Why Conspiracy Theories?

[vimothy]

and if we cant?

 

[constant escape]

Gnosis as prognosis, relative to science.

edit: (capital S) Science as diagnosing what (capital G) Gnosis has prognosed.

 

[constant escape]

and if we cant?

If we can't, we spiral into entropic equilibrium. As far as I can tell.

 

[constant escape]

But I believe that won't happen.

 

[vimothy]

and is that different to our current situation?

 

[constant escape]

It seems like our current situation involves the emergence of higher order/scale machines, with us as components. We can think of the socios as the first taste of such emerging machines, machines that seem to move away from materiality to more throughly administer the evolution of materiality.

That is to say, the human brain, as an instance of material complexity of a higher intensity than anything else in the cosmos, marks a sort of plateau or step on a step function, and the only way to get to the next step is to "artificially" engineer it. The "singularity" would be the next crazy slope up to the next step. It would only be a singularity relative to the current step. The step-function being a series of emergences prompted by singularities.

 

[vimothy]

that all seems ludicrous to me. we could think of ourselves as machines, but to no obvious end.

 

[constant escape]

Well I'm not sure I mean machines in the sense of D&G's "abstract machines" behind "assemblages", but I do mean machine in a sense that there are basic units with executions (certain particles combine in this way; certain compounds combine in that way; certain molecules move from point A to point B to point C and back again, all do to polarized points of this or that structure it touches, etc) that act upon one another, and complexify one another in the process. As the unit becomes more structurally complex, the executions become more procedurally complex, and thus we have a positive feedback loop that can accelerate up, one step at a time, each step being some kind of paradigm shift to a higher order, or something like that.

 

[version]

What other things can we think of ourselves as?

 

[constant escape]

that all seems ludicrous to me. we could think of ourselves as machines, but to no obvious end.

I think the safest end we could ascribe would be complexification as an end in itself.

 

[constant escape]

All other intentionality and pragmatics exist as a steering mechanism, pointing in a manifold of directions simultaneously so as to hedge our bets enough to secure whatever proves to be the most optimal permutation/iteration.

edit: like how gene mutation amounts to a branching proliferation, a proliferation in which some permutations of the same base blocks last longer than others. But that intentionality doesn't have to be held by the enzymes responsible for mutation.

 

[luka]

What other things can we think of ourselves as?

Proxy soldiers of various gods

 

[luka]

What other things can we think of ourselves as?

Spiritual beings undergoing some horrible punishment in the zones of heavy matter

 

[luka]

What other things can we think of ourselves as?

Automata with a delusion of free will

 

[constant escape]

Yeah, the knowing is the art of Science and the "assuming" is the art of Gnosis.

 

[luka]

What other things can we think of ourselves as?

God looking out of a billion sets of eyes

 

[luka]

What other things can we think of ourselves as?

Perverts and weirdos

 

[constant escape]

All of the above

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

complexification as an end in itself

why is complexification desirable as an end in itself

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

your answer every time this comes seems to be basically be "because it is"