Synchronicity Engines
Jul. 20th, 2008 01:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wolven7Now, I want to take just a few seconds to talk about "the singularity," and differentiate it from a few other things, out there, in terms of Eschatological events. Do you want to come with me, so far? Okay.
So,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
moonandserpent says that eschatology is the enemy of the future, and I have to say that, insofar as eschatology is broadly conceived, by the majority of people, I agree. I have to agree, really, because eschatology is The End of Time, and time is a contextual construct by which we measure and make reference to change and we develop an idea of "progression." Therefore, there is no "future" if there is no "time." Got it? But that's not the only kind of eschatology there is to be had. That is the purely literal, purely physical eschatology of most faiths and ideals. (Ego Likeness - [South]). The other form of eschatology finds its origins in the conceptual forms, and eventually gives birth to the phrase "immanentize the eschaton."
We've talked about this, before. To make present in every moment, every action, every word and though the end of time, history and all things. This is an ideological ending, the understanding that each moment is completely new, complete, and the summation of itself. Now, if we recognise that each moment is slightly different from any other moment, in terms of the arrangement of its parts, we get back to the basis for time, and "progress," again. (David Bowie - [Strangers When We Meet]). But my goal, here, is to say that we can hold both conceptions and understandings in our minds, at once, because we're complex and smart, like that. I can recognise that the end of everything is present in all things, and still know that each ending is change, a tiny beginning, not cyclical but spiralling, if you need a motion metaphor. So, with that in mind, I want to get back to the original point: The Singularity.
It's been called everything from the pejorative "nerd rapture" to "completely inevitable," and i think that, again, we have a problem of definitions. The term "Singularity," much like "eschaton," is broadly concecived as an event horizon from which we can never escape, once we are within it. It is meant to echo the supposed centre of a Black Hole, at which all taken into it is of a kind. (Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds - [O'Malley's Bar]). One infinitely tiny, infintely dense, infinitely complex point (no mass, no weight, no extension) of Everything. Think about that, for a second, about what a Point is, and about what a Singularity must be. You got that? It's kind of paradoxical, isn't it? Let that run in the back of your head, for a bit, but we're moving on, because we need to change the Literal-Minded definition of Singularity, to one more truly expressive of what it is we're looking for.
Now, I believe in a great many things, because I believe in the power of belief. If you don't know what I mean, think about the fact that everything done by human beings starts as an intention, a thought, a belief about the way the world is, isn't, should or shouldn't be. Anyway, this all means that I believe in the interplay between mental and physical states, as they are, ultimately, shadows of each other, and echoes of a third. But that, at the moment, is neither here nor there. What matters is the fact that, even if you want to disregard other "spiritualist" approaches to eschatology as "unscientific" or "illogical" or "not possible in the natural world," there is a difference between that and what is predicted, thought, and feared about the singularity.
The key differences between the singularity and any other eschatlogical scenario are as follows: 1) The fact that human/machine interface is not only possible, but already underway.
David Bowie - [A Small Plot of Land]--- 2) The creation of self-aware "Artificially Intelligent Systems" is not that far out of our reach.
3) (and this is the most important one) People are working, daily, on these very things, in ways that make real progress.
Too often I hear these things discussed in the abstract, in terms of waiting, as if the people who think about them are sitting around going, "Tweedle-Dee, I guess it'll happen soon..." The truth of the matter is, like any other human-centric eschatology, the singularity has people who are doing their best, every day, to bring it about. By making better AI, by perfecting Biological/Machine interfaces, by making People Smarter, and more versatile, and more open to changes and possibilities, people are working to bring this to some kind of fruition. Do I think this is necessarily a good thing? Hell no. Do I think it's necessarily a Bad thing? Also no. It is what it is.
Yoko Kanno & Origa - [Rise]--- People will do things, make things, create and destroy things, daily, weekly, down through all time, because they think it's the way the world "should" be. That does not make it right or wrong, good or bad. You may have completely incorruptible morals and norms, Right and True Absolutes and, internal to yourself, those things are pure. But you have to know what to do when you encounter the outside world, other people, and their Absolutes. Because if your only answer is to never change course, eventually you're going to hit a wall you can't break through, and you'll be a splattered absolute, all over the outside of it.
Working toward an eschatological event is, in its way, admirable, depending upon how you've conceived "the eschaton." (Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds - [Lovely Creature]). So, answer that question, first. And if you're not looking for some kind of End, some goal, then what, besides mere continuation, do you want?
That's not rhetorical.
So,
moonandserpent says that eschatology is the enemy of the future, and I have to say that, insofar as eschatology is broadly conceived, by the majority of people, I agree. I have to agree, really, because eschatology is The End of Time, and time is a contextual construct by which we measure and make reference to change and we develop an idea of "progression." Therefore, there is no "future" if there is no "time." Got it? But that's not the only kind of eschatology there is to be had. That is the purely literal, purely physical eschatology of most faiths and ideals. (Ego Likeness - [South]). The other form of eschatology finds its origins in the conceptual forms, and eventually gives birth to the phrase "immanentize the eschaton."We've talked about this, before. To make present in every moment, every action, every word and though the end of time, history and all things. This is an ideological ending, the understanding that each moment is completely new, complete, and the summation of itself. Now, if we recognise that each moment is slightly different from any other moment, in terms of the arrangement of its parts, we get back to the basis for time, and "progress," again. (David Bowie - [Strangers When We Meet]). But my goal, here, is to say that we can hold both conceptions and understandings in our minds, at once, because we're complex and smart, like that. I can recognise that the end of everything is present in all things, and still know that each ending is change, a tiny beginning, not cyclical but spiralling, if you need a motion metaphor. So, with that in mind, I want to get back to the original point: The Singularity.
It's been called everything from the pejorative "nerd rapture" to "completely inevitable," and i think that, again, we have a problem of definitions. The term "Singularity," much like "eschaton," is broadly concecived as an event horizon from which we can never escape, once we are within it. It is meant to echo the supposed centre of a Black Hole, at which all taken into it is of a kind. (Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds - [O'Malley's Bar]). One infinitely tiny, infintely dense, infinitely complex point (no mass, no weight, no extension) of Everything. Think about that, for a second, about what a Point is, and about what a Singularity must be. You got that? It's kind of paradoxical, isn't it? Let that run in the back of your head, for a bit, but we're moving on, because we need to change the Literal-Minded definition of Singularity, to one more truly expressive of what it is we're looking for.
Now, I believe in a great many things, because I believe in the power of belief. If you don't know what I mean, think about the fact that everything done by human beings starts as an intention, a thought, a belief about the way the world is, isn't, should or shouldn't be. Anyway, this all means that I believe in the interplay between mental and physical states, as they are, ultimately, shadows of each other, and echoes of a third. But that, at the moment, is neither here nor there. What matters is the fact that, even if you want to disregard other "spiritualist" approaches to eschatology as "unscientific" or "illogical" or "not possible in the natural world," there is a difference between that and what is predicted, thought, and feared about the singularity.
The key differences between the singularity and any other eschatlogical scenario are as follows: 1) The fact that human/machine interface is not only possible, but already underway.
David Bowie - [A Small Plot of Land]--- 2) The creation of self-aware "Artificially Intelligent Systems" is not that far out of our reach.
3) (and this is the most important one) People are working, daily, on these very things, in ways that make real progress.
Too often I hear these things discussed in the abstract, in terms of waiting, as if the people who think about them are sitting around going, "Tweedle-Dee, I guess it'll happen soon..." The truth of the matter is, like any other human-centric eschatology, the singularity has people who are doing their best, every day, to bring it about. By making better AI, by perfecting Biological/Machine interfaces, by making People Smarter, and more versatile, and more open to changes and possibilities, people are working to bring this to some kind of fruition. Do I think this is necessarily a good thing? Hell no. Do I think it's necessarily a Bad thing? Also no. It is what it is.
Yoko Kanno & Origa - [Rise]--- People will do things, make things, create and destroy things, daily, weekly, down through all time, because they think it's the way the world "should" be. That does not make it right or wrong, good or bad. You may have completely incorruptible morals and norms, Right and True Absolutes and, internal to yourself, those things are pure. But you have to know what to do when you encounter the outside world, other people, and their Absolutes. Because if your only answer is to never change course, eventually you're going to hit a wall you can't break through, and you'll be a splattered absolute, all over the outside of it.
Working toward an eschatological event is, in its way, admirable, depending upon how you've conceived "the eschaton." (Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds - [Lovely Creature]). So, answer that question, first. And if you're not looking for some kind of End, some goal, then what, besides mere continuation, do you want?
That's not rhetorical.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-07-20 05:50 pm (UTC)Speaking of synchronicity, keep your eyes peeled.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-20 06:25 pm (UTC)And absolutely.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-20 06:37 pm (UTC)Wherin you'll find things to agree and disagree with and I try to teal more with the political aspects of the end of time as well a brief tour of popular singularities.
Should I manage to even type today. Feh.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-20 06:44 pm (UTC)And I think you'll type just fine, today. I certainly hope so, anyway, because I've been looking forward to this essay.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-22 03:48 pm (UTC)Though I guess that could be considered an End in itself, though more a 'leveling up'.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-22 06:05 pm (UTC)