rotate to understand. or just look.
27 April 2008
24 April 2008
mindnet
the following two passages are the result of watching the intro videos at spacecollective.com, which i ended up at from a post by bob stein (macarthur-certified genius, dan's "boss") on the if:book blog. if i could give these pingbacks, i would, but blogger sucks, so i can't, sorry. i recommend the videos, but they're not really necessary. it's a lot of loose ideas, not very refined. anyway, enjoy. it's kind of out there.
__________________________
thoughts after watching videos at spacecollective.com while half-drunk*
If people had chips implanted in their brains that allowed them to access all the information and other people on the “mindnet”, would they, and how?
The information, yes, people would, but how do you format information for a mind? One approach is a HUD sort of thing that would impose itself on one’s field of vision. This is a child of the book-based linear way of thinking. Another option is by emulating the way we think, which seems at first to be the optimal way. Unfortunately, this is actually not much better than a radio over which you exercise control. Instead, we need some sort of way for people to experience data; while this may start with a sort of virtual reality, it can extend far beyond the conventional conception of such a thing as a mere recreation of the physical world. It could equally be a mental browser or a yet unimagined medium.
As for people, whether people would and how they would are directly interrelated. One possibility is for one to literally hear (or see) the others thoughts; essentially two minds within the same (two) brain(s). The problem with this is that it does not allow one to consider what to say; there is literally no such thing as privacy. Thus, this seems like the sort of thing one would only want to do with those people closest to them, such as significant others; certainly not business associates.
A more conventional possibility is to allow the sending of thoughts, similar to an IM. However, the formatting of such a task becomes very difficult. How would one revise their thoughts for “publication”? We do the same thing over IMs, but in this case we have a screen on which to compose. How would one compose in their mind? What do we want a virtual screen to be?
A big issue in this is privacy. A lot of people have the capability for video chats, and yet rarely use it, as an IM or phone/audio chat allows them to multitask and do other things or consult other information while simultaneously conversing. What form would such a silent reference take within one’s mind? The ability to send such a reference, made possible by the hyperlink, would of course be augmented, but how does one hold a conversation and consult media at the same time within one mind? With the existence of Second Life and such worlds, would it actually be possible for one being to thus live in multiple universes at the same time? How? Would this interface be an extension of tabs, as in Firefox, OS X’s dock, or Window’s start bar? or is there a better way to format multiple sources for the mind?
More generally, how does one deal with language and images? We really only have two useful senses in this sense, hearing and sight. Thoughts often take the form of one or the other. However, we often need a medium to convey thoughts which reach beyond a purely aesthetic creation into the reglemented framework of logic and language. How can we use language within the mind? How do we use it already? Is there a way to expand the ways we use language, to a sort of sixth sense purely within the mind? While thought contains the possibility of such a sense, it currently reflects only our senses, though arguably also our intuitions (by which I mean non-logical and usually non-language based thoughts). Intuition seems to be one such way of expanding the thought-verse, but are there additional ways of sensing that could contain or even allow the expansion or subsumption of language? For me, the attainment of such a sense (or perhaps any useful sense) is truly what is required to become superhuman.
In a sense, this is the greatest formatting problem possible: how do we naturally format things? How could we format things within this natural system? What role should language play in this artificial interface with the natural?
* 1. yes, i'm legal here. don't bug me.
2. well...yes. i'm as peculiar a drunk as i am a person, but i like it that way.
_________________________
what is a networked mind? is it one thing, or multiple? if two people can hear all of each other’s thoughts, are they “one”? what happens to identity in such cases? what is the link between thoughts and the will? what is the divide between conscious, linguistic thought and less/sub/un-conscious willing that creates action? how far can two people cohabit the same mind–only on a conscious, linguistic level, or could they control each other’s bodies? what happens in the case of conflicting wills? would this actually neurally or otherwise destroy the people in question?
We get a simplistic model of a networked mind in Aeon Flux, where the resistance movement is organized in a virtual world that exists within the networked minds of the members. However, this world is merely a recreation of earth (with nice visual effects). There is also the idea of a message in a liquid which presents itself directly in the mind via a superimposed voice, imitating thought. The liquid is a physical extension between unnetworked minds, a sort of thumb drive. The formats of the information communicated, though, are rather simple–an audio recording and an audiovisual earth-type virtual world. As it was necessary to present this intelligibly in a movie, though, the attempt at all is quite impressive.
__________________________
thoughts after watching videos at spacecollective.com while half-drunk*
If people had chips implanted in their brains that allowed them to access all the information and other people on the “mindnet”, would they, and how?
The information, yes, people would, but how do you format information for a mind? One approach is a HUD sort of thing that would impose itself on one’s field of vision. This is a child of the book-based linear way of thinking. Another option is by emulating the way we think, which seems at first to be the optimal way. Unfortunately, this is actually not much better than a radio over which you exercise control. Instead, we need some sort of way for people to experience data; while this may start with a sort of virtual reality, it can extend far beyond the conventional conception of such a thing as a mere recreation of the physical world. It could equally be a mental browser or a yet unimagined medium.
As for people, whether people would and how they would are directly interrelated. One possibility is for one to literally hear (or see) the others thoughts; essentially two minds within the same (two) brain(s). The problem with this is that it does not allow one to consider what to say; there is literally no such thing as privacy. Thus, this seems like the sort of thing one would only want to do with those people closest to them, such as significant others; certainly not business associates.
A more conventional possibility is to allow the sending of thoughts, similar to an IM. However, the formatting of such a task becomes very difficult. How would one revise their thoughts for “publication”? We do the same thing over IMs, but in this case we have a screen on which to compose. How would one compose in their mind? What do we want a virtual screen to be?
A big issue in this is privacy. A lot of people have the capability for video chats, and yet rarely use it, as an IM or phone/audio chat allows them to multitask and do other things or consult other information while simultaneously conversing. What form would such a silent reference take within one’s mind? The ability to send such a reference, made possible by the hyperlink, would of course be augmented, but how does one hold a conversation and consult media at the same time within one mind? With the existence of Second Life and such worlds, would it actually be possible for one being to thus live in multiple universes at the same time? How? Would this interface be an extension of tabs, as in Firefox, OS X’s dock, or Window’s start bar? or is there a better way to format multiple sources for the mind?
More generally, how does one deal with language and images? We really only have two useful senses in this sense, hearing and sight. Thoughts often take the form of one or the other. However, we often need a medium to convey thoughts which reach beyond a purely aesthetic creation into the reglemented framework of logic and language. How can we use language within the mind? How do we use it already? Is there a way to expand the ways we use language, to a sort of sixth sense purely within the mind? While thought contains the possibility of such a sense, it currently reflects only our senses, though arguably also our intuitions (by which I mean non-logical and usually non-language based thoughts). Intuition seems to be one such way of expanding the thought-verse, but are there additional ways of sensing that could contain or even allow the expansion or subsumption of language? For me, the attainment of such a sense (or perhaps any useful sense) is truly what is required to become superhuman.
In a sense, this is the greatest formatting problem possible: how do we naturally format things? How could we format things within this natural system? What role should language play in this artificial interface with the natural?
* 1. yes, i'm legal here. don't bug me.
2. well...yes. i'm as peculiar a drunk as i am a person, but i like it that way.
_________________________
what is a networked mind? is it one thing, or multiple? if two people can hear all of each other’s thoughts, are they “one”? what happens to identity in such cases? what is the link between thoughts and the will? what is the divide between conscious, linguistic thought and less/sub/un-conscious willing that creates action? how far can two people cohabit the same mind–only on a conscious, linguistic level, or could they control each other’s bodies? what happens in the case of conflicting wills? would this actually neurally or otherwise destroy the people in question?
We get a simplistic model of a networked mind in Aeon Flux, where the resistance movement is organized in a virtual world that exists within the networked minds of the members. However, this world is merely a recreation of earth (with nice visual effects). There is also the idea of a message in a liquid which presents itself directly in the mind via a superimposed voice, imitating thought. The liquid is a physical extension between unnetworked minds, a sort of thumb drive. The formats of the information communicated, though, are rather simple–an audio recording and an audiovisual earth-type virtual world. As it was necessary to present this intelligibly in a movie, though, the attempt at all is quite impressive.
the parisian vector
the vector from the louvre, through les jardins des tuileries, across place de la concorde, down the champs elisées (napoleonic/romantic/naturalist and mercantile halves), through l’arc de triomphe, down boulevard charles du gaulle through neuilly, across the seine, through la défense with its modernist bauhaus office buildings, through la grande arche, down the steps, and out along the boardwalk to nowhere traces the path of human history.
i could give you a full analysis, but frankly you can figure it out if you know the places at all.
i could give you a full analysis, but frankly you can figure it out if you know the places at all.
olympic torch
something i meant to document a while ago:
the olympic torch and demonstrations happened right outside my apartment. i went to go see, as demonstrations are a major part of parisian life, which i felt i should experience (nobody can demonstrate like (or as often as–seriously every day) parisians.). there were a number of pro-china protestors, which kind of surprised me, though a most of them appeared to be chinese immigrants. i'm not quite sure what the trends of allegiances are in that community. there were a bunch of pro-tibet protestors supported by reporters without borders, with a nice little poster/flag of the olympic rings made of handcuffs. the people demonstrating can be real jerks, too–often one from one group would jump in front of the other and start waving their flag and screaming or whatever. when there was violence, this was usually the cause.
the other notable part was the police. i heard on the radio that there were 3000 officers of the national police dedicated to that event. they had riot-proof police vans literally bumper to bumper so you couldn't get through lining the route, plus officers policing this perimeter. people crossing it was the other cause of violence–the police would not hesitate to pick somebody up and toss them back into the crowd. my host brother said he saw one police officer take a tibetan flag from a protestor, then run away at the threat his upset comrades. a number of the police were wearing plastic body armor and were on rollerblades. it was scary and funny at the same time. i actually did see the torch, flanked by about 10 of these guys, plus a few others. apparently they're experienced with demonstrations here. nevertheless, they had to retreat onto the bus eventually as the protestors got the upper hand.
i may make it sound more violent than it actually was, though. by and large, it was just a little tense, but not violent. people didn't really want to go there. at least 30 or so people did end up getting arrested though. so it goes.
the olympic torch and demonstrations happened right outside my apartment. i went to go see, as demonstrations are a major part of parisian life, which i felt i should experience (nobody can demonstrate like (or as often as–seriously every day) parisians.). there were a number of pro-china protestors, which kind of surprised me, though a most of them appeared to be chinese immigrants. i'm not quite sure what the trends of allegiances are in that community. there were a bunch of pro-tibet protestors supported by reporters without borders, with a nice little poster/flag of the olympic rings made of handcuffs. the people demonstrating can be real jerks, too–often one from one group would jump in front of the other and start waving their flag and screaming or whatever. when there was violence, this was usually the cause.the other notable part was the police. i heard on the radio that there were 3000 officers of the national police dedicated to that event. they had riot-proof police vans literally bumper to bumper so you couldn't get through lining the route, plus officers policing this perimeter. people crossing it was the other cause of violence–the police would not hesitate to pick somebody up and toss them back into the crowd. my host brother said he saw one police officer take a tibetan flag from a protestor, then run away at the threat his upset comrades. a number of the police were wearing plastic body armor and were on rollerblades. it was scary and funny at the same time. i actually did see the torch, flanked by about 10 of these guys, plus a few others. apparently they're experienced with demonstrations here. nevertheless, they had to retreat onto the bus eventually as the protestors got the upper hand.
i may make it sound more violent than it actually was, though. by and large, it was just a little tense, but not violent. people didn't really want to go there. at least 30 or so people did end up getting arrested though. so it goes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)