty
Inside my DNA
Cocaine quarter piece, got war and peace
Inside my DNA
I got power, poison, pain and joy
Inside my DNA
I got hustle, though, ambition, flow
Inside my DNA
I was born like this, since one like this, immaculate conception
I transform like this, perform like this, was Yeshua's new weapon
I don't contemplate, I meditate, then off your fucking head
This that put-the-kids-to-bed
QatzelOk wrote:In other words, we're brainwashed into fulfilling useless tasks by useless people.
The uselessness or futility of tasks as defined by singly intellectual quotients become the washed brains with words. A compulsory system of impulse indoctrination impinges upon synaptic pings, and a frequency safe mode doesn't exist for a man when he's born over a barrel in a circus-circulus of culturally sound curricula. We're hanged, drawn, and quartered by the sum of our corresponding thoughts. What makes sense isn't always useful, and what's useful doesn't always make sense. Utility depends on the angle, trajectory, velocity of who you're in the noosphere. For ideologues, utility is a matter of convergence. Are you an ideologue, Qatz? Some of us diverge, splurge, and hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.

To say something is futile is to take a moral stance. You advocate Natural Law by insisting that technological civilization canonised and cannibalized humanity.

So by reading a lot of philosophy, and writing with a complex, un-vulgarized vocabulary, you are able to not provide any useful labor to other human beings? Is this the ultimate objective of a slave-master society like the one that has been created for us by the culture of masters-in-waiting?
Yes, complexity protects flawed methodology from correction. (Many examples could be used for the following passage) When religion, or specifically the papacy, decided to employ Latin as an official language for the interpretation and divine shedding of THE WORD OF GOD, it marginalized poor non-literates and left biblical literacy for the priests of decorum. This gap created between the pulpit and those receiving the holy message allowed large swaths of perception to be colonized and socially integrated into a values hierarchy. In principle, the same thing happened for modernity, only now science claims supremacy over the masses. This vested interest in social engineering is efficiently executed by technological shifts in social organization. The masters-in-waiting await instruction from tacit dictum which employ biological systems to serve the developmental evolutionary expansion of consciousness.

There's no such thing as permanency, Qatz. And I certainly disdain ad hominem. But admire ad infinitum, if only to praise the paradox of BEING present.


I can't believe you wrote "I never work" instead of something like: "I am willingly non-participatory in interactions with the production dynamic of post-industrial object-and-service-creation." :)

:lol: Most unfortunate. I didn't take you for a dilettante.
What I got out of your text

I'm an obfuscated genius?

The ever-increasing complexity of our techno cluster-fudge masks its toxic dynamics from most people's scrutiny.
Yes, as in the example given above. Priests of culture guard simpletons from themselves because they're atomized as a waste of imperfectly tainted complexity. Best to feed em to Moloch.



Another "win" created by poison methodology?
RT isn't a winner or a loser, RT's an illusion produced by the movement of BEING present.

More poison tech delivered via the route of complexity and fabricated confusion?
This is the task at hand. At foot. At eye. Never at rest.

I don't understand the difference between posting and frolicking, by the way. ;)
Priests of culture always frolic.








-RT
Last edited by RhetoricThug on 24 Nov 2020 14:22, edited 1 time in total.
#15139307
I like how all the people are so slim in the film Metropolis. The writer thought we'd all be turning wheels rather than pushing buttons. Turning wheels is the career choice of another age of capitalism, not ours. We turn steering wheels for a few hours each day, but this labor is unpaid. In fact, we pay a fortune to "turn steering wheels" but it's worth it because "the rollercoaster ride to work each day" is the only fun in their day, for many worker bees.

RhetoricThug wrote:To say something is futile is to take a moral stance. You advocate Natural Law by insisting that technological civilization canonised and cannibalized humanity.

Yes, I always take "a moral stance," which seems weird because commercial media "banned" morality just before I was born. Most people born when I was or afterwards... have "learned" that morality means "imitating what you see in commercial media." It used to mean "imitating the bible's action figures."

By the way, RhetoricThug, why are you still posting in English? Latin or Hebrew would make your words even less accessible and "magical" sounding.

Non conveniunt cum me? :lol:
  • 1
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17

Them is healthy fats, not trans fats etc Right,[…]

Job creation is wealth creation. It's a collabor[…]

This is a slippery slope fallacy: https://yourlo[…]

The fundamental problem in Western democracies […]