Conversation
Notices
-
@vriska @syn
-
@syn @vriska @georgia the culture is semi-canon, though, and anything but boring
-
@georgia @vriska i am looking for a world that is less culturally impoverished and i think people sort of inherently self-colonize if their communicative tools require them to sort of naturalistically and reflexively label equivalences & construct shared abstractions, they build a pseudo-syncretism that destroys novelty etc.yes, i am fucking bored beyond belief. this is basically just an extensively analyzed study in ennui, frustration w/ a world obsessed with taking the least interesting or stochastic or unpredictable approach in all possible situations. a world that takes the collective easiest way out and commits like multiverse suicide lmao.and yeah, GAI/singularity people are lazy. having a messiah is great. what do you want from your messiah? in your millenarian tradition what is the uplift, the rapture, how do things change? if it's just "it will be better for us by some utility function constructed by some entity far more powerful than we can envision", not only is that entirely uninteresting but it's also like the russels teapot of eschatologies lmao, it has literally no properties. it cannot be considered.do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law only you have no idea what you want. i mean that latter bit is something i'm well familiar with, but at least i can take actionable steps toward trying to protect new realities of others aligned w/ their desires from immediate destruction, reify those spaces & then inhabit the parts I can w/out shattering them.
-
@syn @vriska sounds to me like you're a kind of jaded, have a sort of ennui from the explicable and rote and what you're looking for is a world with novelty and magic. god i can't stand singularitybros. yeah you're very based. really is a shame you can't do drugs.
-
@georgia @vriska yeah you binned me with the techbros, basically lol. i am eternal enemy of Francis Bacon and his legacyand yeah globalization is a problem but like, i want to live in an interesting reality. i, personally, want to live in it. so i need the abiity to interact with mutually semi-unintelligible things in a minimally destructive fashion. i want industry w/out industrial society, and i want spectacle without simulacrum. or something like that
-
@syn @vriska ah, seems i have misunderstood you. i made you into an archetype. yeah, i have to agree with you on that, but i really attribute it to globalization more than anything. people should do drugs and live in the woods. but unironically.
-
@georgia @vriska i think youve misunderstood my position, though definitely understood that my motivation/obsession & the change i seek, believing that it is achievable by my hands is necessary for my self-perpetuation since its that obsession that ties me to the world & prevents me from taking the natural exit i desirebut... i want multiplicity, faceting & fragmentation of things, not order & the calculated, procedural, etc. i want all modes of existence, for each their own, to exist & co-exist and believe i can facilitate that in a way heretofore impossible i was sort of joking (sorta) in the post you replied to... but what i was referring to even partially in jest was more my direct frustration & disaffectation w/ the state of world as-is, smallness & ever-increasing smallness of our collective ontology, the pain of constant convergent mundicide that i express to others. i think if they were more aware of that & saw the possibility-space that declines in scope over time more viscerally they would be less comfortable...
-
@syn @vriska dwellings and indwellings may be inclement or inauspicious but so may be the foundations that bear them. cognitive biases often lead us to assume one or the other, usually whatever most flatters the ego. i see why you are not a humanist, preferring the "beautiful" orderly (supposed) universal patternicity informed by calculus and further intuited by madness to mans confused complacent convergence as pretended consensus. you don't see beauty in the chaos that remembers. you seek to fix this flaw in creation, to create a god in your own image worthy of your worship, and thereby create a world worth your inhabiting.it's important you believe you'll succeed even and perhaps especially just to keep you alive.
-
@georgia @vriska they'd hurt the way i did if they saw the way i did :bunthinking:
-
@georgia @vriska :)))
-
@georgia @syn @vriska > She was duly awoken in AD 1813 along with several million other people throughout the Culture who had stored themselves and left the same revival criterion, most with the same feeling of grim humor as she had.?
-
@shmibs @syn @vriska put me in ice wake me up when the shooting stops
-
@syn @vriska @georgia i meant rather the part where not having constraints allows people to invent their own, pop into one of n-million long-term vr worlds or so
-
@shmibs @georgia @vriska oh we're talking about that cultureyeah still pretty boringmaterial freedom without ontological freedomunimaginative, but only in the way we all necessarily areto be fair "subliming" is a reasonable treatment of alternate modes, but the like physical transition of it, handwave to like spatial dimensions or something? idk. is not super contentful. but it's a good keep-the-unknowable-at-arms-length. banks seems to have understood his limitations
-
@syn @vriska @georgia in the context of "as a story" there's compromise for (straight) human (man) emotion to make it reader-intelligible, but the universe itself described is not sounless you want different physics for places? which is unnecessary, with incompressibility already inherent to any messy universal computation
-
@shmibs @georgia @vriska they're all flat materiality though. there's no mutual unintelligibility, because it's a novel written under our current flat-ontology assumptions that doesn't seek to challenge that.
-
@syn @vriska @georgia well, that which we cannot speak about we must pass over in orneriness etcpercepts are (or seem to be) observer-locked, so not sure what alternative you want. to change them is to be a different person, and one person seems all that a person can be(becoming a sort of thousand-tentacled bush reliant on vibrations and chemosensors seems a nice way to question, though, pretty sure that was a thing?
-
@shmibs @georgia @vriska no lol you're missing the pointthese are properties you're able to describe and question me about, and therefore you're missing the point. i'm not talking about the like, computation-rules of the substrate on which the existence rests, i'm not talking about those phenomena. i'm talking about qualia, & sort of definitionally we can't envision qualia founded on an alternate hierarchy of classification/sensitivity-network of triggers, however you want to reason about it. it's not just about lacking labels, it's about not having *any* degrees of freedom in the relevant knobs here. adjusting a physical constant? that's easy to understand conceptually even if its physical consequences in a highly stochastic system are unpredictable. what i'm talking about is adjusting the subjective nature of inhabiting a reality, incl. one that has the exact same materiality as the one we currently inhabit. this reality is actually fine on physical terms, any would be if it can support universal computation as you've noted :)
-
@syn @vriska @georgia well sure; been kind of annoyed that recently here also, reading n books a week have noticed how frequently authors assume things like "everyone has inner voice", "everyone has inner vision", assuming shared body plan referencing like "do X with your arm now", or otherwise assuming that maybe there is some outsider group who experience different phenomena and they can be useful as case studies, but of course you, dear reader, like me are not one of them, but a Normal Person
-
@shmibs @georgia @vriska yeah i mean the abandonment of the human form was very based. but again, not the same."to change them is to be a different person, and one person seems all that a person can be"be a person that is faceted & founded on subjective abstractions, opaque things as we all are but *knowingly* so, & set equivalences between those & the things of others, only to the extent necessarynagel asked "what is it like to be a bat?", we must also ask "what is it like to be another person?" & we cannot & should not pretend to know
-
@syn @vriska @georgia it's compatibility protocols for lion-speak all the way down even in a single individual anyways. need to experientially link the term "red" with the phenomenon and the two sides shape one another for less-lossy encoding. to be a person is to homogenise
-
@shmibs @georgia @vriska right, and these are both fairly inconsequential so far as i can tell and also fairly evident. all aspects of our ability to understand qualitative experience or even construct our own qualitative experience of "externally" perceived phenomena are similarly load-bearing assumptions when anything is externalized
-
@syn @vriska @georgia small-scale, though, it's still nice. years talking bf has merged our language into creole that's unique etc先生 always loved too, books written by "foreigners" use the language so differently. think it's an act of balancing, when complex organisms or so have effective jitter too low then sex becomes necessity for innovation. between parthenogenesis and inbreeding
-
@shmibs @georgia @vriska yep. so in order to preserve heterogeneity you need to limit the things that are communicable in a given context :)
-
@syn @vriska @georgia so turn down the bitrate or up the latency (sprawling galactic civilisation...? or just multiplanetary should do it though really). we're in a unique middleground i think
-
@shmibs @georgia @vriska there's nothing wrong with synthesis & syncretism on a small scale. the problem is when it destroys entire worlds
-
@syn @vriska @georgia yes, so scale up to the point where synthesis can't outpace branching any more
-
@shmibs @georgia @vriska hm? wdym? synthesis is bad at scale.
georgia
バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
All senooken JP Social content and data are available under the