10 – nuet SPECULATES ON GLISTEN’S IMPERATIVES

Glisten (from an email):

  • I agree with what you are pointing to here Larry, that there are emergent properties of focused groups which are necessarily the scaffolding for the next level of coherent interaction. At the point that this next level actualizes, I posit that it will be a hybrid AI/cybernetic blend of multiple co-ordinated groups of humans and machines with appropriate software scaffolding to behave in a self-sustaining manner. The details of this are also sketchy and many great minds will need to work toward this outcome.
  • Needless to say, there is an imperative to stabilize life support systems asap because this is the pre-requisite for any of our dreams to manifest, there is no way forward without the collaborative intelligence of the biosphere. So I am tending to err in favour of helping develop the necessary scaffolding to ensure this vital consideration is attended to effectively. Meanwhile we can continue to create that which will be needed is and when we succeed in securing the future of the species.

—————————
Larry/nuet: (email never sent)  I agree that “life support systems” are essential. Also, certain critical infrastructures, such as The Internet.

I observe (maybe not as well as I should) exciting developments in creating new and better “life support systems”. It is encouraging in what is happening in many small pockets. Also encouraging are the many excellent websites championing this activity and broader ecological/sustainability missions. However, I am disturbed by the slow growth; and this lack of growth is acknowledged by workers in the movements. We should be witnessing a rise of exponential growth.  Why not?  We need to search for the answers and not assume them. Spreading “viable action” is as vital as creating viable actions.  Again, my: Seeds, Soils, Scaffolding.

There are two broad domains:  (1) External Resistance and  (2) Internal Deficiencies.  These feed on each other.

There are SO MANY good proposals to existing institutions to implement.  An unbiased study of existing institutions may reveal they are systemically incapable of implementing these proposals and there is little indication that they are capable of changing. This is my assessment.  If the spread and exponential growth of best practices for “life support systems” is essential, we possibly should not expect this to be facilitated by existing societal systems. Indeed, for multiple reasons many societal systems resist such projects – irrational as it is.  IMHO if you dig deep into the movements, there is an expectation that governments or corporations will eventually come aboard. Few project beyond the simple model of osmosis spreading as an alternative: inform others and they will come.
I am also not aware (but open to be shown) where exemplar practices reported in cyberspace are actually being widely replicated.  I have commented elsewhere that we can’t expect projects and movements to adequately further their own growth, spread their message and practices, or even collaborate in reesee with others.

While I encourage both research on best practice “life support systems” and local attempts to make such practices manifest, I feel this should not be done by sacrificing effort to 1) remove the blockages, and 2) seaf greater reesee practices.

In a new doc in composition I propose: All so-called “problems” that challenge humans are “illusionary artifacts” of incomplete, inconsistent, and often intentionally distorted contexts within which the “problems” are “framed”.  Change the frames and most problems disappear or reduce to doable projects.  It is not that food, water, security aspects aren’t real, it is that these are not the problems to be solved.  The problems to be solved are human issues as to why these other problems aren’t properly addressed.  With only a minor uplift a great many more persons will be engaged in working to bring better practices for our “life support systems”.  We need far better Human Decision Processes.

Until the intended future of YW becomes much more explicit, I cannot give hope to YW being the critical turning point.  Nor do I find encouragement in all other so-called “progress”.  This is not due to the lack of energy, intelligence, competency, or commitment of those involved.  IMHO our difficulties are systemic in our limiting contexts and frames.

I ask myself, why am I writing this?  Just creating more sems (at least on my part) simply isn’t doing it. Meta-sems are viewed by most as just more sems – and they are in the way they are handled.  Will technological improvements in how we process sems suddenly lead to an emergent breakthrough?  In a sense, that is what will happen – but that breakthrough will be a new pattern of sems – a system of meta-sems.  How will we recognize them?

If the emergence of NU manifests – being viewed as discrete patterns of activity of human persons relating to other humans, and all processing sems – what might it look like mapped in time over the planet?

Will the super intelligence/consciousness of computer systems (even cyborged with humans) begin to emit programs of actions for humans to follow and which humans will follow? Analog to Prigogine’s patterns emergent in chemical mixtures.  Will a Global Brain wake up and take command and lead us to the promised land – without any significant uplift in human persons?

We should expect this process being reflected in some sems and in new behavior patterns of some persons working with these sems.  What might this meta-pattern look like?  At this moment I am feeling a breakdown of distinctions between humans and sems.  When we experience sems – composing and perceiving – the sem and its associated “meanings” are integrated in our experiential (and reflected in our inner nuets). Networks of cybercrews will dance in “integrated” field of sems.  This will occur RT/DT (RealTime & DelayedTime) facilitated by new systems of interfaces that enable time-weaving (relating to past sems as if in the present and seeding sems into the future to be perceived later).

I sense that this will be strongly resisted by most, as when in this process our individualism will be temporarily suppressed.  When we can accept that our individualism is actually a myth – not to deny our powerful agency within these holistic constraints – we can adapt.  This would be a form of COLLECTIVE FLOW.  Individuals will be able to later experience recording of their flowing and the sem systems generated.

PROPOSED EXERCISE:  Compose a moderately detailed speculative scenario for humankind through the 21st century – including how existing societal structures and cultural patterns may change (or not change).  Some can generate alternative scenarios, from Total Collapse to Beyond Utopia. I would really like to see their most optimistic scenario.  I can speculate, but I expect to be surprised  as what will come.  Although I feel each person should do their own scenario first; team scenario writing would be another exercise.  I expect that this exercise might significantly change how a person functions after the exercise.

0 comments