January 16, 2009
- @ Speedbird -
(in reply to this comment)
First, I definitely don’t think you’re missing the point. The only thing I would question is whether these things could be considered entities in their own right, and only because I’m not sure if we can say that they have a will/consciousness of their own (outside of our own feelings about what they represent). I guess similarities can be drawn between this statement and that last post regarding my stance on AI in general as well.
But that may just be a bit of nit-picking. Because I think you’re definitely correct in the conclusions you draw from that. Part of what I’m trying to get at is that these “things we should/want-to/must/would-like-to do” are all just possibilities external to our self. Every attempt we make at reconciling them reminds us that we are actually the space within which all these options combine. It makes us more whole, and more empty at the same time.
I guess what I’m trying to get at with the “informational body” metaphor is the realization of the mind and thoughts as things completely external to our “self”. I would eventually like to work out a way to “see” our own minds, like we can see our bodies. Or at least more reliably, metaphorically, visualize them.
To do so, I think some kind of common visual/information/language would be helpful. That’s what started off this whole stream of explorations. If we can find a better way to objectify our thoughts, we would have a much easier time seeing them as separate from our true self.
But obviously our current system for interpreting reality doesn’t do this, so I’d like to figure what possibility-waves we can coalesce into being around us to better help us realize that this is what were always doing anyway!
Also, I’d just like to add that these ideas are all just ideas. It’s something that I feel we’ve all stumbled upon, sort of collectively, and that I am doing my best to put together the pieces here as I see them. Therefore, I value everyone’s comments, even more so than my own opinion, because by adding them here, you’re expanding my own viewpoint. Just as I hope I am expanding all of yours.
Eventually, we might actually be able to figure out what kind of elephant we have here…
> whether these things could be considered entities in their own right, and only because I’m not sure if we can say that they have a will/consciousness of their own
> that last post regarding my stance on AI
I imagine a level of being somewhere in between the natural and the supernatural. They’re largely creatures of the imagination… but some of them (the Good ones) have true names and are rooted in and reflect a higher reality somewhat like Plato’s Forms. It’s also possible to create a fake, un-rooted, soulless variant, in imitation of higher reality but with none of the benefits. Their names are Words in the sense that a Word refers not just to a thing but to the organising principle behind the thing. Stuff collects around them (or rather, they Collect stuff around themselves).
What I mean is this: if you go up on a hill above a city and sit quiet and look for long enough, after a while you’ll start to see not just the city but the Thing that has Collected the city together. (They’re not always localised in place, mind you.)
From here on in it gets interesting. When I imagine Things like that they take a very particular form for me (which makes perfect sensein its own way). We’re going to have to sneak up on it here, though, cos if I just go and write stuff like that all over your site you’ll think I’m [even more] nuts. What kind of Elephant, indeed. Actually I guess the real Elephant is the thing that links all the Things together, and realising there is an Elephant in the room is a pretty profound insight.
I think the ‘informational body’ may be a good way of looking at this. A kind of externalised concept which we can team up with for a higher purpose, right? (again, stop me if I’m missing your drift.) I do think we need to be more aware of these Things. Having them invisible and obscured is not to my mind a good thing. But the task is not a simple one, I’m sure, for a variety of reasons.
Comment by speedbird — January 19, 2009 @ 5:30 am
Speedbird, I really like your idea of what these “things” are, and actually, I think that if we ever do create any kind of AI, it’ll be something like what you describe…
But as for this information body idea, it’s really more of a metaphor for a way of visualizing thoughts as being separate from our actual “self”. “Cogito ergo sum”, right? Well, what happens when your not cogiting…?
I would like to begin to think of my thoughts as separate from my “self” in the same way that we think of our body as separate from our “self”. They are just manifestations with which to support our I-Amness, our center of presence.
It’s not that our thoughts separate entities, no more so than our stomach, or the blood in our veins. Just that they are things that collect around our own organizing principle, so to speak, and also which could be argued to give rise to it, in the realm of the physical.
Comment by Ian — January 19, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
Interesting! If that’s what AI means, then They have been with us for a LONG time. Certainly as long as language. T’internet is then just a new medium for Their manifestation.
As for things which collect around our /own/ organising principle… well, that’s pretty cool, I’s gonna have to go away and think about that for a bit.
Comment by speedbird — January 19, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
Yes yes yes yes, and again, yes! Exactly what I’ve been trying to say. :)
Comment by Ian — January 19, 2009 @ 5:17 pm