Not signed in (Sign In)
Categories
Welcome, Guest
Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one belowVanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
-
In past posts I have touched on the idea that we are all the protagonists in our own reality narratives. These realities interrelate in surprising ways which either enrich or contradict our individual, subjective perspectives. In organised religion can be found a selected framework through which a shared narrative is weaved. Myth is a powerful force rendering our existentially meaningless lives into a stronger composite than any one of us maintains alone.
Perhaps in Christianity Jesus is the leading protagonist. In his story Christianity's followers catch reflections of themselves which dimly accentuate their favourite curves, their preferred self maintained attributes. The myth is a powerful force indeed.
Modern scientific enquiry renders theological concerns nigh on extinct when we ask materialistic questions:
- Why do we die?
- How old is the Earth?
- What is matter?
The true understanding science can bring us in these areas is unsurpassed in the history of human thought. Yet if we attempt to analyse our subjective worlds with this scientific framework its power remains accessible to a relative elite.
I have grown to loath the word 'scientists' of late, so padded full is the media of this gross generalisation. Thus a rarely understood mass of society casts a single, collective shadow from which a lonely protagonist is wrought. All work in the sciences then, as far as our media tells us so, is maintained as the work of one 'super-science' - a conglomerate's power with a fake protagonist's glory; knowledge but no myth.
This is dangerous.
I believe that the current failure of the scientific community is in understanding their potential. If science is to overcome the dogma of religion - a problem which can only grow exponentially with time - a myth needs to be wrought.
In the hyperreal communities of the internet I see the potential for the greatest over-arching narrative in the history of humankind. Through the interplay of chaotic forces far beyond the reaches of our understanding religion of all kinds places the cogs of our society into various working machines of change. Today, as the time scales inherent in change become narrower and narrower, mythological structure has not the time to emerge. Science the protagonist, standing so heroic in many areas of our world story, still appears lost in a sea of chaotic forces none of us are capable of grasping. This allows religion to strike back, raise its head in pride and laugh in the face of scientific adversary. Dogma may shield us from the lies, but surely it ties us together tighter than any myth-less narrative.- So I ask you:
- How should the scientific community construct the narrative to end all narratives?
- Will the internet act as its theological framework or is society best maintained in the flesh and bone relationships religion has manipulated so well?
- Could their ever rise a scientific-messiah from the chaos of modern, objectively governed society? and, if the ultimate narrative does arrive, what form will/should it take?
and finally...(...Mirrored on the main Huge Entity site...) -
I just quoted Tathagata buddha, now i read this? Quantum interconnectedness is the instantaneous medium of consciousness
-
I suppose this post of mine kind of links in with what we've hit upon on the forum lately: hyperreal-techno-religions to unite us.
Don't put away your robe just yet Mr.What?... -
-
CommentAuthoralexanderj
- CommentTimeMay 25th 2006
All this talk about science religion utopi\dystopi, got me thinking on the good old Mage: The Ascension fiction. A fine mix of philosophy and science\science-fiction and religion/occultism/spiritism/cultism. A metaphysical quantum reality acids trhough the setting. The shard Iteration X of The Technocracy, is quite interesting.
*Cough cough, messy link coming up*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mage_The_Ascension -
-
Re science:
"...a rarely understood mass of society casts a single, collective shadow from which a lonely protagonist is wrought..."
Nice one!
Think about nerds. Trekkies. When followers get together, a hole in the narative will be found. It will be picked apart at one end and sewn together just as quickly at the other. The mythical scientist will not run things: he doesn't exist, and that will become apparent quickly, now that information can't be contained so easily.
So the writers of the narrative will not be scientists. They will be creatives of a different sort. And with our hitherto venerated, yet unreligious, 'science' as the modelling clay, there will be an unprecedently generous invitation to forget you're making it up. This is how science is already digested, of course, even by scientists.
(Did you do much phil of sci, Dan? I'm lecturing on this stuff now. (Get me.)) -
(Hey Roland, nice to hear your thoughts... My phil of sci background is fairly limited, I concentrated on metaphysics and phil of mind at uni. I wish I could go back and do more phil-sci and phil-language. Choosing paths is always difficult...)
I read an interesting piece over at Edge recently which I linked to in a previous forum post 'Science is the way we surprise God'. It resonates for me once again:4) New ways of knowing will emerge. "Wikiscience" is leading to perpetually refined papers with a thousand authors. Distributed instrumentation and experiment, thanks to miniscule transaction cost, will yield smart-mob, hive-mind science operating "fast, cheap, & out of control." Negative results will have positive value (there is already a "Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine"). Triple-blind experiments will emerge through massive non-invasive statistical data collection--- no one, not the subjects or the experimenters, will realize an experiment was going on until later. (In the Q&A, one questioner predicted the coming of the zero-author paper, generated wholly by computers.)
Imagine, if you will, an internet which amassed information we were not aware of. Surely this is a 'new science'? An ever objective, distinctly non-biased system, and one which if imposed on the human population would appear Godlike in its responsive, explanative power.
5) Science will create new levels of meaning. The Internet already is made of one quintillion transistors, a trillion links, a million emails per second, 20 exabytes of memory. It is approaching the level of the human brain and is doubling every year, while the brain is not. It is all becoming effectively one machine. And we are the machine.
"Science is the way we surprise God," said Kelly. "That's what we're here for." Our moral obligation is to generate possibilities, to discover the infinite ways, however complex and high-dimension, to play the infinite game. It will take all possible species of intelligence in order for the universe to understand itself. Science, in this way, is holy. It is a divine trip.
- Link to Speculations on the future of science
Of course echoes of 'The Machine Stops' and even '1984' are obvious, but if we step aside these concerns for the moment, perhaps a liberating global tapestry can be perceived weaving itself from our infant internet.
How would this all encompassing, evasive and elusive science affect human reality? -
I think it would only affect us as far as we let it.
The thing about a jumbly, impartial mega-scientronoid being, such as might be germinating in our baby internets, is that it wouldn't be human. It might not (try to) understand itself. If it did, it might not do so by means of a narrative. If it did, it probably wouldn't be the sort of narrative that humans write for themselves*.
In short, to produce a narrative (ultimate or otherwise), a mega-scientron would require interpretation, which implies creativity, which eliminates impartiality. It might find a real, 'objective' answer to (or informative clarification of) whatever questions accompany its - and, at a stretch for the sci-fi-natics, our - existence, but it wouldn't help us any. We'd still have to make up a weirdo story if we wanted to feel any better about that sort of thing.
(*For what I thought was a nice example of the kind of narrative we standard earthlings tend to fancy, check out the film 'Brick', which I saw last night.) -
I definitely agree that any cyber mind would define itself with narratives as far removed from our sense of story as one could perceive (and further still). I suppose this factors into my question somewhat. trying to bind all the idea on this website (mine and others') into some sort of related semblance is a constant battle, and one which I rarely put enough effort into. Wouldn't it be nice if an over arching higher-intelligence could do the job for us?
Also, your distinction between the higher narrative and the personal narrative is interesting. It would be fascinating to draw some sort of diagram which allowed us to peer at the relationship between a religion and its subjects' perceptions of it, but this would require the religion in question to have a higher order level of control, something which may come more naturally in future incarnations of human communication systems, such as the internet.
Basically we may think we see patterns emerging in our worlds, but what we really see are the reflections of the shadows of the patterns our perceptions want us to see. The veil is heavier than any of us care to posit, the fourth wall may never be brought tumbling down:Reality is that which, when you stop beliving in it, doesn't go away - Philip K Dick
P.S. As for my convictions on the pulsating terror that is religion, I can summon no apologies. If it was up to me many more people would speak out against its power over our very imagined souls. My hatred is deeper than any website I maintained could ever do justice to. -
Dont be disabled by hatred, I sometimes think that the purpose of insane reigious gobbledegook is simply to confuse the capable (disinformation). The crazier the bullshit the more likely the Yahoos are to believe it. Instead of getting angry I'm trying the old eye contact+knowing smile response, it drives the true believers crazy. I'm getting tired, I dont want to fight, I want to let them fall apart themselves, as they will soon enough. note on the virtue of patience, Two bulls, old Ferdinand and young Pedro stood atop a hill looking down at the herd of cows below...'Lets run down and knock off some of those cows' said Pedro.....'No young fella', said Ferdinand, 'lets walk down and knock off the lot'.
-
Hatred doesn't envelope me. I feel more pity than anything for the religiously disabled.
I like your comment on the knowing smile. Recent Christians I have become friends with have oft been kind of stupified trying to understand how such a heathen as myself could possibly be such a happy and contented person. My knowing smile extends to my whole face, eventually erupting on theirs in a contagious echo.
My understanding of the dogmatic faithful is that they are the ones who are truly incapable of just believing in God. They maintain a belief in belief itself, because they believe that's what good and happy people have. The route to happiness through God is one best travelled by the previously contented. I find no problem with this group of society gaining solace in their combined faith, and if you have faith and are happy dogma loses most of its potency. It is the cult mentality of religion which angers me, as I have seen other friends get sucked into its whirlpool of deceit.
Oh yeah, and ignorance of all kinds really fucks me off. -
-
CommentAuthoralexanderj
- CommentTimeMay 31st 2006
"Hatred doesn't envelope me. I feel more pity than anything for the religiously disabled." ...
"Oh yeah, and ignorance of all kinds really fucks me off."
a slight contradiction...?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance -
-
Good point.
Guess I should define what I mean by pity before I define what I mean by ignorance.
I suppose I pity their igorance more than anything. Why does society keep on insisting that religious belief is somehow beyond criticism? There are literally billions of people out there who claim to swear by a book written thousandss of years ago, most of which has been completely misuderstood, lost or misrepresented in translation, political gain or simple ignorance. These people make moral judgements on the sense they have that an all loving, all powerful God birthed an infinite universe out of his naval and still actually gave a shit about the microshopically insignificant ape like creatures which arose within its confines. I could go on.
I mean, I really wish religion were true, I really do. Just imagine a universe where the wicked were punished for all eternity and the righteous lived in peace and harmony alongside them. A true justice based reality. But that ain't the universe I live in. The wicked seem to be doing just fine as far as I can see. Faith created child buggering priests and suicide fundmentalists. It spreads AIDS deeper into Africa and takes the right of freedom from millions of people daily. To ignore these facts is ignorance.
Why should I show any respect for religion? Am I ignorant or just confused?
I've hit this stuff up countless times before on this website (see categories : religion, god or christianity) with much greater clarity. I guess today I haven't got my calm and composed hat on straight enough...
We all need a narrative, but why do the religious ones get the greatest respect? -
Leibnitz said that to understand the nature of infinity, we should contemplate the extent of human stupidity. The thing that drives me crazy is that the loudly self proclaiming christians dont know what jesus taught let alone practice it. Oh, I think itwas Emerson who said, 'consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds'.
-
I like the hobgoblin quote. Where the open minded, the devil's advocate and the hypocrite meet, you'll find me trying to make a point. What's creativity if it's not the ability to connect abstract elements, to redefine one's thoughts, to wear a different imagination every day of the week?
Still no narrative though... -
-
CommentAuthorDr. Orphusi
- CommentTimeJun 1st 2006 edited
I think there's a lot of options with regards to the ultimate narrative.
I see potential in James N. Gardner’s [url=http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0642.html]theory of the Biological Universe[/url] – outlined more thoroughly in his book, [i]Biocosm[/i], which I have yet to read but have ordered off the net and am expecting to arrive soon (eagerly I must add). The notion that humans could play a role in the grand narrative of the universe – and that this role is based in science rather than teleology – seems like an extremely promising idea. If we combine this with the idea of the technological Singularity, which also plays a part in our contributing to the universal narrative, then it starts to get really interesting.
The idea of the Singularity is dramatic; it has its roots in the primeval past and in the neon future – the fact that technology has been increasing exponentially in scale and complexity is one that no human can deny. In the Singularity we have both prophecy and fact. In all grand narratives there is always some sort of ‘destiny’ and supporting prophecy. Here the element of destiny is provided by the role humans will play in the replication and continuation of the universe; that our consciousness, that trait which is so unique to us, has a purpose. Then in the singularity we have both the tool which will aid us in advancing along the grand narrative and the prophetic underline which states that yes, this will happen – and that we have no choice but to go along for the ride (since anarcho-primitivism isn’t likely to catch on anytime soon).
But I feel there is an element missing. There needs to be something more positive in the grand narrative, in our role… there needs to be an element of transcendence that has its roots in science. Here I look to a number of things, such as explorations of the mind, of A.I. (what you discuss in your topic, the Progressive Hand of Evolution, is a great example) or who knows what else.
I’m not sure I see potential in the internet alone as an outlet for the grand narrative. Like you said, the flesh and bone is important. I can see it contributing, however.
The other alternative is that the scientific community actually starts its own community, like a new society, somehow attaining the money to buy a large piece of land or an island, who knows – a society based on a foundation of humanism, knowledge, wisdom, imagination and creativity – a veritable utopia, which will then form its own culture and myths. People will flock to it, it’ll grow, and perhaps there the grand narrative will emerge.
Just some thoughts. -
-
Soon enough factions would develope, conflict would follow, violence would consume the island...it will always be this way. What I really want to know is why you believe consciousness is uniquely human? Our form of consciousness is distinctive, we are mad narrators, maybe god wants us to tell him a story. Lets fill it with love and pain, glory and tragedy...like a good holiday blockbuster, plenty of explosions, cascading entropy, Charlton Heston pounding the sand.
-
-
CommentAuthorDr. Orphusi
- CommentTimeJun 1st 2006 edited
I didn’t say, or at least I didn't mean to say, that I believed consciousness is uniquely human; I was attempting to speak on behalf of the majority of people in the world who believe that – people who this grand narrative would need to apply to. As it so happens, I’m writing an essay right now (due tomorrow, no less) arguing that dolphins are basically as intelligent as humans.
And I disagree that conflict would ensue and violence would consume the island. But that’s another story. -
-
THIS MAY BE LONG AND BORING. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO IGNORE IT. I DON'T WANT TO KILL OFF THIS THREAD.
<sarcasm>Yeah, the whole violent catastrophe might not happen</sarcasm>, but I think basing a community on knowledge is certainly not, on its own, going to result in a knowledgeable community.
Look at the distortion that, as Danieru points out, occurs around religion. It could be because the texts start out so inconsistent and illogical that there has to be divergence in understanding, sure, but even if we were to start with a nice precise text, not everyone is going to read it - maybe because some people are lazy, but certainly because not everyone can be an expert in everything. And if not everyone fully grasps our proposed foundational knowledge then some people will have to get the gist of it from other people. This is where interpretation and so creativity come in, leaving the door open for conflict of opinion - even if it is theoretically resoluble (or at least in some sense decidable). So our utopian community is not going to be knowledgeable about the kind of scientific facts I think Dr Orphusi was imagining.
If the present idea of utopia is meant to restrict this kind of interference with the basic knowledge, then every utopian citizen would have to be au fait with all the details, which is going to make progression difficult.
(Hmmm... No progression without digression? Time for a digression then: is a stagnating utopia an oxymoron? That's where I was going with this, but maybe stagnation would be kind of nice... We could hardly call this place scientific though, if it had no inquisitiveness, none of that tiresome ambition to advance understanding. Its scientificity would be pretty much rock bottom, and our old friend, staid dogmatism, would be the order of the day.)
If, to dodge stagnation, we were to insist that everyone in the 'utopia' must be up to speed with the basics and their development, then we'd have to exclude any people without the right knowledge or understanding. But that's not going to be a very normal community - family ties won't count for much - in fact, it sounds like a university (in theory, anyway).
How is all this to do with narratives again? Oh yeah, I don't think you could come up with a more accurate narrative by restricting the kinds of human who could be authors. It's the fact that it's a massive group indirectly doing the authoring that causes mass authorship to produce necessarily human-created stories.
Apoligies for the messiness of this post, I need to go home and get some tea. -
-
CommentAuthoralexanderj
- CommentTimeJun 1st 2006 edited
Ah lets give it up to: (Dadadadaaa) THE BRICK TESTAMENT!
Deuteronomy 28:63, 27
'Yahweh will take delight in ruining and destroying you. He will afflict you with hemorrhoids, scurvy, and the itch, and you will find no cure.'
Brick Testament
(baesed on the priestly documents) -
-
The term "utopia" is combined from the Greek words - "no" (ou) and "place/land" (topos), thus meaning "no-place" : this definition will always apply.
Utopia is where we head towards, but never where we arrive :"A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing." - Oscar Wilde
I don't believe that the human in its current form is capable of a sustained and symetrical society. Whether alterations to our capacities, through genetic manipulation, technological abstraction or otherwise, would solve our innate animal imbalances is a question best addressed elsewhere (see Huxley's 'Brave New World', 'Ape and Essence' and 'Island' for the best examinations of these concepts).
(more utopia quotes here)
It's interesting that the idea of communication has come up here as I do believe we are on the verge of a revolution in such matters, the internet being merely the seed of a great blossom yet to emerge. Imagine if you will an artificially intelligent system which was capable of peering godlike into our subconscious minds. This is not as outlandish as it first sounds. Humans exist in two worlds as far as their self-perceptions are concerned. Underneath the outer layer we exhibit to the world there are multifaceted aspects of our being invisible to all, including ourselves. These animal desires and often culturally evolved aspects of our characters are in the process of being uncovered (I wrote about this in my 'progressive hand of imagintion' post which Dr. Orphusi mentioned in passing).
Now, jumping your imaginations ahead a little, consider what impact such interlinked AI systems would have on our capacity to communicate. I mean screw telepathy, your inner monologue is nothing compared to your inner pre-conscious mind. In my 'utopia' (and I use that word simply because of the images it evokes) every human being would be connected to an overaching AI system. This system would have the ability to see beyond our merest whim and get to the heart of each of us. These systems would then exchange knowledge with each other when we communicated, whether we were conscious of these is kind of irrelevant, perhaps in a way these AIs could act as another level to our consciousnesses. So here is the supposed hierachy:
1. Exposed self
2. Inner monologue self
3. Part of subconscious self capable of 'Bad Faith'
4. Subconsciousness beyond self examination
5. Neurological & physiological processes governing larger aspects of behaviour (call these instinct if you like)
6. Perhaps even deeper levels here?
......
7. AI system capable of mapping all these areas through our interaction with them.
Now imagine if you will that these systems somehow manufacture a narrative which they weave into existence underneath our noses. The narrative can take account of all these conflicting selves and desires which clash in our present conception of society. The narrative will unfold in a way which superscedes any individual's sense of its construction.
The AI systems, interlinked through an intelligent 'internet', will be truly godlike.
The religious intermediary protagonist has been destroyed in this conception. God had perfect symbiosis with Jesus and, Christianity says, that through Jesus' imperfect connection to mankind we had a glimpse of God. The systems (vaguely) outlined above does away with the Messiah middle man of religion, providing the narrative directly to our perceptions: The Protagonist is everyone...
Am I insane? Too vague? I have explored these ideas in better detail before. Here are some past links which might broaden the idea some:- Pi Transcendence, Conscious Assimilation and the Quest for the Ultimate Metaphor
- Hyper-Real Wikipedia and the Evolution of Mu-lacra
- The Evolution of Religion and the Loss of Oneness
- The Protagonistically Determined, Objective Reality-Narrative That is Your Life
- and the Ideas Category of my site contains a shit load more stuff...
This vague 'utopia' has the capacity to be scientific, singularity compatiable, enrich our 'spiritual' side and, most importantly, BE BEAUTIFUL FOR EVERYONE. Perhaps with an added layer of virtual, simulacra in the supposed internet realms of future society an overarching narrative can be maintained which brings (fake?) perfection to everyone who lives within it.
If you suddenly realise the 'utopia' you are in is not for you the AI system would change it so it was.
Specialisation is for insects...The real voyage of discovery consists, not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes" - Marcel Proust
(I have purposefully left out examination of what role our 'free-will' has in all of this. I'd love to hear whether you think it's important, and exactly what you think it is.) -
My operating hypothesis is that free will is the action of choosing the object of attention, in other words, observing; thereby collapsing all those state vector thingies . All together, we synthysise reality out of that legendary place populated by cats that are both alive and dead (which is how I feel most mornings).
-
Consciousness is reflexion, free-will is the capacity to think thoughts which the universe doesn't know yet.
Maybe -
MMMM... tasty, the production of novelty...an idea that's been a burr in my head for decades.
1 to 23 of 23