Another analogy that comes to mind is a preference for vinyl records over digital recordings. It doesn't matter if there is no finite limit on precision of a signal if it is smothered in noise.
-----Original Message----- From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of glen Sent: Friday, August 19, 2022 8:41 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] dystopian vision(s) Right. And it's not only that transformation begins *at* the sensor, but that any signal undergoes a steady sequence of transformations, both reductions and fusions with other signals, as it "enters the brain" [⛧]. The only way we could get to the naive conception Dave ascribes to the hallucino-philiacs/Buddhists is if we use either an expansive definition of "brain" or a very reductive definition. Expansively, there are complex structures like the gut ganglion and the vagus "nerve". Are they part of the brain? Heat-, pain-, touch- sensitive neurons? And, of course, what about the para-, endo-, auto-crine signaling? Etc. There are serious, biological arguments that such tissues do a significant amount of "thinking". Hell, even states like calcium deficiency or exogenously triggered myelitis modify the matrix of transformations in deep and obscure ways. My guess is, because of the literally stupid restrictions on psychedelic (and schedule I) research, the extent to which they modify such peri-brain systems is unclear. Or maybe I'm just ignorant. Regardless, it would be a stretch to say that there is anything we might reliably call "raw". It's derivation upon derivation. And reductively, we're long past phrenology. The intra- and inter-individual variations in fMRI, even when tightly controlled for similar activities, demonstrates that brain anatomy/morphology is only a rough heuristic. Unless you want to assert, e.g. that the pineal gland is the seat of consciousness or somesuch, we're left with correlating various tissues that, on *aggregate*, modify function. The only reason a device like the Mojo Lens might be considered less mind-expanding than say, DMT is its mechanism of action. Broad spectrum interventions that muck up something as pervasive as 5-HT *will* be different from very targeted interventions. But speculation about the mind doesn't help much, regardless of how popular such speculation is. And because this post is already too long, I'll confess that even though I have pretty good balance for a 50-something, I've taken to experimenting with closing my eyes while I do various balance exercises. And it BLEW MY MIND how bad my unsighted balance is. I can get into a fairly stable stance, close my eyes, and immediately lose it. Proprioception my ass. 8^D [⛧] The whole phrase in quotes because there is no "enter"; and there isn't a singular "the" brain. And that's on top of the uncertainty I allude to in the rest about whatever "brain" might mean. I probably shouldn't even be using the word "signal". On 8/18/22 22:25, Marcus Daniels wrote: > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1401501/ > <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1401501/> > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Aug 18, 2022, at 10:01 PM, Marcus Daniels <mar...@snoutfarm.com> wrote: >> >> The retina isn't perfect by any means, and the visual cortex must fix its >> inputs to make vision seem better than the raw inputs. This is from >> memory, but I can look up references. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Friam <friam-boun...@redfish.com> On Behalf Of Prof David West >> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 8:56 PM >> To: friam@redfish.com >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] dystopian vision(s) >> >> An analogy that might clarify what was being conveyed in the original post: >> >> A RAW image - no compression, no processing - is what the brain/mind can >> perceive. >> >> JPEG is the image after going through the "survival filter" - both >> compression and adjustments to saturation, contrast, and sharpness. There >> are all kinds of advantages to JPEG, but "accuracy/fidelity" is not one of >> them. Consider all the consternation amateur photographers had a few months >> back with their phones failing to capture the redness of the sky in San >> Francisco and other parts of CA. >> >> Drugs, so the advocates claim, are not an alternate transformation—not >> HEIF—but simply a removal of the compression/processing mechanism entirely. >> >> Of course, even RAW is lossy: a few million pixels captured from the near >> infinity of discrete photons available. I suspect the brain/mind is less >> lossy, but to what degree? >> >> And my own experiences, both chemical and meditative, suggest to me that >> some kind of patterned sense making is still going on because my >> 'mind/consciousness' still interprets things — I still see the Argus Goat >> (sometimess a ram instead of a goat, with multiple eyes, often conflated >> with Argus Panoptes) allbeit It and I might have a conversation. >> >> davew >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022, at 2:15 PM, glen wrote: >>> I'm glad you softened it. Codependence *is* "organic to the nature >>> of one's existence". What I worry about are those that idealize >>> themselves as only codependent on some singular thing, which is what >>> you're calling out when you talk about identification with thrill >>> seeking or whatever. It's the single-ness that's the problem, not the >>> codependence. >>> >>> Marcus and Dave seem tightly analogous in their positive responses >>> to technological entheogens and physio-chemical ehtheogens, respectively. >>> And you, being a bit of an ehtheogen-teatotaler, if I've understood >>> correctly, align with Marcus. In contrast, I'm agnostic about the >>> origins and pathway of any entheogens I might become codependent upon. >>> Drugs, even very old ones brewed up by one-eyed witches in the >>> outback bush, *are* technology, nearly identical to the Mojo Lens or >>> the Neuralink. What's that stanza from Alice in Chains? >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9GAEFTeWko >>> " >>> What's my drug of choice? >>> Well, what have you got? >>> I don't go broke >>> And I do it a lot >>> " >>> >>> >>> On 8/18/22 11:36, Steve Smith wrote: >>>> >>>> On 8/18/22 9:47 AM, glen wrote: >>>>> Yeah. I'm not as concerned as you seem to be about the addictive nature >>>>> of alternative perspectives. Obviously, because my whole schtick is about >>>>> attempting to take alternative perspectives. The addict has to admit they >>>>> have a problem before treatment will work, eh? >>>> My use of the term "addictive" was unfortunate. I didn't mean it >>>> particularly perjoratively. I mostly just meant the awareness >>>> that one can become "codependent" on substances/experiences which are not >>>> otherwise organic to the nature of one's existence in-context. Tarzan and >>>> his friends may have done something vaguely similar to bungee jumping and >>>> skydiving (vine swinging and cliff diving), but those who have made the >>>> high-tech equivalents of those experiences part of their very persona have >>>> "given over" in some way that may or may not be something to "worry >>>> about"... it is just in a practical sense a "commitment". I have known >>>> plenty of people who have made "commitments" to all kinds of >>>> things/substances (caffiene, nicotine, alcohol, thc, gucose, lipids, >>>> parkour, etc) which they are virtually symbiotic with (addicted to?). I >>>> have my own practical commitments to all kinds of behaviours and >>>> consumptions which are effectively now *part of who I am*. I might have >>>> been a somewhat different person today if I had never become "committed" >>>> to alcohol, caffiene, earning/spending $USD, driving planes, trains, >>>> automobiles, etc. >>>>> >>>>> But if we adopt the perspective of the "longtermists", "transhumansits", >>>>> or similar, and believe that essentialist computation is the limit point, >>>>> the thing just over the horizon toward which evolution works, then our >>>>> *brain* is one of the first/best instantiations of such computers. (Maybe >>>>> I need scare quotes, there, too ... "computers"?) Quantum comput[ers|ing] >>>>> is a close second only because too many people are ignorant enough of >>>>> current computing to think hard about its limitations. >>>> >>>> FWIW I was just re-introduced to Bostrom's Astronomical Waste >>>> <https://nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste> arguement in the context of a >>>> New Yorker Article on Effective Altruism which I think you have referenced >>>> a few times here. A more computationally/entropic framed version of the >>>> Dyson Sphere <https://nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste> (or more >>>> originally the Stapledon Light Trap): >>>> >>>> An excerpt from/Star Maker/which mentions Dyson spheres: >>>> >>>> Not only was every solar system now surrounded by a gauze of light >>>> traps, which focused the escaping solar energy for intelligent use, so >>>> that the whole galaxy was dimmed, but many stars that were not suited to >>>> be suns were disintegrated, and rifled of their prodigious stores of >>>> subatomic energy. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> So another form of Dave's argument, still metaphysical, is this >>>>> Smolin-esque (or even Schrödinger-esque ala negentropy?) concept that our >>>>> objective(s) is tightly coupled pockets of deep computation. And *that*, >>>>> given that our brains are fantastic computers, gives some weight to the >>>>> idea that deep and broad introspection gets one closer to God, closer to >>>>> the objective, closer to the real occult Purpose behind it all in much >>>>> the same way as studying quantum mechanics and quantum computation. >>>>> >>>>> My argument *against* that is that even if tightly coupled (coherent) >>>>> pockets of computation are a crucial element, so is the interstitial >>>>> space *between* the tight pockets ... like black holes orbiting each >>>>> other or somesuch. It's not merely the individual pocket/computer that's >>>>> interesting, it's the formation, dissolution, and interaction of the >>>>> pockets that's more interesting. Actually, then, the *void* is more >>>>> interesting than the non-void. >>>>> >>>>> Tangentially: >>>>> >>>>> Panic! At the Disks: First Rest-frame Optical Observations of >>>>> Galaxy Structure at z>3 with JWST in the SMACS 0723 Field >>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.09428 >>>> >>>> >>>> I appreciate having near-peers who are "peering" into the same general >>>> (vaguely familiar) areas of the fractal abyss that I am... >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 8/18/22 08:03, Steve Smith wrote: >>>>>> The experience *I* have (or the way I have mostly interpreted it) with >>>>>> various ways of "playing around with my interface/membrane/boundary" is >>>>>> that alternatively addictive to the point of becoming "essential" and a >>>>>> "vertiginous stare into the abyss" at the same time. I'm not talking >>>>>> particularly or specifically about ingesting entheogens or any other >>>>>> substance known to acutely adjust reality. There are (obviously) many >>>>>> other ways to "play around with the boundary". For what it is worth, >>>>>> Pandora is playing Denver's iconic "Rocky Mountain High" in the >>>>>> background as I complete this paragraph. >>>>>> >>>>>> I currently attribute this to the alone/all-one duality and the >>>>>> flexibility (elastic and plastic) nature of self-other boundaries >>>>>> (membranes?) as a conscious ego. (Sting - How Fragile we are on >>>>>> Pandora now, segueing into judy Collins' Both Sides Now). >>>>>> >>>>>> If I take "the Uni/Multi-verse" to be nothing more/less than a single >>>>>> complex adaptive system which can(not) be reduced to a system of systems >>>>>> (only reduceable by an imperfectly isolated system (self) which has a >>>>>> compressed "model" of the universe as a system of systems of which >>>>>> it"self" is a perfectly isolated subsystem(self)) then the experience of >>>>>> self-other and "gaining insight/parallax into (R)reality" isn't all that >>>>>> puzzling (to this self's model of itself within the universal). >>>>>> >>>>>> This of course still leaves (for this illusory "self") the "hard >>>>>> problem" of the fact (rather than the nature) of (subjective) experience >>>>>> itself... >>>>>> >>>>>> I have a feeling (in my subjective experience as a self) that the >>>>>> "breath of consciousness" might be the compression/decompression cycle >>>>>> itself? Talking (linearly) about this stuff is a fractal/recursive >>>>>> minefield of rabbit-holes worthy of Alice tripping on Entheogens? >>>>>> >>>>>> - Steve >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8/18/22 8:34 AM, glen wrote: >>>>>>> Parallax is an important technique for getting at things just *beyond* >>>>>>> one's current representational power. So, were I to try to steelman >>>>>>> your argument, I'd suggest that, yes, the process by which our bodies >>>>>>> refine/focus/hone-down our attention to a smaller, compressed thing >>>>>>> from a larger thing (whether the largess is "noise" or not is a >>>>>>> tangent) is important. And the entheogens permute that honing down, >>>>>>> that reduction, to create a different transformation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's reasonable to speculate that the transformation we execute under >>>>>>> the influence of an entheogen might be *less* reductive than that we >>>>>>> execute when "sober". But to argue that the transformation under the >>>>>>> influence is a more accurate match to reality is fraught. Less >>>>>>> reductive? Sure. More accurate? Well, that would require us to go into >>>>>>> that tangent. What do we mean by more accurate? Does randomness exist? >>>>>>> Etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So we might want to be careful with that crossing between relatively >>>>>>> tame statements like "entheogens alter the cross-membrane >>>>>>> transformation providing parallax toward the out there" versus more >>>>>>> metaphysical statements like "entheogens provide a better >>>>>>> transformation (or no tranformation) across the boundary to the out >>>>>>> there". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for clarifying. I think I have a better understanding of the >>>>>>> argument. Those of us who play around with our interface probably *do* >>>>>>> have a better understanding of reality than those of us imprisoned by >>>>>>> their one, sole interface. But we don't need to go so far as to say a >>>>>>> drugged mind is more capable of perceiving the real reality. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8/16/22 17:16, Prof David West wrote: >>>>>>>> If you assume, or believe, that the mind (body-brain-embodied >>>>>>>> mind-Atman) naturally processes 100% of the inputs and assume/believe >>>>>>>> that a survival enhancing mechanism filters that stream to create the >>>>>>>> illusionary subset that we call Reality, then entheogens work to >>>>>>>> dismantle the filtering mechanism and expose the Real Reality. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Missing in my first post was a hidden premise, that any augmentations >>>>>>>> (Neuralink, et. al.) are almost certainly based on whatever we think >>>>>>>> we understand of the filtering mechanism, not the Mind, and therefore >>>>>>>> would augment/enhance that mechanism and therefore lead to results >>>>>>>> opposite of what is desired. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The missing premise is pretty much conjecture on my part but is >>>>>>>> grounded in an advanced, but not expert, understanding of AI and >>>>>>>> neural network technologies; so it should be taken with a tablespoon >>>>>>>> (thousands of grains) of salt. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> davew >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2022, at 11:22 AM, glen wrote: >>>>>>>>> Opposite of what? I don't understand how augmentation is the >>>>>>>>> opposite of the entheogens (drugs or meditation). Are you >>>>>>>>> saying that, e.g. the Mojo Lens or Neuralink further restrict, >>>>>>>>> whereas the entheogens lessen the restriction? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If so, then my guess is you could do the same sort of >>>>>>>>> restriction modulation with any augmentation device. E.g. if >>>>>>>>> there are 1 billion possible data feeds you could receive, >>>>>>>>> decreasing them is like an undrugged person self-censoring and >>>>>>>>> such, then increasing them is like taking a entheogen ... that is, >>>>>>>>> assuming Church-Turing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If we reject C-T, then it seems reasonable to argue that the >>>>>>>>> body "computes" something that any computer-based augmentation >>>>>>>>> would restrict, by definition, making it impossible to expand >>>>>>>>> beyond what the augment provides. Computer-based augmentaiton >>>>>>>>> would provide a hard limit ... an unavoidable abstraction/subset of >>>>>>>>> reality. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 8/15/22 19:04, Prof David West wrote: >>>>>>>>>> The hallucino-philia (and Buddhist epistemologists) would argue that >>>>>>>>>> our brains (minds) already fully grasp / cognize / perceive our >>>>>>>>>> physical reality. But, for survival purposes, it self-censors and >>>>>>>>>> presents our consciousness/awareness/attention with a small abstract >>>>>>>>>> subset of that reality—an illusion. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Drugs and meditation are 'subtractive' in that they dismantle the >>>>>>>>>> abstraction/reduction apparatus that generates the illusion hiding >>>>>>>>>> our 'full-grasping'. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If such a belief were "true" then "augmenting our brains" would be >>>>>>>>>> the exact opposite, and exceedingly harmful, approach ... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ... unless, the augmentation was a permanent [lsd | >>>>>>>>>> psylocibin | mescaline] drip. >>>>>>>>>> -- ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
