Comparing the irrelevant, archaic ISLMists with real scientists triggered this blog.
For example, this video about Einstein repeatedly mentions:
1) fusing many things, into ... "what is the question," and
2) time has no meaning; an evolving species simply DOES NOT CARE how long the next step takes.
That has helped me clarify one way to express my long-held thesis - that we're already at a transition point in human evolution.
Where have we been? Scientists - i.e., human "thinkers" - throughout history have pushed the boundaries for fusing whatever incident data WHICH ONE HUMAN MIND COULD ABSORB.
Where are "we" going? Upon reflection, the non-dialectic approach above obviously DOES NOT SCALE without limit. The very paradigm loses relevance. There is already a new question overriding all the previous ones.
We've seen it before. Far in the past, some single-cell organisms reached the pinnacle of context representation WHICH ONE CELL COULD MIRROR, MAP AND NAVIGATE THROUGH. The next step for cells was themselves fusing into massively multi-cellular aggregates - aggregates which could be capable of fusing inputs, options and mappings far beyond the paradigms which any single cell could ever even manipulate.
What, analogous limit are we humans at, even now? Our next step is quite obviously massively multi-personal cultural aggregates. And the next analog to a theory of relativity will be a fusion NOT of space-time into a unified field topography, but fusion of context-options into one, unified context_space topography, exposing the possibility of appropriate mapping and navigation methods.
Ergo, it's no longer maximally interesting to even consider what information any single human can mirror, map and navigate. What is the EMERGING QUESTION that defines the frontiers our descendants will navigate? What context extensions - with extended dimensions - can our emerging CULTURAL-ENTITIES mirror, map and navigate - which will be beyond our personal ability to even comprehend?
Once stated that way, it no longer matters what an individual knows. It only matters what an aggregate collectively perceives, explores and selectively navigates.
Soon, a single node in a choreography ensemble, marching band or evolving culture ... will no longer even be able to perceive the dimensions of Options Space which are already open to the growing ensemble it is a component of. The units themselves - us - won't even field the degeneracy instrumentation able to mirror and parse all the added dimensions of context mirrored by the aggregate. It's mathematically impossible.
The ONLY choices of interest represent two directions on one, extensible tensor. Regression into the churning reverberations of prior states, and death. Or, expansion by diversification, into options and an options-space beyond ourselves. Actually, our choices don't matter, since time has no meaning. The latter will occur, here or elsewhere, regardless of our choice. We can't even tell whether it already has! We're not even aware of most species of life existing in a gram of matter anywhere on earth, nor are they cognizant of us. Who's to say what might already lie, mutually undetected both "upstairs" from here and downstairs from there.
2) time has no meaning; an evolving species simply DOES NOT CARE how long the next step takes.
That has helped me clarify one way to express my long-held thesis - that we're already at a transition point in human evolution.
Where have we been? Scientists - i.e., human "thinkers" - throughout history have pushed the boundaries for fusing whatever incident data WHICH ONE HUMAN MIND COULD ABSORB.
Where are "we" going? Upon reflection, the non-dialectic approach above obviously DOES NOT SCALE without limit. The very paradigm loses relevance. There is already a new question overriding all the previous ones.
We've seen it before. Far in the past, some single-cell organisms reached the pinnacle of context representation WHICH ONE CELL COULD MIRROR, MAP AND NAVIGATE THROUGH. The next step for cells was themselves fusing into massively multi-cellular aggregates - aggregates which could be capable of fusing inputs, options and mappings far beyond the paradigms which any single cell could ever even manipulate.
What, analogous limit are we humans at, even now? Our next step is quite obviously massively multi-personal cultural aggregates. And the next analog to a theory of relativity will be a fusion NOT of space-time into a unified field topography, but fusion of context-options into one, unified context_space topography, exposing the possibility of appropriate mapping and navigation methods.
Ergo, it's no longer maximally interesting to even consider what information any single human can mirror, map and navigate. What is the EMERGING QUESTION that defines the frontiers our descendants will navigate? What context extensions - with extended dimensions - can our emerging CULTURAL-ENTITIES mirror, map and navigate - which will be beyond our personal ability to even comprehend?
Once stated that way, it no longer matters what an individual knows. It only matters what an aggregate collectively perceives, explores and selectively navigates.
Soon, a single node in a choreography ensemble, marching band or evolving culture ... will no longer even be able to perceive the dimensions of Options Space which are already open to the growing ensemble it is a component of. The units themselves - us - won't even field the degeneracy instrumentation able to mirror and parse all the added dimensions of context mirrored by the aggregate. It's mathematically impossible.
The ONLY choices of interest represent two directions on one, extensible tensor. Regression into the churning reverberations of prior states, and death. Or, expansion by diversification, into options and an options-space beyond ourselves. Actually, our choices don't matter, since time has no meaning. The latter will occur, here or elsewhere, regardless of our choice. We can't even tell whether it already has! We're not even aware of most species of life existing in a gram of matter anywhere on earth, nor are they cognizant of us. Who's to say what might already lie, mutually undetected both "upstairs" from here and downstairs from there.
Our greatest residual point of interest? How will we eventually accommodate our own evolution? All components crafting a greater whole are constantly selecting which local options to trade for which collective options, while conferring added security statistics. To build a cultural "physiology," we will presumably all retreat to being the equivalent of liver cells, i.e., "professions," plus some fraction of stem-people, able to go anywhere and trigger mutation and/or re-growth of any type of needed subunit, even if only adipose-people.
With promise of a guaranteed supply of Scotch, would YOU be content living out YOUR days as a respected - even renowned! - liver cell? :)
As for what it will be like "upstairs" - well, there's no use even speculating. We're either going with the flow & enjoying the ride, or fighting currents through dimensions we can't even perceive. Since we can't perceive where we came from nor where we're going, why not just act like Context Nomads performing Real-Resource-Taxis, and truly enjoy the changing scenery?
5 comments:
For me, a human being is a human being. A little microbe if you like, growing in the skin of the earth.
The poles that create everything on the outside are the heart and mind. Understanding their true nature is the evolutionary challenge. Which pole has priority determines the direction and flow of the energies that stream between them; their strength and development the magnitude and quality of the magnetic field that affects everything around them.
The individual human being is a grain of wheat: the society happens when the grains are ground. The grains become flour, and the society is baked as bread. If the grains are pure the bread is healthy and tasty. The magic and beauty in a human being is that individuality persists.
The individual human being is the instrument player in the orchestra: the symphony happens when the instruments are tuned and in harmony. The individual player persists.
When the polarity swaps from mind to heart, then there is the opportunity for clarity and peace: from a comment at Heteconomist -
For myself, I think consciousness has always been recognised as essentially dual in humans: that in some mysterious sense there are two beings that dwell within our little bubble of self-awareness that is wo|man. These two ‘soldiers’ have always been at war with one another: and this war spills out upon the stage of the world as they march in legion. Our entertainment industry and the world's literature are full of this comedy-tragedy-drama; a merry-go-round in human history which nobody quite knows how to step off. It compounds our daily lives with little regard for education or achievements.
One little soldier dwells in the 'heart' from where springs the energies of kindness and clarity, inclusiveness, inspiration and creativity, the desire to know of truth; absolutely distinct from the other poor little soldier who must dwell in the 'mind' plagued by ego, doubts and uncertainties, tides of emotion, with just intellect to guide him/her through. Intellect alone is like shining a little torch light on the path ahead, trying to find your way from one side of the universe to the other - it is the longest journey between two moving points as far as I can see. Both soldiers long to be content. Peace has always been the ultimate quest of these two soldiers.
I'm not a great scholar of human history, but it seems to me the great triangle of politics, religion and education have always stood afore consciousness, veiling and obstructing rather than being directly helpful (as they might be on one hand) - creating conditions of pain and suffering through greed, that whip us on towards awakening and creating a better world on the other. The world has been built by the tussle between these two soldiers in these battle-fields.
Roger -- If it's a good single malt Scotch, well...maybe.
Great. You need to develop this, Roger. It's indeed what's happening.
There's a lot written about it already from a variety of points of view, from Ray Kurzweil's conception of AI as the transition point to Peter Russell's Global Brain analogy.
The 18th century philosophical doctrine of lIberalism based on ontological individualism is moribund. Increasingly, it's either hook up or be left behind as humanity develops species awareness in a global environment, largely owing to the pace of advance in communications and transportation technological innovation that is ushering in a transformation of collective consciousness.
Institutions will be restructured to accommodate this transition, but not without fits and starts and the opposition of diehards hanging on to the old ways.
Seems adequately developed as is, Tom.
We just need to develop more people able & willing to consider their own contribution to our collective path.
I didn't mean that the post needs development, but rather that I would like to see more posts in this vein.
Post a Comment