Why Conspiracy Theories?

[constant escape]

Yeah, and I see that as being a matter of empiricalism privileging consistency over completeness, which enables a firmer ground to be built. Whereas, a complete system, one that accounted for intelligence, would need to privilege completeness over consistency. Inconsistency here nearly equates to schizo, in which multiple, if not infinite, contending theses develop in a superposition.

But to err on the side of consistency is to ensure stability, whereas the schizo approach threatens to fatally destablize the system, hence the need for various precautionary mechanisms, shock absorbers, etc.

 

[version]

intelligence is a.big problem for materialists

re: intelligence -- Is this any good?

Intelligence and Spirit, by Reza Negarestani, published by Urbanomic and Sequence Press

Intelligence and Spirit, by Reza Negarestani, published by Urbanomic and Sequence Press

www.urbanomic.com

 

[luka]

No.

 

[vimothy]

it's not simply a question of its effect tho, that's very delandian, it's a question of what makes sense

 

[constant escape]

delanda wants to look at history as if it were geology, but rocks dont think. so what if thought was a purely material phenomenon

I think even if thought is, itself, the basis for anything immaterial, it can itself have emerged from the material.

I mean, one can consider molecular/macromolecular machines as exhibiting a kind of intelligence, purely because their behaviors are not random, and they succeed at doing things that effectively increase material complexity. Ever larger molecular aggregates exhibit higher and higher intelligences, in this sense, and if you scale that up 1,000,000,000x, is it really not plausible that poetry, mathematics and love are affordable in terms of their complexity?

 

[vimothy]

like we'll get to a level of social complexity at which point the superman emerges. I dont think so. that's not how intelligence works.

 

[constant escape]

it's not simply a question of its effect tho, that's very delandian, it's a question of what makes sense

Not sure I understand your point here.

 

[vimothy]

I think even if thought is, itself, the basis for anything immaterial, it can itself have emerged from the material.

I mean, one can consider molecular/macromolecular machines as exhibiting a kind of intelligence, purely because their behaviors are not random, and they succeed at doing things that effectively increase material complexity. Ever larger molecular aggregates exhibit higher and higher intelligences, in this sense, and if you scale that up 1,000,000,000x, is it really not plausible that poetry, mathematics and love are affordable in terms of their complexity?

one cannot consider machines as exhibiting intelligence. manifestly, they do no such thing

 

[luka]

like we'll get to a level of social complexity at which point the superman emerges. I dont think so. that's not how intelligence works.

How do you think it work just out of curiosity

 

[vimothy]

Not sure I understand your point here.

it would be more clear if you read delanda. delanda is a deleuzian and as such he is opposed to intentionality

 

[constant escape]

I think intentionality is another artifact particular to the human-psyche-level of organization. I say artifact, not sure if I misunderstand it, because we detect it in things that very likely do not have it. In the sense that any internal thing that is imposed onto the external and thus considered to be part of the external - any such thing is an artifact of the internal.

 

[vimothy]

How do you think it work just out of curiosity

I dont think it's something that arises out of complexity. like you might stack a bunch of sub intelligent components and at some point they become intelligent bc you've got enough

 

[constant escape]

I dont think it's something that arises out of complexity. like you might stack a bunch of sub intelligent components and at some point they become intelligent bc you've got enough

I don't think it is completely emergent, because each of the sub-intelligent components would appear to operate under some teleology. If you put enough of them into conversation, the conversation itself becomes the higher order machine, a machine that can enter its own conversation with like-scaled machines.

 

[constant escape]

But it does seem like we teleologically operate within the same base parameters as any scale of matter, only our intensity is exponentially more advanced, more highly iterated.

 

[luka]

I dont think it's something that arises out of complexity. like you might stack a bunch of sub intelligent components and at some point they become intelligent bc you've got enough

Nor do I.

 

[vimothy]

I think intentionality is another artifact particular to the human-psyche-level of organization. I say artifact, not sure if I misunderstand it, because we detect it in things that very likely do not have it. In the sense that any internal thing that is imposed onto the external and thus considered to be part of the external - any such thing is an artifact of the internal.

its just about what thought is doing, why does it occur. for deleuzians it's not about representing anything it's about making connections

 

[constant escape]

I dont think it's something that arises out of complexity. like you might stack a bunch of sub intelligent components and at some point they become intelligent bc you've got enough

This very likely could be the case though. Robert Sapolsky pointed out, from which study I'm not sure, that human neurons and house fly neurons are virtually identical, only that we have several orders of magnitude more of them than flies do. Sort of like how a wider base allows for a taller pyramid, which allows for better vantage points.

 

[vimothy]

but that just underlines the fact that material explanations are not sufficient to explain human history

 

[constant escape]

but that just underlines the fact that material explanations are not sufficient to explain human history

Perhaps, unless a proper science of emergence can be defined and elaborated. More specifically, a science of how ontology correlates with scale, perhaps? If we can generalize the concept of evolution beyond biology, beyond genetics.

 

[constant escape]

And the ground for such a science would be broken by the kind of gnosis mentioned earlier.