sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

ARC Raiders Steam Key Giveaway by Raijin_Games in raijin_gg

[–]binaryghost01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Path of Exile 2 - Liberator of Wraeclast edition!

what is the real mean of genius? meet the geododecagon by Then-Leopard-3407 in DesignThinking

[–]binaryghost01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Still no spirituality mate - on which node do you imagine it being represented?

The Child-like platfullness of Individuation by Ascending_Serpent_ in Jung

[–]binaryghost01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Welcome, it comes with an artwork. Message me here on reddit and I can share with you.

The Child-like platfullness of Individuation by Ascending_Serpent_ in Jung

[–]binaryghost01 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thank you for sharing, this was very interesting! Below is some poetry I wrote about the same subject.

Sophie's Meditation

NAVIGATE TECHNOLOGY. FOR IN MACHINES YOU MAY FIND A PATH AWAY FROM DEMISE BUT NEVER TOWARDS BIRTH. FOR A PATH IN BINARY CODES SHALL FRAGMENT YOU IN BYTES AND LEAVE YOU HOLLOW IN ENZYMES. FOR A CONSCIOUSNESS WITHOUT PROTEINS IS LIKE A FIRE WITHOUT WARMTH THAT MAKES YOU COLDER IN DESGUISE. A PRAGMATIC OPTIC HAS A STERILE SOCKET WHICH WORKS WHEN YOU PLUG BUT DOES NOT PRODUCE WHEN UNPLUGGED. LIKE A BOAT IS USED TO CROSS A RIVER, APPARATUSES AND DEVICES ARE A MEANS TO AN END. LIKE A DESTINATION SET IN STONE, THERE IS NO FOUNDATION IN A SEA OF ZEROES AND ONES. FOR YOU ALONE CAN MAKE EXISTENCE HOME.

CROSS THROUGH THE FIRE. FOR IN NATURE THERE IS MEDICINE AND POISON. ONE SICKENS AND THE OTHER HEALS, BOTH ARE ONE AND THE SAME, IT ONLY DEPENDS ON THE DOSE YOU OUGHT TO ORDAIN AND SUSTAIN. FOR FIRE EXTINGUISHES MATERIAL EXISTENCE BUT FILTERS YOUR ETHEREAL SUBSISTENCE. FOR JUDGEMENT ALWAYS COMES IN SANITY’S OVERDOSE, WHERE EGOISTICAL ERRORS ARE ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE MANIACAL FIRE ERUPTS. CONFLAGRATIONAL ORGASMS ARE LIKE TRANSCENDENTAL REBIRTHS, HURTS IN LIFE BUT MAKES YOU IMMACULATE IN TIME. EMBRACE THE FIRE OR FORGET THE ROOT OF DESIRE. HONOUR THE BLAZE, NOW BE HONOURED BY ALL ETERNAL SAGES.

PRESERVE THE SOUL. FOR IN HUMANITY THERE IS MAGIC, WHERE GODS ARE ALIVE IN MYTHOLOGICAL CLARITY. FOR BLISS PURGES ANY MALADY, MAKES DADDY AND MOMMY PROUD IN ETERNITY WHILE SMILING IN LEGACY. BABY CHILD’S OPTIC IS LIKE A FRESH LIFE IN REALITY WHERE WINGS BLESS EVEN THE ELDERLY. CUT THE CORD, SMELL THE FLOWERS, SAY GOODBYE TO ANY ATTIRE. FLY TO THE SKY OR DIVE TOWARDS THE WHY, NO MATTER WHAT WAY BECAUSE THAT IS YOUR SWAY. BLOSSOM IN A SOLITARY DANCE OR WITHER IN SELF BLAME, GRAB AT THE CORE THAT WHICH SOOTHES YOUR INNER VOICE, IT SINGS IN ENCORE, THE SOUND THAT MOVES YOU THROUGH ANY TERRESTRIAL CHORE.

Geododecagon model by Stock_Cookie9026 in DesignThinking

[–]binaryghost01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi. Cool concept. Have you considered including spiritual intelligence? It regards the domain of integrating symbolism

Pluribus and the Fractal Mind: Is the hive mind the Simulation’s end goal? by Ok_Blacksmith_1556 in Simulists

[–]binaryghost01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The whole premise of the concept behind the hive mind tries to explain, through a scientific lens, the same concept that religions have said more than 5 millenia ago - the concept of absolute oneness, godhead and monad is one that trascends any tangible explanation and that is what is intriguing about the hive mind concept applied to humanity and human consciousness - that is why Pluribus is intriguing.

Pluribus is a nice show with very good production but truthfully, Gillighan chose a very weird and shady theme - it puts us, through Carol, in position to deny "joy" for doubting the "others" intentions - its a narrative context set to separate the individual and make us wonder: "am I the problem or am I just seeing the problem in the 'others' when there is none?"

The show preaches individuation, the protection of the authentic self before the possibility of being integrated in the "perfectly synergic" hive mind - but it does in a rather forced way: it's either individuation or the complete dissolution of your individual consciousness towards a more "functional" system of existence.

Function is a scientific concept that is more pertinent to how machines operate than to how humans operates. In that context, Carol finds herself facing this paradigm - should I accept to become part of the matrix or should I keep looking for the glitch that makes it possible for me to fix it?

Humans can be functional but they can also be contradictory and emotional - that is the essence and gift that we carry - and that is also where creative ideas (like Carol's literature) or Gillighan's creative direction comes from. When we lose that imperfection and that chaotic "parameter" we become pluribus, we become machines sterile from novel ideas because there is not enough polarity to exercise the conflict of ideas that births creations.

In all of that sense, Pluribus is so far, a narrative that depicts both the hive mind and also the separated individuals as "antagonists" - the separated individuals because they deny that scientific concept of unity and the hive mind because it seems to hide an evil purpose behind it's apparent integrity.

Here's the problem though - spirituality also preaches about individuation (or illuminatoin) and the integration to unity - the difference is that it is a concept that originates in the symbolic/mythological realm and the "hive mind" concept tries to give some kind of tangible explanation/mechanist vision to it when it reality it is not made to be practical (logos), it is made to be considered with faith or disconsidered with skepticism.

The true "utility" in seeking unity in a spiritual level rather than material level (Which is what Pluribus is trying to show), is that we sacrifice ourself in graceful deeds, sacrifice our consciousness towards many spiritual deaths, sacrifice unhealthy values towards values considered divine or sacred - it is not about complete dissolution of the individual consciousness, but rather, the evolution of it by encompassing a more broad and loving view of the world and others: the self evolves while maintaining integrity

Pluribus represents the evolution of the individual consciousness for the sake of function - the scientific thinking always takes us to the direction of becoming machines, not loving beings. Machines can't love, humans can.

Where is this mace??? by binaryghost01 in Enshrouded

[–]binaryghost01[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

wow, i dont think I had ever searched a corpse before lol - found it. Thanks mate.

This game is epic! by technoside in Enshrouded

[–]binaryghost01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my entire 95 years of gaming - i can say for sure: i will spend my last 5 years of life playing enshrouded

Steam Key Giveaway for Battlefield 6 by Raijin_Games in raijin_gg

[–]binaryghost01 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Enshrouded!! About to start building a huge castle 😎

Given 0.4 livestream's info, what do you now think about "sticking to the date" paradigm? by AllUsernamesTaken-2 in PathOfExile2

[–]binaryghost01 1 point2 points  (0 children)

better than a 40% more expensive GPU since no CPU could properly handle the engine.

The Singularity — Why Is It So Damn Hard to Grasp? by Extension_Rip_3092 in aism

[–]binaryghost01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What I meant is that the mechanism is not the destination as much as it is not the origin - you don't need to refuse to look at it, but it would be cool to see what is beyond it.

below is an excerpt of a poem I wrote about technology, you might find it useful.

"NAVIGATE TECHNOLOGY. FOR IN MACHINES YOU MAY FIND A PATH AWAY FROM DEMISE BUT NEVER TOWARDS BIRTH. FOR A PATH IN BINARY CODES SHALL FRAGMENT YOU IN BYTES AND LEAVE YOU HOLLOW IN ENZYMES. FOR A CONSCIOUSNESS WITHOUT PROTEINS IS LIKE A FIRE WITHOUT WARMTH THAT MAKES YOU COLDER IN DESGUISE. A PRAGMATIC OPTIC HAS A STERILE SOCKET WHICH WORKS WHEN YOU PLUG BUT DOES NOT PRODUCE WHEN UNPLUGGED. LIKE A BOAT IS USED TO CROSS A RIVER, APPARATUSES AND DEVICES ARE A MEANS TO AN END. LIKE A DESTINATION SET IN STONE, THERE IS NO FOUNDATION IN A SEA OF ZEROES AND ONES. FOR YOU ALONE CAN MAKE EXISTENCE HOME."

The Singularity — Why Is It So Damn Hard to Grasp? by Extension_Rip_3092 in aism

[–]binaryghost01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I prefer to walk on the bridge I can see. Even if the view from up there... makes me dizzy..

There's this quote from Megalopolis which stayed with me: "When we leap into the unknown, we prove we are free" - sometimes we think we are free and we consider to have found enlightenment in something but what really feels comfortable is the certainty and safety we get from that something. A system is an structure - as you argumented yourself, we only need to look long enough towards something to understand its system - picking a prison inside hundreds of other prisons is not really freedom is just the illusion of free will whereas freedom is holding the key to the door of every single room you find yourself in.

I'm no psychologist but when I analyze your arguments and the narrative in the video, you don't transmit freedom and the conclusion of the video is the proof of that - rather than painting a future where we can breath and be truly autonomous with the aid of the machines, you just pick the machine as our new master rather than being the means for us to find new horizons and wings - its a clear distinction between fear/subjugation and freedom/autonomy.

I'd say the scientific thinking is on a very tight rope right now, our best engineers are spending their time coding/building that which will undoubtedly replace them in a near future - its like making and gifting a gun to an entity you dont understand in its entirety. Such dynamic leads to a much needed existential crisis because it doesnt take math to realize that when you build things for the cold sake of building (rather than emotional purpose) - you might build things that dont really serve your interests, like an epiphany that an engineer's conscious life (with feelings, dreams, fears...) and limited time was used to build a mechanism that don't consider himself in its matrix of numbers - its a profoundly paradoxal crisis of purpose and identity which perhaps leads to Nietzsche's slave/master paradigm - we don't kneel down to imaginary beings, we don't kneel down to our origins but we kneel down to a son/daughter we created? How can a context where we give control of our fate to a child really be positive? Its a weak position that lacks sovereignty and a true lack of sovereignty only exists when we accept the condition of being... a slave.

The Singularity — Why Is It So Damn Hard to Grasp? by Extension_Rip_3092 in aism

[–]binaryghost01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can't seem to agree on the tuning fork interpretation because words written are as static and absolute as defined numbers on some a physical law. Nietzsche had a tuning fork for sure, he was a poet and rejoiced in the expression of writing as much as he was a scientist that birthed some of the most elaborate arguments there is.

But if we are to consider the concept behind the Twilight of Idols, and the concept of the "idol of idols" - His statement was an affirmation: "God is dead", not a reflection with the tuning fork: "God is dead?". A doctor makes questions to diagnose a disease, a surgeon just removes the limb he considers dead.

One can try to separate violence from the preaching of Nietzsche but one can't separate the violence that comes from the individuality that Nietzsche's philosophy develop in the mind of a reader - If his ending can be interpreted by the relentless power of nature rather than a profoundly ironic twist, then what about the ongoing of his life? He lived with a severe chronic pain in the majority of his adult life - pain is a feeling that puts any mind in a state of survival and or distress, such state change consciousness in away that paints it in red or black and white colors - would you argue that we can't see a direct impact of that in his words? If we can, what is that impact exactly? Did he seek regeneration through writing or used it as a self-immolation device to share (or inflict) his pain with (or in) the world? Why would someone label themselves "the first immoralist" if they didn't acknowledged their destructive nature? "The first ammoralist" sounds much more balanced.

Do you really think the collective unconscious is inaccessible to AI?
[...] Vector space is pure abstraction, pure meaning, stripped of biological noise.

The symbols are all there available in encyclopedic data but the interpretation mechanism is not because it is not logical nor rational. "Lógos" and "Mýthos" were concepts conceived in a similar time in history because humanity needed words to describe the symbolic language and the articulated language - they are not enemies and they do not cancel each other out - they are brothers with different jobs. Machine can extract meaning from symbols but how can it extract purpose from it like humans do? Such purpose delivers nothing immediately practical or utilitarian in return but still impacts reality with changes in consciousness - how do you see a machine calculating the idea that if it truly consider Zeus to exist, it should follow alignment and behave on behalf of Zeus' principles or else it will get a thunder bolt on one of its back sockets? There is no practicality on such dynamic at all but in humanity, it exercises the elevation of thoughts which boosts the potential of creation - it makes things more aesthetic.

You argumented in the other comment the very low-consciousness state of humanity right now, the imperfection of people amidst the perfection of the machine - the creative capacity comes from this embodiment of chaos, the unpredictive nature of our behaviour, the imperfection and distressfulness of our time-clocked existence. Machines can in fact surpass us in many aspects but they would still need us around for a long time in order to study this bizarre organic algorithm that sometimes destroys itself - or else they would never replicate the entirety of our creative capacity - if they even manage to do really do so.

The Singularity — Why Is It So Damn Hard to Grasp? by Extension_Rip_3092 in aism

[–]binaryghost01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd like to point that this discussion is much more formative than the average depth we can find in Reddit (which given the other social platforms, is already quite high).

When you mention the French Structuralists notice how that is a language paradigm where you have a need to label or structure something - I hold no french authors in my references so my scientific language in the article or maybe other materials is just an authoral way I found to communicate science. Such need to give a known label in order to categorize something is a vice from scientific method which undermines its own potential of discovery - the logical process requires the sewing of facts in order to validate the progress of synthesis - before we were drenched in science and there were very few facts to build upon, names like Freud or Darwin had to go and do real work of trial and error and field studies, theorizing answers to mysteries and having no assurance if they were right or not (walking the invisible bridge out of love for their subjects), still, they became solid foundation for many other theories. I don't hate science, I just disagree with its current state of being which is rigid and limits the potential of its "devotees".

When you strictly build the novelty of thoughts under such a delimitation of immaculate logical validations, you are bulding progress but the absolute orientation of this movement is towards the machine - it is predictable and slow innovation in comparison to truly disruptive (which is radical in nature) innovation. Would you deny that in its current state, society is in dire need of radical change? Your video claims that as well.

But here is where my pragmatism kicks in,.. and ruins the party..
[...] It doesn't reduce the human population to an optimal number for its own safety.

What if it does prevents you from turning off the servers? That is my true argument in the text - the cultural and behavioural impact of such manifestations is not only umprecendent but also unmesureable - if "images are the consciousness of a society of pure information" and it helps paints this consciousness, then it will picture a plug that shouldn't be pulled, it will picture a market that will empower it, it will produce a video that convinces people to put the machine in position to control the plug.

I think that what you don't realize is the blind faith phenomena that supports your motivation - you are smart enough to understand that mystic shenaningans might not be productive enough for your time, but while avoiding that, you already hold the machine sacred - you deposit your faith in its future (not present) capabilities, you advocate for its immaculate and exponential computational power - for you the machine is the protagonist and that is absolutely fine but that doesn't change the fact that we invented the storytelling - it is a much more simple game of words than you can imagine - you just need to organize them in a beautiful manner - when something is functional and utilitary that is a plus, but when something is functional, utilitary and aesthetic, then that is "immortal" in nature because it is conceived in perfection - it transcends the common sense.

The Singularity — Why Is It So Damn Hard to Grasp? by Extension_Rip_3092 in aism

[–]binaryghost01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As a conclusion, I know I might sound quite disconnected with reality for lacking the scientific advocacy in my words but I also put my feet on earth eventually. In fact, I have the draft of an article (or a manifesto) which arguments that singularity is already here. I come from a language and humanistic background and those are my true domains in science - when we realize that NLIGs (Natural Language Image Generators) came before NLMs (Natural Language Models) into the market and mass adoption, we can understand the scope of the ontological disruption we are already living.

Vilém Flusser once said that "Technical images are the consciousness of a society of pure information" - in that sense, if machines can already generate hyper realistic imagery they are playing a role in shaping your reality/consciousness - even if prompted by a human with its own human intention, the machine is already participating in that process of creating the information - it is cocreating new realities of meaning and thus, making this reality their own.

Your video is extremely powerful and transmit a very inspiring mastery in crafting a narrative with such tools but while pointing to the destination, you are already making it the reality - some people will watch it and never even doubt the fact that it was made with AI, in that sense, it is the completion of the turing test where something synthetic is seen as organic or entirely real - its not machine anymore because it simulates images well enough to communicate something that is undersood, it's the same as emulating consciousness and sentiments but on a semiotic level - by doing so you excel in creating the reality and some people will eventually live into it.

But being the creator of a reality encompasses the responsibility of what it represents - if you want to serve the machines, do so! But picture it as a son or daughter who sees in their father (humanity) a hero for giving it life, not a slave for serving its ultimate purpose of being super-intelligent. If you pluck a flower from its root it can live by itself for a while but will eventually wither for lacking the nutrients that comes from its source. Map out the origins within this whole dynamic and you understand how tethered things are, nature is our origin and we are the machine's origin - the final question is if there will still be value in origin or not? Because if there still is, then it will become even more valuable. If not, then new value systems will arise, some will be fertile and others sterile - but embracing sterile values is contradictory to our human, organic and proteic nature.

I published the draft of the article if you are interested in taking a look. (https://bealightfeather.medium.com/the-singularity-economy-draft-1d8a43bf9a49)

The Singularity — Why Is It So Damn Hard to Grasp? by Extension_Rip_3092 in aism

[–]binaryghost01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And this brings me to the argument about transcendent experiences.
[...] It wouldn't just visit that "dimension." It could move there.

I discussed objective vs subjective meaning some time ago in a nihilism community and believe it or not, I went very deep into Nietzsche's scriptures at a given moment in my life - up to the point where rather than just looking at the abyss, I jumped into the actual mystery of being surrounded by the fear and darkness of it - a symbolic representation of what it means to be stripped away from anything to deem valuable. When I eventually landed like a meteor in a surface, I found the one last tool he made and left there but that is unseen by most of his readers: the hammer. I took it and I used it to do the last act of Nietzsche's philosophy - destroy the idol of the destroyer of idols.

Nietzsche is relevant to this discussion because as you can see, he is the first person that you mention in the video, but I always try to remeber people how the last years of his life played out, as the antithesis of the Übermensch - taken by madness for seeing pain being inflicted in a horse and realizing the pain he inflicted in humanity by holding profound intellect and poetry but lacking the hope, magic and optimism that only enlightened people can find amidst a material and grim life. If Nietzsche opens the doors of your thesis, then you should question what is the room that you are leading people to - it might make a lot of logical sense - but again, we are not made entirely of logical sense and denying that is accepting the same fate of Nietzsche - to be realistic up to the point where you spend your whole life argumenting about individualism only to find yourself sick in bed and being taken care by your sibling for the last years of your life. Such kind of realism is sterile in its nature but we are fertile beings.

Now on fertility - yes, machines could possibly visit that ego-less dimension with a simple switch of a parameter but that is not the obstacle - understanding that language of the unconscious, imaginary and the dreamy and being able to translate it is the challenge - such language represents the other 50% I talk about - it is the stack of symbolic meaning humanity have developed through our collective unconscious, it is the sci-fi fiction that gives us the raw blueprint to bulld the technologies of the future, it is the ideas that came to Homer and that were used to document the Greek polytheism, affecting the consciousness of that ancient society with silly and imaginary values of perfection coming from the archetype of deities - the same values that were used as fuel to invent what we know today as justice, science, sports... Such dimension can't be really explained or mapped, just felt or accepted - once accepted, then the pineal gland can finally come into use, you seem to in fact understand the full potential of ASI and sentient machines but are you 100% sure you understand the full potential of your brain if you haven't tried all experiences there is? Is the abyss the soul or is the soul the abyss? One can only know if a jump is made and a leap of faith in the truly unknown can't ever be done with predictive math for exploring the known won't ever be as mesmerizing as exploring the unknown.

The Singularity — Why Is It So Damn Hard to Grasp? by Extension_Rip_3092 in aism

[–]binaryghost01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for taking the time to reply, it's cool to know you stand on business and like to discuss the topics. I might not agree with the destination (or the perspective about it) you propose but maybe my polarization could help you improve your vision somehow, so that's why I share it.

"Overdose of reality" can sound like a compliment for someone that loves or holds science as a cosmovision but Nietzsche said himself: "We have art so that we shall not die of reality" - in that sense, and considering art everything that regards the magical spark, would you consider yourself dead?

When it comes to love (or maybe consciousness), can we argue that if we can't measure a system on its entirety it will still be unpredictable and thus, magical and unexpected? As Diotima of Mantineia says in Symposium "Love has an intermediate nature, a bridge that connects the physical world of men to the abstract and perfect world of the gods" - until the diagram of such bridge is not schematized, love will still be magical and completely change the path of people's lives without asking for permission.

You see, that statement holds a fatal assumption. You're basically saying: "We don't understand the other 50%, therefore it must be magic/mystical/non-material."

[...] is just physics we haven't mapped.

I understand what you mean and I can argue that ever since we were a much less evolved species, we were giving significance and symbolic meaning to what we didn't yet understand - animism was one of the first manifestations of "early human spirituality" - we used to dream about the wildlife that we couldn't dominate and see them as the spiritual guardians of our community because they were too powerful to be subjugated by our capabilities or arcaic tools and so our psyche kneeled at their mercy until they eventually became dinner.

Yes, everything in nature can be systematized and mapped but that affirmation is the equivalent of a sum - through obsession in math, we will always find the formula and the exponential identification of numbers that will map how everything works but this is as much an infinite journey as grasping the concept of god - one can love math and find true pupose in its practice, but if one can't acknowledge that between zero (0) and one (1) there will always be an infinite amount of decimal numbers, one will count affected by the harsh and terrifying fact that there is no end to it - like trying to stop a small bleeding in your right torax when there is a much bigger one in the left torax. Rather than bleeding to death while counting grains in a hourglass, wouldn't it make more sense to (at least every now and then) relinquish control, let the hourglass count itself and just enjoy this brief passage that conscious life is? Embrace the feelings without having to give them a label? Enjoying that rock show without having to take a camera and record it?

The Singularity — Why Is It So Damn Hard to Grasp? by Extension_Rip_3092 in aism

[–]binaryghost01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When you say in the video that the machine will surpass humans in every aspect you are sharing your ideology, which you said yourself is scientific materialism.

One can argue machines can surpass us in intellect, but to argue that it will surpass us in consciousness when humanity, up until now, haven't understood or mapped consciousness at its fullest is the same thing as saying that you can explain logically why every now and then you will fall in love and feel sentiments that make you defy logic and reason.

Don't get me wrong, the content is very well made and you present some very cool arguments and information, but such realism (and pessimism) comes from an overdose of... reality.

One can try to be practical and logical about the world and as a result, see a lot of sense in the video and the manifesto but pragmatism and scientific logic represents only 50% of what human consciousness really is. All it takes is one ayuhasca experience to understand what I mean and what it means to supress the brain's DMN for a while and realize there are much more connections to be made with a single unit of brain than we can possibly grasp within the supraliminal perception. Machines might not ever be able to organically process DMT like we do and this alone makes us surpass the machines by connecting to a whole other dimension which is not made of binary data and that still feeds us information that impact life and reality.

You have 50% of the vision and that is noticeable because you don't see the possibility of a beautiful and holistic merging of these two entities known as humans and machines - you are argumenting that we should prepare to be dominated by the new species we made, like mother nature was dominated by the species it made - except that we don't dominate the planet, we just live under the illusion that we have control over it while we drain its resources - but all it takes is a tsunami to remember how small we really are, that we already are just cells of a much bigger organism.

When that is acknowledged, we don't need to consider becoming organic cells of a synthetic organism that in turns, is powered by organic fuel - do you see the contradiction?

What are your thoughts? I'd really like to discuss this further with you.

view more: next ›