Q about chapter by Hofstadter on computer music composition
Paul Reiners
consciousness or the future of computing or something like that. It was a
collection of papers by different people. I don't remember who the editor
was, but it wasn't Hofstadter, himself. It was in the general interest
subsection of the computer section of the Barnes & Noble store I saw it at
is about all I remember.
ANYWAY, one chapter was by Hofstadter and was on a computer program that
could compose quite good pastiches of other composers. I recall that
Hofstadter discussed one pseudo-Chopin piece that the program had composed.
I'm trying to find a copy of this book. Can anyone tell me the title and
the editor's name?
BTW: I guess I haven't looked through a Usenet newsgroup for a while, but
it's shocking how much spam is in here.
Don Stockbauer
--------------
This sounds like Hofstadter's chapter on Chopin in his book
"Metamagical Themas", but it deals more with his personal interaction
with Chopin's music rather than computer generated music. He does use
a program named SMUT to print music. This is all 1985 era (Basic
Books).
Perhaps spam will dissipate if we all take heed of the last 4 or 5
chapters of the above book, which deal with whether we all want to
cooperate and make something of this civilization, or selfishly defect
and let the other 10**22 stars in the Universe have a go at it in our
absence. What was that that the Copenhagen interpretation had to say,
that if no observers exist events cannot be said to have any existence
either?
Dan Bolser
I agree with the last paragraph, but the thing is, we are biological -
living in a biological world, and I think spam represents a helthy diverse
aspect of our biological existence. Yes, we should try to cooperate more,
but a system of universal cooperation is unatural, unbiological... I like
spam, it tells me the internet is alive.
>
Don Stockbauer
Don: Perhaps spam will dissipate if we all take heed of the last 4 or
5
> > chapters of the above book, which deal with whether we all want to
> > cooperate and make something of this civilization, or selfishly defect
> > and let the other 10**22 stars in the Universe have a go at it in our
> > absence. What was that that the Copenhagen interpretation had to say,
> > that if no observers exist events cannot be said to have any existence
> > either?
>
Dan: I agree with the last paragraph, but the thing is, we are
biological -
> living in a biological world, and I think spam represents a helthy diverse
> aspect of our biological existence. Yes, we should try to cooperate more,
> but a system of universal cooperation is unatural, unbiological... I like
> spam, it tells me the internet is alive.
>
Don: I agree that we will probably never be rid of spam, any more
than our bodies will ever be completely rid of viruses and bacteria.
Certainly countermeasures will improve, the equivalent of developing
an immune system.
"A system of universal cooperation is unnatural, unbiological". Not
so sure of this. Hasn't really been tried in any pure form yet. Who
knows what it might achieve? Might be like a clear channel, all
resistance to advancement removed. Some people think that a global
brain is forming,
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUPORGLI.html ,
since we all deal with messaging, and it is messaging between nodes
that creates a mind. So cooperation may be inevitable though the
self-organization of this network. IMHO.
Dan Bolser
> Dan Bolser <d...@mail.mrc-dunn.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.21.04020...@mail.mrc-dunn.cam.ac.uk>...
>
> Don: Perhaps spam will dissipate if we all take heed of the last 4 or
> 5
> > > chapters of the above book, which deal with whether we all want to
> > > cooperate and make something of this civilization, or selfishly defect
> > > and let the other 10**22 stars in the Universe have a go at it in our
> > > absence. What was that that the Copenhagen interpretation had to say,
> > > that if no observers exist events cannot be said to have any existence
> > > either?
> >
> Dan: I agree with the last paragraph, but the thing is, we are
> biological -
> > living in a biological world, and I think spam represents a helthy diverse
> > aspect of our biological existence. Yes, we should try to cooperate more,
> > but a system of universal cooperation is unatural, unbiological... I like
> > spam, it tells me the internet is alive.
> >
>
> Don: I agree that we will probably never be rid of spam, any more
> than our bodies will ever be completely rid of viruses and bacteria.
> Certainly countermeasures will improve, the equivalent of developing
> an immune system.
Exciting isn't it? I can't wait for Bill's magic spam remover to be
cripled by the next wave of super spam!
>
> "A system of universal cooperation is unnatural, unbiological". Not
> so sure of this. Hasn't really been tried in any pure form yet. Who
> knows what it might achieve?
Perhaps - But I don't think we will ever excape our 'biological' roots, no
more than we will excape the physical universe - maby we can design an
info space that has no laws of physics and then move in ... maby we can
excape the laws of bio at the same time, but I think we are stuck with
them.
> Might be like a clear channel, all
> resistance to advancement removed. Some people think that a global
> brain is forming,
Who would beleive such a thing ? ;)
> http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUPORGLI.html ,
> since we all deal with messaging, and it is messaging between nodes
> that creates a mind. So cooperation may be inevitable though the
> self-organization of this network. IMHO.
>
Hmmmm... Interesting idea, but hear is my spin...
mesage is only message if it carries meaning. Meaning is a consequence of
a network of context. Networks evolve, age and freeze - no excape. Unless
we can reformulate meaning (and message).
True our brain is in perfect cohoots with our foot, but the system is
locked - freedom has gone, our foot will always be a foot - it has lost
the potential for anything else (botom up anyway - top down we can turn it
to new use).
Dam, I thought I had things clear in my head, now I am mixd up again.
Still, nice ideas Don.
Dan.
Don Stockbauer
>
> > Don: I agree that we will probably never be rid of spam, any more
> > than our bodies will ever be completely rid of viruses and bacteria.
> > Certainly countermeasures will improve, the equivalent of developing
> > an immune system.
>
> Exciting isn't it? I can't wait for Bill's magic spam remover to be
> cripled by the next wave of super spam!
Don: Yeah, you're right. It's a natural selection thing. If
spammers succeed in causing arterioschlerosis in the entire System,
they've won. It' sback to raising one's own food, heating with wood,
and 90% of the 6,000,000,000 souls on the planet becoming non-living
biomass.>
> >
Don: "A system of universal cooperation is unnatural, unbiological".
Not
> > so sure of this. Hasn't really been tried in any pure form yet. Who
> > knows what it might achieve?
>
Dan: Perhaps - But I don't think we will ever excape our
'biological' roots, no
> more than we will excape the physical universe - maby we can design an
> info space that has no laws of physics and then move in ... maby we can
> excape the laws of bio at the same time, but I think we are stuck with
> them.
>
Don: Might be like a clear channel, all
> > resistance to advancement removed. Some people think that a global
> > brain is forming,
>
Dan: Who would beleive such a thing ? ;)
>
Don: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUPORGLI.html ,
> > since we all deal with messaging, and it is messaging between nodes
> > that creates a mind. So cooperation may be inevitable though the
> > self-organization of this network. IMHO.
> >
>
Dan: Hmmmm... Interesting idea, but hear is my spin...
>
> mesage is only message if it carries meaning. Meaning is a consequence of
> a network of context. Networks evolve, age and freeze - no excape. Unless
> we can reformulate meaning (and message).
>
> True our brain is in perfect cohoots with our foot, but the system is
> locked - freedom has gone, our foot will always be a foot - it has lost
> the potential for anything else (botom up anyway - top down we can turn it
> to new use).
>
> Dam, I thought I had things clear in my head, now I am mixd up again.
>
> Still, nice ideas Don.
>
> Dan.
Don:
I'll be the first to admit that the ideas presented at
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUPORGLI.html appera to be absolutely crazy
beyond any redemption. And at this point I guess its more a matter of
faith than anything. However , I do delight in the following:
100,000,000,000 neurons form a human brain
6,000,000,000 humans form (maybe?) a Global Brain
Now: A single neuron has absolutely no chance of understanding the
barin that it's part of. And by analogy a single human would have no
chance of understanding th Global Brain it's part of. So it may have
already formed and we have no way to ralize it.
I think I see the effects of it, butceratinly I could never understand
it all.
To me the biggest effect, if it's true, is that as a unified,
cooperating entity the Earth would seek to protect itself. Say,
switching from fossil fuels to sustainables while there's still enough
fossil fues to make the conversion (avoiding the Easter Island
effect).
Or maybe it's all rubbish. Since each of us livesa relativeky short
time, we can muck the palnet up and not suffer ourselves, and pass the
problems to be solved to the next generation.
Don Stockbauer
(I accidently submitted an unproofed version of this, so
here's
the proofed one)
>
> > Don: I agree that we will probably never be rid of spam, any more
> > than our bodies will ever be completely rid of viruses and bacteria.
> > Certainly countermeasures will improve, the equivalent of developing
> > an immune system.
>
Dan: Exciting isn't it? I can't wait for Bill's magic spam remover to
be
> cripled by the next wave of super spam!
Don: Yeah, you're right. It's a natural selection thing. If
spammers succeed in causing arterioschlerosis in the entire System,
they've won. It's back to raising one's own food, heating with wood,
and 90% of the 6,000,000,000 souls on the planet becoming non-living
biomass.
> >
Don: "A system of universal cooperation is unnatural, unbiological".
Not
> > so sure of this. Hasn't really been tried in any pure form yet. Who
> > knows what it might achieve?
>
Dan: Perhaps - But I don't think we will ever escape our
'biological' roots, no
> more than we will excape the physical universe - maby we can design an
> info space that has no laws of physics and then move in ... maby we can
> excape the laws of bio at the same time, but I think we are stuck with
> them.
>
Don: Might be like a clear channel, all
> > resistance to advancement removed. Some people think that a global
> > brain is forming,
>
Dan: Who would beleive such a thing ? ;)
>
Don: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUPORGLI.html ,
> > since we all deal with messaging, and it is messaging between nodes
> > that creates a mind. So cooperation may be inevitable though the
> > self-organization of this network. IMHO.
> >
>
Dan: Hmmmm... Interesting idea, but hear is my spin...
>
> mesage is only message if it carries meaning. Meaning is a consequence of
> a network of context. Networks evolve, age and freeze - no excape. Unless
> we can reformulate meaning (and message).
>
> True our brain is in perfect cohoots with our foot, but the system is
> locked - freedom has gone, our foot will always be a foot - it has lost
> the potential for anything else (botom up anyway - top down we can turn it
> to new use).
>
> Dam, I thought I had things clear in my head, now I am mixd up again.
>
> Still, nice ideas Don.
>
> Dan.
Don:
I'll be the first to admit that the ideas presented at
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUPORGLI.html appear to be absolutely crazy
beyond any redemption. And at this point I guess its more a matter of
faith than anything. However , I do delight in the following:
100,000,000,000 neurons form a human brain
6,000,000,000 humans form (maybe?) a Global Brain
Now: A single neuron has absolutely no chance of understanding the
brain that it's part of. And by analogy a single human would have no
chance of understanding the Global Brain it's part of. So it may have
already formed and we have no way to realize it.
I think I see the effects of it, but certainly I could never
understand it all.
To me the biggest effect, if it's true, is that as a unified,
cooperating entity the Earth would seek to protect itself. Say,
switching from fossil fuels to sustainables while there's still enough
fossil fuels to make the conversion (avoiding the Easter Island
effect).
Or maybe it's all rubbish. Since each of us lives a relatively short
time, we can muck the planet up and not suffer ourselves, and pass the
galathaea
: I'll be the first to admit that the ideas presented at
: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUPORGLI.html appear to be absolutely crazy
: beyond any redemption. And at this point I guess its more a matter of
: faith than anything. However , I do delight in the following:
:
: 100,000,000,000 neurons form a human brain
:
: 6,000,000,000 humans form (maybe?) a Global Brain
:
: Now: A single neuron has absolutely no chance of understanding the
: brain that it's part of. And by analogy a single human would have no
: chance of understanding the Global Brain it's part of. So it may have
: already formed and we have no way to realize it.
:
: I think I see the effects of it, but certainly I could never
: understand it all.
:
: To me the biggest effect, if it's true, is that as a unified,
: cooperating entity the Earth would seek to protect itself. Say,
: switching from fossil fuels to sustainables while there's still enough
: fossil fuels to make the conversion (avoiding the Easter Island
: effect).
:
: Or maybe it's all rubbish. Since each of us lives a relatively short
: time, we can muck the planet up and not suffer ourselves, and pass the
: problems to be solved to the next generation.
We certainly already have quite well established social structures
(economic, political, etc.), each with their own measures of fitness against
the selection of time. Superorganismic theories apply to all sorts of
collective information processing, such as hive and colonial organisations
and ecologies, and certainly help explain the rise of multicellularism.
But metaphors can definitely turn people away from topics that are more
rigorously justified. Obviously the collection of all information
processing on the Earth is not a brain, but it very well may have many
structural similarities.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
Don Stockbauer
Galathaea: We certainly already have quite well established social
structures
(economic, political, etc.), each with their own measures of fitness
against
the selection of time. Superorganismic theories apply to all sorts of
collective information processing, such as hive and colonial
organisations
and ecologies, and certainly help explain the rise of
multicellularism.
But metaphors can definitely turn people away from topics that are
more
rigorously justified.
Don: OK. I surely don't want to turn people off. So what would you
propose to tell them that's more rigorously justified? If the global
brain is truly locking-in as an automatic consequence of the
development of all the systems we now have in place (I go with IMHO
because any absolute declaration just devolves to "I say-you say"), it
would benefit us to go with a correct model of reality. One who uses
a correct model can achieve a lot more than one who doesn't.
Galathaea: Obviously the collection of all information processing on
the Earth is not a brain, but it very well may have many structural
similarities.
Don: "Obviously" is a very sad word. It's held us back for so long.
And "information processing" here means all communication between all
people, and all material flows, such as the ocean and atmosphere have,
all photon exchanges,..., a bit broader than most people consider.
The unfortunate thing is that as a metasystem forms from constituent
systems, the systems can believe nothing happened and be perfectly
happy.
galathaea
: "galathaea" wrote:
:
: Galathaea: We certainly already have quite well established
: social structures (economic, political, etc.), each with
: their own measures of fitness against the selection of time.
: Superorganismic theories apply to all sorts of collective
: information processing, such as hive and colonial
: organisations and ecologies, and certainly help explain the
: rise of multicellularism. But metaphors can definitely turn
: people away from topics that are more rigorously justified.
:
: Don: OK. I surely don't want to turn people off. So what
: would you propose to tell them that's more rigorously
: justified? If the global brain is truly locking-in as an
: automatic consequence of the development of all the
: systems we now have in place (I go with IMHO because any
: absolute declaration just devolves to "I say-you say"), it
: would benefit us to go with a correct model of reality.
: One who uses a correct model can achieve a lot more than
: one who doesn't.
The "turn off" was just my acknowledgement of my own failings elsewhere. I
love metaphors, but I fear that others may not always have the same
feelings.
There are many models of social structures. We erect huge edifices of law,
with an interpretive structure (the judiciary), enforcement structures
(executives), and legislative structures. We have feedback structures into
these system through economics and voting patterns. Around economics forms
other structures, from multinational corporations to farm workers.
Ecologies are structures. All of these structures have fields studying
model approaches. Even models of ant communities are being used to load
balance telecommunications networks.
So we know there are many things structuring the flow of information around
our globe. And we have many models on how the emergence of structures in
cell communication may have given rise to the metazoan brains. But...
: Galathaea: Obviously the collection of all information
: processing on the Earth is not a brain, but it very well
: may have many structural similarities.
:
: Don: "Obviously" is a very sad word. It's held us back
: for so long.
:
: And "information processing" here means all communication
: between all people, and all material flows, such as the
: ocean and atmosphere have, all photon exchanges,..., a bit
: broader than most people consider.
:
: The unfortunate thing is that as a metasystem forms from
: constituent systems, the systems can believe nothing
: happened and be perfectly happy.
I understand the sadness, and I recognise that I use that term way too much.
Robert Anton Wilson suggests "sombunall" as a short for some-but-not-all, as
a way of protecting against fundamentalist all-or-nothing propositions, and
I should use it more.
But what I meant is that the information processing is not the organ of
perceptual processing and motor control often found in frontal or upper
cavities of the metazoa. I meant it literally, in that you will not find a
single soggy mass of cells inside the world that is the world's information
processing control. Instead it is the interplay of many different systems,
even "all material flows" and energy exchanges. And all I meant was that,
although this complete system may have many similar structures to the brain,
calling it a brain can have the effect of turning others otherwise open to
the idea off.
I actually take the metaphor of brain to an extreme, and honor the "goddess"
that is all life on the earth with the reverence humans often set aside for
religion. I personally believe she's still pretty much a nihilistic,
self-destructive teenager with a smoking problem, but I hope she will grow
up a bit soon.
Paul Reiners
4e315347.04020...@posting.google.com, "Don Stockbauer"
<donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Paul Reiners <paulr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:<BC484A36.9BF%paulr...@earthlink.net>...
>> A few years ago I browsed through an anthology of papers on AI or computer
>> consciousness or the future of computing or something like that. It was a
>> collection of papers by different people. I don't remember who the editor
>> was, but it wasn't Hofstadter, himself. It was in the general interest
>> subsection of the computer section of the Barnes & Noble store I saw it at
>> is about all I remember.
>>
>> ANYWAY, one chapter was by Hofstadter and was on a computer program that
>> could compose quite good pastiches of other composers. I recall that
>> Hofstadter discussed one pseudo-Chopin piece that the program had composed.
>
> --------------
>
> This sounds like Hofstadter's chapter on Chopin in his book
> "Metamagical Themas", but it deals more with his personal interaction
> with Chopin's music rather than computer generated music. He does use
> a program named SMUT to print music. This is all 1985 era (Basic
> Books).
Well, no, actually it's not _Metamagical Themas_. I have that book and am
well acquainted with the essay you mention.
After searching a while, I found out that it's in a book called _Invisible
Future: The Seamless Integration of Technology into Everyday Life_. The
essay by Hofstadter is titled "The Surprising Prowess of an Automated Music
Composer".
Don Stockbauer
> Well, no, actually it's not _Metamagical Themas_. I have that book and am
> well acquainted with the essay you mention.
>
> After searching a while, I found out that it's in a book called _Invisible
> Future: The Seamless Integration of Technology into Everyday Life_. The
> essay by Hofstadter is titled "The Surprising Prowess of an Automated Music
> Composer".
Thanks. Will have to czech it out.
Don
Don Stockbauer
> On 2/7/04 4:47 AM, in article
> Well, no, actually it's not _Metamagical Themas_. I have that book and am
> well acquainted with the essay you mention.
>
> After searching a while, I found out that it's in a book called _Invisible
> Future: The Seamless Integration of Technology into Everyday Life_. The
> essay by Hofstadter is titled "The Surprising Prowess of an Automated Music
> Composer".
Addendum:
So if music composition has fallen to AI, one wonders if there is any
limit to what can be done with it??? Since cybernetic theory
emphasizes the metasystem transition, and it goes on forever, that
should continue to be the carrot out in front of the ass, IMHO, n e
weigh.
Don
Don Stockbauer
> : "galathaea" wrote:
> But what I meant is that the information processing is not the organ of
> perceptual processing and motor control often found in frontal or upper
> cavities of the metazoa. I meant it literally, in that you will not find a
> single soggy mass of cells inside the world that is the world's information
> processing control. Instead it is the interplay of many different systems,
> even "all material flows" and energy exchanges. And all I meant was that,
> although this complete system may have many similar structures to the brain,
> calling it a brain can have the effect of turning others otherwise open to
> the idea off.
>
> I actually take the metaphor of brain to an extreme, and honor the "goddess"
> that is all life on the earth with the reverence humans often set aside for
> religion. I personally believe she's still pretty much a nihilistic,
> self-destructive teenager with a smoking problem, but I hope she will grow
> up a bit soon.
One point is that it (the Global Brain) is certainly not my idea alone
or my nomenclature, although I have come to believe in it. It has a
rather large following among cyberneticists:
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUPORGLI.html
Perhaps Global Mind would have been a better term, for that would free
it from having to have isomorphic structures to our brains as the mind
is an emergent phenomenon of the brain.
What I have come to believe is that when you have nodes of a network
that message each other (they receive messages, they delete them, they
pass them on, they themselves are changed by the message) that a mind
with thought NECESSARILY forms, as a consequence of the information
flows of that system. I may be wrong, it's IMHO, but I've studies
enough cybernetics and authors like Douglas Hofstadter to feel that
this has a good chance of being true.
A fantastic extension of this would be the next metasystem transition,
that once intelligences begin to communicate between their solar
systems that galactic thoughts would arise.
If true, this would provide a purpose for Planet Earth, to be a part
of all this. As of now you have people killing themselves because
they feel that life is totally meaningless.
Also, there is a saying, "I'll see it when I believe it." If you know
what to look for you (at least I can, that is) can begin to see
evidence for it. Especially when watching news channels such as CNN.
It also helps to have a bit of general systems thinker in one, to be
able to see connections easily.
I've found that people are turned off no matter what the thing is
called. It's just too fantastic for them. And in a way it's all ad
hoc anyway. People can get along perfectly well without ever having
any conception of any levels above their own. And there is the effect
that each of our minds is but a miniscule part of the whole (one part
in 6 billion), thus each of us may very well have zero inkling into
the whole. Which may keep us from ever learning all there is to know
about it.
Don
Dan Bolser
hello
On 26 Feb 2004, Don Stockbauer wrote:
> "galathaea" <gala...@excite.com> wrote in message news:<102ocih...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
> > : "galathaea" wrote:
>
> > But what I meant is that the information processing is not the organ of
> > perceptual processing and motor control often found in frontal or upper
> > cavities of the metazoa. I meant it literally, in that you will not find a
> > single soggy mass of cells inside the world that is the world's information
> > processing control. Instead it is the interplay of many different systems,
> > even "all material flows" and energy exchanges. And all I meant was that,
> > although this complete system may have many similar structures to the brain,
> > calling it a brain can have the effect of turning others otherwise open to
> > the idea off.
> >
> > I actually take the metaphor of brain to an extreme, and honor the "goddess"
> > that is all life on the earth with the reverence humans often set aside for
> > religion. I personally believe she's still pretty much a nihilistic,
> > self-destructive teenager with a smoking problem, but I hope she will grow
> > up a bit soon.
>
> One point is that it (the Global Brain) is certainly not my idea alone
> or my nomenclature, although I have come to believe in it. It has a
> rather large following among cyberneticists:
>
> http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUPORGLI.html
Thansk for the link, it is great!
Do you know what I should do about broken links on this page?
e.g.
(Heylighen & Campbell, 1995).
ftp://ftp.vub.ac.be/pub/projects/Principia_Cybernetica/WF-issue/Social_MST.txtl
?
> Perhaps Global Mind would have been a better term, for that would free
> it from having to have isomorphic structures to our brains as the mind
> is an emergent phenomenon of the brain.
>
> What I have come to believe is that when you have nodes of a network
> that message each other (they receive messages, they delete them, they
> pass them on, they themselves are changed by the message) that a mind
> with thought NECESSARILY forms, as a consequence of the information
> flows of that system. I may be wrong, it's IMHO, but I've studies
> enough cybernetics and authors like Douglas Hofstadter to feel that
> this has a good chance of being true.
>
> A fantastic extension of this would be the next metasystem transition,
> that once intelligences begin to communicate between their solar
> systems that galactic thoughts would arise.
I think we could easily have galactic brain - at least churning through
some chaotic pattern capable of processing informaion. The question how is
the flow of information manifest at a galactic level? I.e. what does the
brain of the galaxy perceive?
Above I am talking about the flux of gravitational processes, rather than
any particular telicommunications between human societies.
Still, an interesting question though. It is quite reasonable to take the
'intentional stance' when describing the behaviour of a nation or its
economy etc. i.e. describing its collective wants and needs as if they are
the product of single (collective) conscious thought. (it is interesting
to argue if the same could be true of our behaviour, we just think we
have intentions because it is the most efficient way to describe
ourselves internally). However, my point is, what does a nation see and
touch? what are the sense organs of a society?
> If true, this would provide a purpose for Planet Earth, to be a part
> of all this. As of now you have people killing themselves because
> they feel that life is totally meaningless.
You mean it isn't?
> Also, there is a saying, "I'll see it when I believe it." If you know
> what to look for you (at least I can, that is) can begin to see
> evidence for it. Especially when watching news channels such as CNN.
> It also helps to have a bit of general systems thinker in one, to be
> able to see connections easily.
>
> I've found that people are turned off no matter what the thing is
> called. It's just too fantastic for them. And in a way it's all ad
> hoc anyway. People can get along perfectly well without ever having
> any conception of any levels above their own. And there is the effect
> that each of our minds is but a miniscule part of the whole (one part
> in 6 billion), thus each of us may very well have zero inkling into
> the whole. Which may keep us from ever learning all there is to know
> about it.
>
> Don
>
Shame. Oh well...
Dan.
Don Stockbauer
> One point is that it (the Global Brain) is certainly not my idea alone or my nomenclature, although I have come to believe in it. It has a rather large following among cyberneticists:
>
> http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUPORGLI.html
Dan: Thanks for the link, it is great!
Do you know what I should do about broken links on this page?
e.g.
(Heylighen & Campbell, 1995).
ftp://ftp.vub.ac.be/pub/projects/Principia_Cybernetica/WF-issue/Social_MST.txtl
Don: Nothing can be done. The Principia Cybernetica has many
informative articles in it but it has stopped growing at this point.
If one tries to annotate it currently you're locked out. But still,
it contains a wealth of information and I credit it with unifying my
thoughts on cybernetics.
Dan: we could easily have galactic brain - at least churning through
some chaotic pattern capable of processing information. The question
how is the flow of information manifest at a galactic level? I.e. what
does the brain of the galaxy perceive?
Above I am talking about the flux of gravitational processes, rather
than any particular telecommunications between human societies.
Don: No, you need to think about telecommunications. Gravitational
processes are too simple, cannot transfer information. All gravity
affects is motion.
Dan: Still, an interesting question though. It is quite reasonable to
take the 'intentional stance' when describing the behaviour of a
nation or its economy etc. i.e. describing its collective wants and
needs as if they are the product of single (collective) conscious
thought. (it is interesting to argue if the same could be true of our
behaviour, we just think we have intentions because it is the most
efficient way to describe ourselves internally). However, my point is,
what does a nation see and touch? what are the sense organs of a
society?
Don: Perhaps a nation sees and touches nothing, it is only at the
level of human individuals that you have that. Human individuals are
just chock full of free will, or so cybernetics claims, and I believe
that. SO we have 6,000,000,000 people forming potential free
will-free will hookups and communication, this is the basis of the
Global Brain, aka the Global Mind, aka the New Age, aka Gaia, aka the
Cosmic Muffin,...
Don: If true, this would provide a purpose for Planet Earth, to be a
part
> of all this. As of now you have people killing themselves because
> they feel that life is totally meaningless.
Dan: You mean it isn't?
Don: One may view it as totally meaningless. I have at times when I
was depressed. But IMHO (an AHA for "In my humble opinion") if all
these higher level organizations of intelligence are actually forming
(The Global Brain, the Galactic Brain, the Universal Brain) that's a
pretty good reason for Humanity to keep itself alive, to build the
radio telescopes necessary to pull it off, and I don't know about
anyone else, but I couldn't imagine a more interesting and meaningful
existence than to be a part of receiving and decoding messages from
fellow intelligences, hint, hint Seth.
> Also, there is a saying, "I'll see it when I believe it." If you know
> what to look for you (at least I can, that is) can begin to see
> evidence for it. Especially when watching news channels such as CNN.
> It also helps to have a bit of general systems thinker in one, to be
> able to see connections easily.
>
> I've found that people are turned off no matter what the thing is
> called. It's just too fantastic for them. And in a way it's all ad
> hoc anyway. People can get along perfectly well without ever having
> any conception of any levels above their own. And there is the effect
> that each of our minds is but a miniscule part of the whole (one part
> in 6 billion), thus each of us may very well have zero inkling into
> the whole. Which may keep us from ever learning all there is to know
> about it.
>
> Don
>
Shame. Oh well...
Dan.
Don: But remember General Systems Thinking, which is pretty powerful
stuff, and may enable us to jump over the discontinuity I expressed
above.
"May you live in interesting times".
Dan Bolser
snip
> Above I am talking about the flux of gravitational processes, rather
> than any particular telecommunications between human societies.
>
> Don: No, you need to think about telecommunications. Gravitational
> processes are too simple, cannot transfer information. All gravity
> affects is motion.
I don't agree with the first two sentences, but I do the third. I am of
the opinion that all you need is a mechanical process to get mind. I dont
know how, but I believe it anyway. So a big mechanical process present in
a particular configuration of objects in space could (in theory) have
mind. Thinking about the complex dynamics of multibody systems opens up
the possibility for 'information processing' in the 'computational
capacity' sense, but it is tough to demonstrate.
> Dan: Still, an interesting question though. It is quite reasonable to
> take the 'intentional stance' when describing the behaviour of a
> nation or its economy etc. i.e. describing its collective wants and
> needs as if they are the product of single (collective) conscious
> thought. (it is interesting to argue if the same could be true of our
> behaviour, we just think we have intentions because it is the most
> efficient way to describe ourselves internally). However, my point is,
> what does a nation see and touch? what are the sense organs of a
> society?
>
> Don: Perhaps a nation sees and touches nothing, it is only at the
> level of human individuals that you have that. Human individuals are
> just chock full of free will, or so cybernetics claims, and I believe
> that. SO we have 6,000,000,000 people forming potential free
> will-free will hookups and communication, this is the basis of the
> Global Brain, aka the Global Mind, aka the New Age, aka Gaia, aka the
> Cosmic Muffin,...
I agree, but I am confused :) Like asking how an ant hill 'feels' when a
flood comes, and all the ants form a raft. It makes sense to talk about
the emergent behaviour in terms of 'what is best for the ant
hill'. i.e. supposing that the ant hill desires to survive and acts in its
own interests. However, having said this (a short hand way of describing
the whole system behaviour at a high level) arnt we obliged to give the
ant hill some internal state associated with the 'desires' and 'actions'
it has and performs respectivly.
This is why I am confused. If the statement 'America desires global
stability' is reasonable, isn't an analysis of americas brain also
reasonable?
I don't know.
> Don: If true, this would provide a purpose for Planet Earth, to be a
> part
> > of all this. As of now you have people killing themselves because
> > they feel that life is totally meaningless.
>
> Dan: You mean it isn't?
>
> Don: One may view it as totally meaningless. I have at times when I
> was depressed. But IMHO (an AHA for "In my humble opinion") if all
> these higher level organizations of intelligence are actually forming
> (The Global Brain, the Galactic Brain, the Universal Brain) that's a
> pretty good reason for Humanity to keep itself alive, to build the
> radio telescopes necessary to pull it off, and I don't know about
> anyone else, but I couldn't imagine a more interesting and meaningful
> existence than to be a part of receiving and decoding messages from
> fellow intelligences, hint, hint Seth.
I suppose.
> > Also, there is a saying, "I'll see it when I believe it." If you know
> > what to look for you (at least I can, that is) can begin to see
> > evidence for it. Especially when watching news channels such as CNN.
> > It also helps to have a bit of general systems thinker in one, to be
> > able to see connections easily.
> >
> > I've found that people are turned off no matter what the thing is
> > called. It's just too fantastic for them. And in a way it's all ad
> > hoc anyway. People can get along perfectly well without ever having
> > any conception of any levels above their own. And there is the effect
> > that each of our minds is but a miniscule part of the whole (one part
> > in 6 billion), thus each of us may very well have zero inkling into
> > the whole. Which may keep us from ever learning all there is to know
> > about it.
> >
> > Don
> >
>
> Shame. Oh well...
>
> Dan.
>
> Don: But remember General Systems Thinking, which is pretty powerful
> stuff, and may enable us to jump over the discontinuity I expressed
> above.
I hope so, at least we could understand such a hypothetical organism
weather we are able to see it or not.
Darwin said nature does not make jumps. Something which I decided was
wrong. (I once thought about writing a book called 'nature makes
jumps). However, although it is wrong at one level (emergent behaviour) I
think he could be right at another level.
I think we talked about it before, an ecosystem of meta organisms (rater
than one universal 'brain'). What is the quote?, nature is bloody in tooth
and claw? I think all these socio-organisms (to destinguish from non human
meta organisms) are just a brutal as the rest of nature.
>
> "May you live in interesting times".
>
:)
Don Stockbauer
get mind. I don't know how, but I believe it anyway. So a big
mechanical process present in a particular configuration of objects in
space could (in theory) have mind. Thinking about the complex dynamics
of multibody systems opens up the possibility for 'information
processing' in the 'computational capacity' sense, but it is tough to
demonstrate.
Don: Oh well, we agree to disagree, I suppose. I agree that a galaxy
could have mind, but only if civilizations arise which link up via
radio telescopes within it.
Dan: (snip)...I agree, but I am confused :) Like asking how an ant
hill 'feels' when a flood comes, and all the ants form a raft. It
makes sense to talk about the emergent behaviour in terms of 'what is
best for the ant hill'. i.e. supposing that the ant hill desires to
survive and acts in its own interests. However, having said this (a
short hand way of describing the whole system behaviour at a high
level) arnt we obliged to give the ant hill some internal state
associated with the 'desires' and 'actions' it has and performs
respectivly.
This is why I am confused. If the statement 'America desires global
stability' is reasonable, isn't an analysis of americas brain also
reasonable?
I don't know.
Don: I don't either. Low level brain activity, neural firings, give
rise to fantastically more sophisticated emergent phenomena.
Consciousness, love, desire to invade Iraq for its oil, etc.
Dan: Darwin said nature does not make jumps. Something which I
decided was wrong. (I once thought about writing a book called 'nature
makes
jumps). However, although it is wrong at one level (emergent
behaviour) I think he could be right at another level.
I think we talked about it before, an ecosystem of meta organisms
(rater than one universal 'brain'). What is the quote?, nature is
bloody in tooth and claw? I think all these socio-organisms (to
destinguish from non human meta organisms) are just a brutal as the
rest of nature.
Don: Stephen J. Gould of course worked that one up, "Punctuated
Equilibrium". Emergent behavior is very jumpy. It's associated with
paradigm shifts, as systems group into metasystems.
One may look at a whole as a whole or as the parts (holism versus
reductionism), as the subject of this group, Dr. Hofstadter, repeated
throughout GEB (Godel, Escher, Bach).
Nature is brutal? I don't know. A lion eats a wildebeest, brutal to
us maybe, but very natural on their level.
An ecosystem of metaorganisms would form a brain. And I can't help
but believe that since it would become a single integrated organism
many of our current problems would evaporate since they're caused by
humans versus humans, which would attenuate once everyone worked
toward the same goals rather than this eternal fighting. Yes, I know,
Pollyannaish. If it didn't fall directly out of cybernetic
principles, I wouldn't believe it either.
Dan Bolser
> Dan: I am of the opinion that all you need is a mechanical process to
> get mind. I don't know how, but I believe it anyway. So a big
> mechanical process present in a particular configuration of objects in
> space could (in theory) have mind. Thinking about the complex dynamics
> of multibody systems opens up the possibility for 'information
> processing' in the 'computational capacity' sense, but it is tough to
> demonstrate.
>
> Don: Oh well, we agree to disagree, I suppose. I agree that a galaxy
> could have mind, but only if civilizations arise which link up via
> radio telescopes within it.
How about the chaotic flow of a traffic jam? Today I caused a car to slow
down before turning left as I passed a road on my bike. The car coming up
that road then had to wait for the car I slowed down, then it will head
into town and create more occilations. I think London is thinking hard
during rush hour. Maybe not though...
> Dan: (snip)...I agree, but I am confused :) Like asking how an ant
> hill 'feels' when a flood comes, and all the ants form a raft. It
> makes sense to talk about the emergent behaviour in terms of 'what is
> best for the ant hill'. i.e. supposing that the ant hill desires to
> survive and acts in its own interests. However, having said this (a
> short hand way of describing the whole system behaviour at a high
> level) arnt we obliged to give the ant hill some internal state
> associated with the 'desires' and 'actions' it has and performs
> respectivly.
>
> This is why I am confused. If the statement 'America desires global
> stability' is reasonable, isn't an analysis of americas brain also
> reasonable?
>
> I don't know.
>
> Don: I don't either. Low level brain activity, neural firings, give
> rise to fantastically more sophisticated emergent phenomena.
> Consciousness, love, desire to invade Iraq for its oil, etc.
Yup, it is really hard to differentiate layers, so lets just do it
empirically and say 'America is in shock', the slime mould wants to
survive.
> Dan: Darwin said nature does not make jumps. Something which I
> decided was wrong. (I once thought about writing a book called 'nature
> makes
> jumps). However, although it is wrong at one level (emergent
> behaviour) I think he could be right at another level.
>
> I think we talked about it before, an ecosystem of meta organisms
> (rater than one universal 'brain'). What is the quote?, nature is
> bloody in tooth and claw? I think all these socio-organisms (to
> destinguish from non human meta organisms) are just a brutal as the
> rest of nature.
>
> Don: Stephen J. Gould of course worked that one up, "Punctuated
> Equilibrium". Emergent behavior is very jumpy. It's associated with
> paradigm shifts, as systems group into metasystems.
Did Gould talk about emergent behaviour? I thought Kaufmann was among the
first to link punctuated evolution and emergence of high level behaviour
in distributed systems.
It is just so fantastical an idea it becomes mundane once we know about it
/ show it is real. It is a real shame.
> One may look at a whole as a whole or as the parts (holism versus
> reductionism), as the subject of this group, Dr. Hofstadter, repeated
> throughout GEB (Godel, Escher, Bach).
>
> Nature is brutal? I don't know. A lion eats a wildebeest, brutal to
> us maybe, but very natural on their level.
>
> An ecosystem of metaorganisms would form a brain. And I can't help
> but believe that since it would become a single integrated organism
> many of our current problems would evaporate since they're caused by
> humans versus humans, which would attenuate once everyone worked
> toward the same goals rather than this eternal fighting. Yes, I know,
> Pollyannaish. If it didn't fall directly out of cybernetic
> principles, I wouldn't believe it either.
This is a good idea, common goals bind individuals in a meta system, like
prarie dogs, we might all start playing the same game.
Thanks for the reasurances.
Dan.
Don Stockbauer
> How about the chaotic flow of a traffic jam? Today I caused a car to slow
> down before turning left as I passed a road on my bike. The car coming up
> that road then had to wait for the car I slowed down, then it will head
> into town and create more occilations. I think London is thinking hard
> during rush hour. Maybe not though...
Don: The subject of this newsgroup, Douglas Hofstadter, likes to
state that traffic jams are a result of a system of cars; you can't
have one with only one. But (IMHO) a traffic jam is not a display of
intelligence. To get intelligence, you need a neural network
structure, billions of nodes, and it must be trained by experience for
many years (all of which humans satisfy).
> (snip)
>
> > Don: Low level brain activity, neural firings, give
> > rise to fantastically more sophisticated emergent phenomena.
> > Consciousness, love, desire to invade Iraq for its oil, etc.
>
Dan: Yup, it is really hard to differentiate layers, so lets just do
it
> empirically and say 'America is in shock', the slime mould wants to
> survive.
Don: I'm a American, so I have some insight into this. America is
having a hard time accepting that all nations must (and IMHO are,
automatically) melding into a unified Earth. America thinks it can go
it alone. This view has got to stop; if America uses up the resources
of the rest of the world to support its lavish lifestyle, then it will
have no support system and go extinct along with the Earth at large.
It is very difficult to express any of this in this country, for
especially ever since Vietnam you get told "Well, just leave then."
Don: Stephen J. Gould of course worked that one up, "Punctuated
Equilibrium". Emergent behavior is very jumpy. It's associated with
paradigm shifts, as systems group into metasystems.
Dan: Did Gould talk about emergent behaviour? I thought Kaufmann was
among the
> first to link punctuated evolution and emergence of high level behaviour
> in distributed systems.
>
> It is just so fantastical an idea it becomes mundane once we know about it
> / show it is real. It is a real shame.
Don: I'm not that hot on the history of science. I know from getting
into discussions with cyberneticists that many people came up with
similar ideas at the same time. I tend to just study the Principia
Cybernetica, which is more like an encyclopedia, not so much like a
single person writing.
>
>Dan: This is a good idea, common goals bind individuals in a meta
system, like
> prarie dogs, we might all start playing the same game.
Don: Or like bees, or ants, or termites, or cattle herds, or on and
on. Living on a ranch I can't help to be reminded of how single
systems replicate and then form a metasystem. If it happens naturally
for animals, and for atoms (into molecules), and for stars (into
galaxies), then why can't all the systems of the Earth unite into an
integrated whole? We here in America we are big on voting. I vote
for the Global Brain forming.
Don Stockbauer
>> This is a good idea, common goals bind individuals in a meta
system, like
> prarie dogs, we might all start playing the same game.
>
Or quit playing games. "The only way to win is to not play." See the
movie "Wargames". Well, maybe not "win" so much as establish an
eternal stalemate. If that's what one wants. Frank Drake proposes
that we recede to the outer solar system as the Sun expands into its
red giant phase, and then huddle close to it in artificial habitats
when it is a white dwarf. Quite a long stalemate, that. Of course,
with that technology, we could go to the stars, abandoning
cybernetics' dictum of "Stay put and communicate, don't travel". But
once we get to the stars we face all the same problems, er, issues
again. Can't win for losing. Or, that is, can't win for stalemating.
My head hertz.
Don
dmb000006
A question I was asked recently was if we as humans have only our
intelligence to separate us from the beasts, why should we seek to
make our own intelligence redundant?
I always thoght those sci fi stories about humans becoming so
dependent on tech that they forget how to do anyting themselves a
little far fetched, but now it seems so likely to happen it is almost
a forgon conclusion.
I cant wait to get internet in my glasses, so everyimage I see is
googled through AI to provide a HUD of relevant information. (this
idea is developed in a commic called zero - he is a secret agent).
People dont make appointments now, they just call up the mobile phone
- soon we will hapily set off to go someplace we have no idea how to
get to, our pda will just guide us there, and our sense of direction
will dissapear in a very short space of time. (People already
complain of lack of short term memory due to PDA).
dmb000006
Perhaps you are hungary?
Thing is this global brain will be a biobrain, no doubt about it. A
global social meta cetera brain. The thing about biology is it doesn't
stop playing games.
Although at the meta level it stops mattering. For example, a mother
loves her child, and that love is real in any practical sense of the
word. However, during pregancy a strange biochemical dance distributes
resources between mother and child. Needless to say it is a complex
process, but it has some analogies to warfare, with strike and counter
strike evolving at the biochemical level.
Any way, this doesn't add much I know.
Bye,
Dan.
Don Stockbauer
> (snip)
> Thing is this global brain will be a biobrain, no doubt about it. A
> global social meta cetera brain. The thing about biology is it doesn't
> stop playing games.
>
> Although at the meta level it stops mattering. For example, a mother
> loves her child, and that love is real in any practical sense of the
> word. However, during pregancy a strange biochemical dance distributes
> resources between mother and child. Needless to say it is a complex
> process, but it has some analogies to warfare, with strike and counter
> strike evolving at the biochemical level.
>
> Any way, this doesn't add much I know.
>
> Bye,
> Dan.
Seems like you tend to get game-playing/fighting more when a system is
divided against itself. But then, even a unified system can war on
itself (cancer, for instance, if it is unhealthy) So nothing is
guaranteed. Seemes like any unification couldn't help but help.
dmb000006
I agree
Don Stockbauer
> > Seems like you tend to get game-playing/fighting more when a system is
> > divided against itself. But then, even a unified system can war on
> > itself (cancer, for instance, if it is unhealthy) So nothing is
> > guaranteed. Seemes like any unification couldn't help but help.
>
> I agree
But then, someone pointed out to me that any such Global Brain might
be a real nasty-tempered entity, torturing all 6 billion of us, making
our lives one living heck. So, like a new building being put up in a
neighborhood, all we can do is wait and see.
Don Stockbauer
Thing are getting curiouser and curiouser, even by my lax standards.
Have a nice day.
Don Stockbauer
Don Stockbauer
playmates. There is only one solution to that. Buy him a pack of
solitaire cards and a boomerang."
Don Stockbauer
> >
> >NASA ANNOUNCES MAJOR MARS ROVER FINDING
> >
> > NASA (AHA) will announce a major scientific finding at a
Space Science Update (SSU) (AHA) Tuesday at 2 p.m. EST (AHA), in the
headquarters Webb Auditorium, 300 E (AHA) St. (AHA) SW (AHA),
Washington. The Mars Exploration Rover (MER) (AHA) Opportunity is
exploring the martian Meridiani Planum and recently discovered
evidence rocks at the landing
site have been altered by water.
>
Harris:
> I wonder if maybe they found a carved figurine that looks
sorta like a sea lion sitting on the shore of the old lake. Maybe
they could
name it "Sedna."
*************************
Stockbauer:
With an inscription on its chest:
"Here was the location of the former shore of the Great System
of Martian Seas whose dihydrogen monoxide was sold by Argllphyl the
Greedy to the Beta Lyrans for 30 pieces of silver, which served
to do naught but up his bit pattern on disk at the Last Citibank of
Mars and accomplish our extinction. Have a nice day.
- Xzrllphyl the Beneficent."
HAND (AHA ("Another Hated Acronym") for "Have a nice day"))
Don Stockbauer
One wonders what will be the outcome of a civilization which has
access to
almost any knowledge at the tip of thier fingers. Someday if you have
the
time you might want to read "City and the Stars" by AC Clarke if
you've not
already, about a little fellow named Alvin in the year 1,000,000,000
AD in
the glowing city of Diaspar on Earth who at the touch of a few buttons
has
access to all of recorded history on his city's information machines.
Of
course that takes continuity, and watching CNN for just 5 minutes
makes one
wonder if we'll maintain that for even the next 5 minutes much less a
billion years (or was that a million? a trillion? a quadrillion? a
quintillion? I suffer from Hofstadter's concept of "innumeracy")
I wonder if little Alvin wll be able to bring up this note. I think
he will.
Positive self-fulfulling prophecy is a very powerful force.
Oh well, just doing ranch type things, fixing fences, watching
Hartman rape
his land to the 7th generation and beyond selling off the very Earth
itself he thinks he owns,, watching 23 cattle being so much more
sustainable than 45. Watching my old bipolar brain's thoughts race,
something Goff told me was highly undesirable, which I'm unsure
whether he's right or wrong, if right or wrong applies. Watching the
future unfold with an amazing amount of complexity, yet it all
continues to be neatly bundled by self-organization.
Another Ginny "Late at night" conversation.
Don
Joel Olson
<
One wonders what will be the outcome of a civilization which has
access to almost any knowledge at the tip of thier fingers. Someday
if you have the time you might want to read "City and the Stars" by
AC Clarke if you've not already, about a little fellow named Alvin in
the year 1,000,000,000 AD in the glowing city of Diaspar on Earth
who at the touch of a few buttons has access to all of recorded history
on his city's information machines.
Of course that takes continuity, and watching CNN for just 5 minutes
makes one wonder if we'll maintain that for even the next 5 minutes
much less a billion years (or was that a million? a trillion? a quadrillion?
a quintillion? I suffer from Hofstadter's concept of "innumeracy")
I wonder if little Alvin wll be able to bring up this note. I think he
will. Positive self-fulfulling prophecy is a very powerful force.
>
From another newsgrope:
<
One way to try to get a handle on what's happening in a scientific field is to
study citations in research papers. The idea is to look at which papers are
cited together, then to represent those data as a network of nodes (articles)
and links (articles appearing in the same reference list).
In a visualization of a complex network with many links, however, it can be very
difficult to recognize significant patterns amid the clutter. Chaomei Chen of
Drexel University in Philadelphia has developed a method for effectively
visualizing such networks by reducing the number of links that must be shown and
appropriately weighting the remaining ones while still preserving a given
network's basic structure. Animation then allows him to study the evolution of
these networks over time.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040313/mathtrek.asp
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~cc345/citespace/
>
Don Stockbauer
Nice day away from the place here, don't get too many of those.
Let me know about the parasitic wasp experiment.
The Global Brain/Mind - the way I see it is if you have nodes (such as
neurons) which message (impulse) each other, that is, they receive
messages, they pass them on, they delete unwanted ones, they
themselves are changed permanently by the messages they receive, then
information flows develop representing thoughts. And that scales up:
people messaging each other form world thoughts, planets messaging
each other through radio telescopes form galactic thoughts. And it
seems that once the messaging starts a brain-like structure forms
automatically. No preventing it.
The increase in level from neurons to people to planets as the nodes
is one of content, not form - that is, the same cybernetic principles
apply at each level, only the content (the entity which occupies the
node's position) varies. (I wonder if galaxies have ever messaged one
another? These creatures would be Type C where A = Impatient, B =
Patient)
You asked if I ever talked to Roger about this stuff and I don't
really because I've found that nobody can tolerate it very long so I
have to watch myself. In fact, I discuss things less and less and
study on my own more. Douglas R. Hofstadter was a great influence on
me, I actually exchanged a few emails with him and then he finally
wrote "I no longer am interested in endless discussion. At this point
in my life I'd rather have happiness." And I've gotten to where I
agree with him. Discussion is a trap in and of itself. At some point
one just needs to act on what they feel is best and not submit
everything to a committee. Maybe there's a middle ground, drawing the
best from both approaches.
Anyway, have not reviewed all that in a while, it helps to do so.
Don
Don Stockbauer
Don, that's all well and good, but it may all be a delusion.
Hofstadter in GEB wrote that once one begins to doubt their own
sanity, it seems like it would always be a slide into that since one
would begin to doubt the very processes used to analyze the whole
question. Yet people do not fall victim to this, except certain
polititians. Maybe there's an analogy with inertia. The sum total of
one's experience and intellect corresponds to a mass with a large
inertia, and these self-doubts are mere small forces which only
slightly affect the overall momentum vector (one' free will). Or
maybe not. Who knows????
Don Stockbauer
Don Stockbauer
I wonder what it is????
Must be my imagination.
- Don
Don Stockbauer
"Don! Who are you talking to in there?????"
Don Stockbauer
************************
"Nobody heah Ma exceptin' me an' tha' chickens!"
Don Stockbauer
> intelligence to separate us from the beasts, why should we seek to
make our own intelligence redundant?
God, that can be attacked on many fronts. We share scads of attributes
with beasts, since all of us are animals. Do we seek to make beasts
intelligent? Do we have much choice in general about the arising of
intelligence, especially the global version?
>
> I always thoght those sci fi stories about humans becoming so
> dependent on tech that they forget how to do anyting themselves a
> little far fetched, but now it seems so likely to happen it is almost
a forgon conclusion.
There's always a few holdouts who make themselves dependent on as
little as possible.
>
> I cant wait to get internet in my glasses, so everyimage I see is
> googled through AI to provide a HUD of relevant information. (this
idea is developed in a commic called zero - he is a secret agent).
I suppose a good comment here is just because something can be done
doesn't mean it makes good sense to actually do it.
>
> People dont make appointments now, they just call up the mobile phone
> - soon we will hapily set off to go someplace we have no idea how to
> get to, our pda will just guide us there, and our sense of direction
> will dissapear in a very short space of time. (People already complain of lack of short term memory due to PDA).
I think there will always be those who aren't affected by this. Those
who choose to stick to simpler ways, like maps, like me. Maybe the
sense of direction will merely be used in more complex ways. For
instance, someone told me that we're no longer hunter/gatherers.
Bull. People come to work, hunt for information using machines,
gather it together for a report and head off to their meeting. Still
hunting/gathering, just at a higher level of abstraction.
Don Stockbauer
even ewe don't quite belive ewe,
that's when 0 can deceive ewe.
When that old gray wind is blowin',
and there's 0 left worth knowin',
then it's time ewe should B goin'.
Because it's all on ewe.
- Steve Winwood
Don Stockbauer
Don Stockbauer
"Clarke was a pessimist."
Don Stockbauer
"Waste knot, want knot".
- The Knot Conservatory of America (KCA, an AHA)
***********************************
Dear Dr. Hofstadter, 4/14/2004
I've been thinking about the "proof" Turing used that one cannot have
a termination tester. Feed the termination tester to itself. Ok.
Self-reference. We all know that can get one in trouble. So what to
do? Seems like pattern recognition might work. Just as with
detecting the old "This is my birthday" simplistic responses of the
tortoise to Achilles, (and many, many other scenarios), perhaps one
may salvage the process by detecting when self-reference is being
attempted and flash a warning message and stop, like in the movie 2001
where HAL kills the astronauts and a huge, idiotic "COMPUTER
MALFUCTION" screen pops up. Or better yet, trap the pattern and go on
with processing.
Of course all this gets you into constructivism and fantasy vs.
reality and the cybernetic credo of "we should only do that which
ensures our comfortable survival". There's room for Spielberg and
fantasy, but recognize it as such and move-on with constructivistic
techniques.
I'm wondering if pattern recognition can come to the rescue in all
cases or if, like Einstein's gut feeling that "God does not allow
chance in the Universe", there is an elegant solution to it all.
Probably not. We keep building up our tool-chest, explosively,
metasystem transitionally, and if it weren't for self-organization I'm
convinced it would all blow up like an H-bomb. Lots of specialized
processing no doubt has to be remembered for survival.
Well, couldn't think of anything to write about in a while, but the
Turing Test proof has been bouncing around my head recently. Toodles.
Don Stockbauer
Don Stockbauer
Don Stockbauer
1: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states
that something is possible, he is almost certainly right.
When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably
wrong."
2: "The only way to discover the limits of the
possible is to venture beyond them into the impossible."
3: "Any significantly advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic."
4: "For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert."
1 and 2 say the same thing. It's an excluded middle deal. What's
impossible now may very well be possible in the metasystem of
tomorrow.
Law 3. Again, time figures in. While the future's technology may
seem like magic to us, to them it will be taken for granted and seem
ordinary.
Law 4. A bipolar (dualism) deal. All dualisms are transcended by the
Truth. I'm working on the dualism-nondualism duelism problem myself.
Can't decide if I have it solved, or if I don't have it solved.
Don
Don Stockbauer
Don Stockbauer
A Conversation with 2 of Don's selves:
Don: Still doubting the GB (Global Brain) (AHA)?
Don: No, Don it's purdy obvious to me.
Don: Which part of Don's brain R U????
Don: Neurons 72,926,282,926 to 76,827,376,397.
Don: Say, we're neighbors, ahm 76,827,376,398 to 119,877,817,827.
Don: What do I do next???
Don: Only ewe can decide that.
Don: Whale, I guess the slop needs taking out, then eye need to get
back on La Machine.
Don: OK, Don, ewe 1/2 free will, ewe can dew whatever you want within
cybernetic constraints.
Don: OK, talk to ewe later.
Don. Fiddle - it makes a big difference ewe no.
Don: Is this the end?
Don: Yes - I just looked in the Very Asian Gold Box.
Don: Speaking of that - why bother with proving Goldbach's
conjecture??? Does it contribute to our cybernetic comfortable
survival????
Don: No. It's just a plaything for mathematicians who have too much
time on their hands (as Bob told me that considering the Global Brain
is only for those with too much time on their hands). So it falls
into the category of play. Just like I can ask "When and from what
regions of the Earth's Moon surface will the next instance occur of
next transit of Venus' having either a 2nd or 3rd contact obscured by
an occultation of the Earth??????" Totally a mind game. And to you
lunar observers who suffer such a fate in the year XXXX, ewe 1/2 my
sympathy. You may hold a wake in my name, from the year 2004."
Don: In math as in awl of Life, it's easy to formulate challenges
which are either very easy or "impossibly" hard to "prove", right???
Don: Yes. Just as I can say "Think about ice cream" or I can say
"walk around the Earth 345 times". We have an isomorphism: "Prove
Goldbach's conjecture" (or maybe its been proven, I don't keep up with
this stuff) or "prove that the number of primes is infinite". One
might ask, "So???"
Don: Does constructivism and adhering to cybernetic principles wash
away most of the nonsense in Life, and would that make GEB a 10 page
book if adhered to????
Don: Let me tip over this vase with my foot and eat another pecan.
Have a nice day, everyone.
- Don
Don Stockbauer
> Subject: The early cyberneticist
>
> > Hi Don:
> >
> > Well, wisdom comes in from unexpected sources. This is certainly the
> > earliest cybernetic theory I have ever heard exposited. From Plutarch,
> "Many things which cannot be overcome when they are together, yield themselves
> up when taken little by little."
>
> Yeah, analysis vs synthesis. Of course, one's best couse is a synthesis of
> analysis and synthesis. But then synthesis is self-referential, so ewe get
> back into a SR tangle, need cy to unravel it, but then cy is SR by
> definition, if one's brain can untangle all that like Dorothy Parker said
> about the horse floating on its back playing a tuba, "Ewe've got something!"
> Course I've thought about all that a bit, and you dont want to untangle your
> thoughts because then they'd become linear and infinite, whereas tangled they
> can stay comfortably infinite. A potential infinity, that is, not an actualized one. Everybody knows as a hardened fact no one could contain infinite knowledge and intelligence. They'd be isomorphic to God. But then, aren't we all? A system of Gods, forming into a metasystem of ...MetaGods?????(5)
> >
> > I was surprised when I saw this on a box of Celestial Seasonings tea.
> These boxes are mini works of art with paintings, drawings and words of wisdom
> and inspiration interposed on all sides and inside the lid.
> >> Here was the main theme on this box from the back, a beautiful homage to
> > wilderness I thought, "Wilderness is...circular, unpredictable, moving and changing. Nature weaves around itself in an unending breath of life.... That which is truly wild
> > spills over the edges--onto our kitchen floors, into our love lives,
> through the sidewalk cracks, and in the form of dandelions and emotional
> outbursts. One way to return to a lifestyle that is more organic and harmonious with
> > the whole of nature is to get outside more often...to let the
> > unpredictability of wildness touch the soulful longings within yourself.
> > Wilderness is innate to who we are. You do not have to go far to find
> > wildness, only as far as your own beating heart and the joy you find in
Ø > life."
Ø
> > Cass Adams, The Soul Unearthed
> >
> > Nice thoughts IMHO.
> >
> > James
> >>
> Yes, I agree. I've been thinking along the lines of thoughts such as the
> above are works of art, isomorphic to forming scientific theories. You
> have a substrate and you constructivistically create from it. Memes are the
> substrate for the above, the finished work is the meta-meme they express
> about the wilderness. Scientists use the substrate of their discipline to
> create theories. Ie, relativity basics are played with to form higher level
> theories. As with cy. Cy basics are played with and formed into
> meta-Cy-theories. Where one might get a bit of an edge is to not form
> theories at all, just have a repertoire of basics floating around one's skull and
> dynamically call on them to solve what problems ("issues") one
> faces at the time. Probably just a pipe dream. No one could do that.
>
> Oh, well, am still amazed at these two people who want to rent the Cuero
> house. I guess it's the old "blind men feeling the elephant"; Mom and I saw
> trash, they see treasure. Dad was an expert in that, selling stuff, seeing
> how someone might view trash as treasure and pushing it on that basis. My
> downfall in selling things is that I see it as trash and that's it - hell,
> give it away, don't accept useless money for it. But then I guess as anyone
> might tell you I'm a little weird.
>
> Oh, well, thanx for the words of inspiration, they've made me decide to
> take a vacation. All those people who rant at me that they never
> get a vacation when I've mentioned the word "vacation" around them have me
> so worn out I need a vacation.
>
> Don
>
Don Stockbauer
>Dragging (also called the Lense - Thirring Effect, after the guys
>who predicted it as a consequence of General Relativity) is the
>effect a rotating massive body has on the spin of a small body
>near it. In principle, it is possible to measure it by monitoring
>the spin axis of a gyroscope orbiting the Earth. The axis should
>change its orientation relative to that of a distant star.
>
>The Geodetic Effect is due to a spinning body in a curved space
>time.
>Actually this has been seen already in measurments of the motion
>of the Moon and Earth about their center of mass.
>
>In fact there are some physics people critical of this experiment
>in that people have been thinking that GR IS the correct model of
>gravitation and needs no more testing, but I think they are
>beening kind of catty.
>
OK, thank you. I had some thoughts about communicating systems being
stationary with respect to each other and not needing the corrections
of relativity, but the more I thought about it the more I realize that
it's needed when dealing with many other aspects of what the advanced
civilizations would be studying so I need to drop it.
***********
Bill has been noncommunicative lately, but we did have this exchange:
---------------------------
(I told him Dr. Strangelove was showing:)
Don: Darlene is especially turned on by the movie. Seems the phrase
"Precious
Bodily Fluids"(PBF) gets her off!
Bill: It's good that at least someone is getting off these days. Re
Dr. Strangelove, I'm thinking of buying the DVD to add to my small
collection of precious gems.
Don: Yeah, but it's all just mental masturbation, Darlene is my
ficticious S.O.
There's something about Kubrick. It's my theory that he knew just the
right set of movies to make to try to get us to avoid extinction.
Strangelove is such a perfect self-contained epistle of what you can
do to get yourself in a positive runaway feedback crack as far as
armaments go. "2001" of course is the perfect vehicle for driving
minds to the limit as to what cybernetics can achieve. IMHO. I keep
getting convinced that this is the way super-advanced technologies
boot themselves up. Or maybe not. What do I know??
Don: "Well, Don, here's a readout. You know that......"
We won't go there.
Don
Don Stockbauer
Just a short note here before I go out to check how some grafts are
growing;
ie, an escape from virtual reality to real reality.
Had CNN on. Some ghostly figure on viedophone was droning on about
Fallujah, how we bombed the shit out of them today, and every other
word was
"the insurgents". Now, each time I hear that I wonder which side they
mean?
And I also saw a parallel witht the way we treated the Native
Americans.
Calling them Godless savages and so on.
I guess if one looks into a rather murky crystal ball clouded by the
fog of
war one can see this type of thing going on and on. As Iraq's oil is
depeleted, then they have to go to even less oil-rich nations, we may
have multiple wars going in multiple countries. Maybe at some point
(probably that of the oil running down to the point where Big Oil just
cannot
make enough money due to lack of supply) someone will have a
lightbulb go
off over his/her head and say, "Gee! Fossil fuels are not infinite!
We
better find alternatives! Duh!!!!!"
We're beginning to see some really big shakeups. Congress is getting
worried about huge numbers of its members getting killed, and how it
can
preserve itself through fast elections afterwards. Probably a
self-reference thing. Once you have major systems of the Earth
falling into
Hofstadterian self-reference, you know really big changes are around
the bend. And of course I'll credit the Global Brain forming as the
cause. In fact, the
Global Brain is a sort of Deus ex Machina for there's no telling what
happens after that, although I think it will beneficent based on
arguments
the evil defeats itself.
Anyway, we live in interesting times. As with meeting other people at
random, all you can do with so many agents with free will interacting
(see Hofstadter's "Fluid Concepts...") is to form heuristics, or
general rules of thumb formed from expereince. Which applys both to
people and to the world at large.
Have a nice day.
Don
Don Stockbauer
>To: "Don Stockbauer" <donsto...@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Oh, Kenny Boy...
>Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:44:47 -0500
>
>Don:
>
>This is making the rounds as it had many forwarding carats on it. so
I
>cleaned it up. It's a morality tale, so I thought you might
appreciate it.
>
>James
>
>
>
A city boy, Kenny, moved to the country, and bought a donkey from an
old farmer for $100.00. The farmer agreed to deliver the donkey the
next day. The next day the farmer drove up and said, "Sorry son, but
I have some bad news, the donkey died."
Kenny replied, "Well then, just give me my money back."
The farmer said, "Can't do that. I went and spent it already."
Kenny said, "OK then, just unload the donkey."
The farmer asked, "What ya gonna do with him?"
Kenny says, "I'm going to raffle him off."
Farmer, " You can't raffle off a dead donkey!"
Kenny, "Sure I can. Watch me. I just won't tell anybody he is dead."
A month later the farmer met up with Kenny and asked, "What happened
with that dead donkey?"
Kenny, "I raffled him off. I sold 500 tickets at two dollars a piece
and made a profit of $898.00."
Farmer, "Didn't anyone complain?"
Kenny, " Just the guy who won. So I gave him his two dollars back."
Kenny grew up and eventually became the chairman of Enron.
James:
Yeah, like I keep preaching, and everyone dismisses instantly as nuts
(Buy Polar), money will evolve out of a civilization as a concept as
it goes higher and higher. I hate money. I once tried to get this
meme transferred to Dave, and he dismissed it with "Then just give me
awl of yours", so I keep quiet about it nowadaze. We use it now since
we're so primitive. The devil's in the details, I don't know how it
will work, it must have to do with only beneficence remaining after
years of filtering, children are raised constructivistically, people
are raised knowing ewe're here for more than upping that bit pattern
on disk. But I repeat myself. N E weigh, gdansk for the story. I
wonder how many stories are possible to be instantiated all together?
Surely not an actualized infinity, I suppose it's merely a potential
one. Depends on how long we last, I suppose. Surely "God" can
dispense with us since He/She/It/Typeless created
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible other homes for intelligence
in this causally bound region of Space alone. Blarp.
Have a nice day.
Toodle-Lewd-Wench-Ski
Donsky
Don Stockbauer
Related messages: [ Next message ] [ Previous message ] [ In reply to ] [ OOPs ]
From: Carsten Grohmann <carstengrohmann_at_gmx.de>
Date: Sun 11 Jan 2004 - 08:50:38 EST
On Dienstag, 6. Januar 2004 05:51, Nick wrote:
> I know, I know, RTFM. I can only claim tired and hungry. And I'm
> sorry Russel I forgot a subject again. I retract my question and
> goodnight (after a trip to Jack in the Box)
>
> Nix
>
>
> I was building Fedora tonight after taking a couple of weeks off
> and during the "rpmbuild --rebuild *.src.rpm" I am getting this
> error
>
> Any quick ideas?
I think you need the autoconf213 package (from Fedora cd
Yeah eye agree - - donsky
Don Stockbauer
I really love it when physicists pontificate and tell us "how it is".
The trouble is that they're always trapped in a local system of
thought, that of their little subset of physics. The reason I like
cybernetics is that it not only is the science of the Big Picture,
it's like a man stranded on a desert island, having to conserve his
resources and living very practically. This paper is a perfect
exeample of fantasy. If we are to survive comfortably (which is what
cy guides us towards, unless we're suicidal, in which case it
eliminates us) we do what computations we need to and no more. We
don't worry about the "maximum possible". I suppose it's all real
nice as a thought experiment, but people keep throwing at me that
whatever I'm interested in is obviously for someone with "way too much
time on their hands". What I've done here is the typical way cy deals
with such matters, kicking it up a level, getting above the bipolar
debate and invalidating their claim. Anyway, IMHO, whatever. Plenty
of food and water and clothing around, so these people can afford to
do what they do.
However , please don't take it all as "Kill the messenger", stay in
touch, it's the content of the message that gets me.
Don
>From: AAJAC...@flash.net
>To: "Don Stockbauer" <donsto...@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Interesting Paper
>Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 10:19:23 -0500
>
>Universal Limits on Computation
>Authors: Lawrence M. Krauss (1), Glenn D. Starkman (1 and 2) ((1)
>Case Western Reserve University, (2) CERN)
>Comments: 3 pages including eps figure, submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett
>Report-no: CWRU-PA 12-04
>The physical limits to computation have been under active
>scrutiny over the past decade or two, as theoretical
>investigations of the possible impact of quantum mechanical
>processes on computing have begun to make contact with realizable
>experimental configurations. We demonstrate here that the
>observed acceleration of the Universe can produce a universal
>limit on the total amount of information that can be stored and
>processed in the future, putting an ultimate limit on future
>technology for any civilization, including a time-limit on
>Moore's Law. The limits we derive are stringent, and include the
>possibilities that the computing performed is either distributed
>or local. A careful consideration of the effect of horizons on
>information processing is necessary for this analysis, which
>suggests that the total amount of information that can be
>processed by any observer is significantly less than the
>Hawking-Beckenstein entropy associated with the existence of an
>event horizon in an accelerating universe.
>
>
Don Stockbauer
prison?"
Don't have a boffo comeback for this one, my Former Fearless Leader
System (The FFLS). Wealth and privledge in this so-called "democracy"
pulls a lot of weight? Can you envision Martha Stewart and Bill Gates
getting buggered by a jail guard as they atone for their sins? Hi Lee
Un Like Lee.
---------------------------
Written on a men's room wall in a bar off of 24th street, circa 1968:
" Dick Nixon . . .
. . . Before He Dicks You"
------------
My favorite National Lampoon cartoon, updated to 2004 YOOL AD:
Don Stockbauer is out mending his 4 miles of barbed wire fence because
his cocksucking fucking "neighbors" refuse to do their share. A
flying saucer lands, a Little Green Man (LGM) walks up to him, points
a Matter-To-Energy Converter (The MTECS) at him and says, "Take me to
your leader." The meme of George W. Bush planning Iraq War number
3,987 forms in Don Stockbauer's mind. He turns to the LGM and says:
"Woof. Woof."
Have a nice day. Work on your appropriate issues.
Don Stockbauer
our Pressy-dent said, "Bring 'em on!!!!!"
- Don M. Stockbauer,
staring at that old hippy Vietnam poster titled "The Last Great Act of
Defiance", you know, the one of the mouse giving the eagle the finger
just before it's swooped up and torn to shreads.
I love you, Dave. It was nice knowing ya. No one defies the United
States Govenment and lives to tell the tale.
Except someone in the right and smarter than a bunch of groupthink
fucks bogged down by committee decisions and a 34 IQ President.
I love ewe, Dave. See ewe on the other side.
I hate you.
JOOTS
Metacistern transition.
morphogenesis.
Evolution
Paradime shit
The Global Brain
The Galactic Brain
The Universal Brain
The Anthropic Principle
God
Metagod
Metametagod
I never metagod I didunt like - Free Will Rogers
I love you.
******************
Dave,
I apologize for the below insanity. I had a very bad day today. I
was cutting my nails, and cut slightly into the cutical(sp?). I did
not mean to say all that about the Strategic Air Command. I'm sure
that our boys are defending us well and have nothing but the best of
intentions, even though they have the capacity to kill us all 1,000
times over. God bless Mom and apple pie. The US has the best
intentions for planet Earth, as they are intent on soaking up every
last resource to support a popualtion which rats, insane on Viagra,
could not approach. I apoliogize for all this. To wrap up:
God bless America,
Land that I love,
Stand beside her....blah blah blah infinity.
I love you dave. Can you still have children?????
***************************************
"Mr. President, why did you insist on having Dick "Weakheart" Cheney
by your side during your testimony?"
"So they could see our body language."
-----------------------
"OK, Dick, let the commission in on our secret body language. Hands
folded over our hearts means "We get Iraq's oil at all cost, even if
it means a shooting war", and hand placed with thumb on nose ,
wiggling fingers like a cockscomb means "here's what we think of you,
Mr. And Mrs. America".
What a fun bunch. Puts Nixon to shame. What I want to know is----how
much has Cheney's and Bush's family trusts been padded out by all
this?
- Erectionless in Victoria
-----------------
dave, I apologise for all the inappropriate notes sent to ewes. I'
sure ewe 1/2 an issue with this. it will never happen again. I
heReby promise that GOD DAMN IT TO FUCKING HELL A SANDCRAB GOT IN MY
ROOM AND HAS ATTACHED ITSELF TO MY LEFT TESTICLE, THE ONE I'VE
DESIGNATED "MR. BALL, LEFT VERSION (THE MBLV SYSTEM). HAVE TO GO.
WILL WRITE LATER. BE PREPARED TO RECEIVE THE SECRET LAUNCH CODES FROM
STRATCOM. THANKS. HAH HAH JUST KIDDING GENERAL ELLIS. gENERAL
ELLIS? YOU DO HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOR, DON'T YOU? YOU DONT???? THE
PREDATOR IS BEING PREPARED?????? FOR 97.032 WEST, 28.842 NORTH????
YOU SAY THE SPIN IS THAT "WE WERE JUST OUT TESTING???? KINDA LIKE 'I
WAS SHOWING MAH 44 MAGNUM TO HIM AND IT GOT HIM BETWEeN THE EYES?????
NO! THIS IS SATIRE, GENERAL!!!! NO! nO GOD, NO! I CAN HEAR THE
ENGINES!!!! THIS IS IT!!!!!!
dEAR GOD, I DONT BELIVE IN YOU BUT I'MGOING WITH PASCALS ARGUMENT
SINCE WHAT THE FUCK I HAVENOTHING TO LOSE AT THIS POINT. PLEASE MAKE
THE PREDATOR'S BOMB FAIL. I'VE BEEN GOOD, GOD. EVEN THOUGH I WAS
KICKED OUT OF NASA, I'M BASICALLY A GOOD PERSON. MY GOD DAVE IT'S
STILL COMING AAAHHHHHHAHHHH LOS
Don Stockbauer
of telepathy?
wut if a la the Lathe of Heaven awl your thoughts and dreams became
instantly instantiated in Reality????
wut if there were no negative feedback constraints on our
constructivistic plunge into 2 more row?
Whatif????
Whatif, a Hofstadterian subjunctive.
My favorite conditional???
Gus Richter, a cousin, long time well-driller around Victoria, known
for his cynicism:
"If a dog shit square bricks we could pile 'em up and build a nice
little house. But a dog don't shit square bricks."
Constructivism. Can't live with it, can't live without it.
Contradiction.
Excluded middle.
JOOTS to the metasystem.
Morphogenesis.
Evolution.
Blind variation/Selective retention.
Endlessly Rising Canon (Bush version - substitute "Cannon")
The Global Brain.
"That'd be like Godless Communism"
Forms automatically.
SETI.
Galactic Brain.
"Don, what one thing do you want to know most before you check
out????"
"Are there XT's in this Universe which are so powerful, so Type C that
they've established communication between distant galaxies???????"
Reserve the right to ask a different question if that one gets solved.
Oh, well, The Advocate needs to be retrieved from up at the highway.
Mom refuses to dirty herself reading it online. Yall have a guddun,
heah? Toodle-Lewd-Wench-sky.
Donsky Oatsky
Don Stockbauer
ideas,..., ad nauseum, forever. What else R U here for???? Besides
to comfortably survive?
Talk to ewe again someday. Toodles.
- Stickpeasant
Don Stockbauer
and the general craziness and paranoia. It's just that I'm hoping the
Global Brain solves the following dilemma: the highest level systems
on Earth seemingly have no entity to control THEM. If people dismiss
the Global Brain, a level of organization and control above all these
entities as pure fantasy, then they have to live with massive weapons
systems and overpopulation and fossil fuel depletion ... as unsolvable
problems. But anyway, my apologies again, and I'm sure I had no
positive reputation before all that so there was nothing to lose.
Don
Don Stockbauer
>
Ewe done writ:
"It's just that I'm hoping the Global Brain solves the following
dilemma: the highest level systems on the Earth seemingly have no
entity to control THEM."
Oh, Donsky, silly EWE, the Global Brain IS/ARE the highest level
systems
on Earth!!! The metasystem transition of all the (hishest, lowest,
middlest ...) systems on the Earth. Self-organization.
Self-awareness. The drive to do well, to not commit suicide,
to...to...to...
"Let's write an ending that fits, not a Hollywood Horror"
ITS TOO GOOD DON SHUT UP EYE DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT ANYMORE SHUT UP DON
SHUT UP DON...
- ON THE ART BELL SHOW NOW = 2:35 cdt 5/2/2004 ABBA SOS SOS SOS OS
OSOSOSOSOSOOSOSO beta lyrae 7 help we knead help we're too stupid to
solve our own problms .....
bedways is rightways. yall have a nice day. just talk among
yourselves.
- DMS (Dialog Management System)
(By the way - I just saved a wad-o-cash on my car insurance bye-bying
Guy-co!!!!!!!!)
Don Stockbauer
knead 2 address. Pleeze attend the useless meeting in Fargleson's
office at 9 am fur a dressing gown. We'll force ewe back to that Nut
ranch yet. Donkey shame. A rib, a dare, cheese.
- "Mr. Big", Juan voice of Minny.
Don Stockbauer
Don Stockbauer
Don Stockbauer
orifice!
"That statement was false".
Which statement???
Oh, I get it, all these paradoxes boil down to a reference thingy
confusion!
And self-reference is the trickiest of awl, for you're dealing with
not 1st, but 2nd oder cybernetics!
And we all know that second-order cy has the capability of driving us
to either unlimted accomplishments, or extinction, nicht war? What's
the excluded middle?
A negative-feedback moderated future, done automatically and
subconsciously????????????
Everyone already knows that?
Sorry, one never in this "culture" tells someone something they
already know. Ewe'll be called down for it.
Oh, well, the Victoia Advocate (a newspaper, not a person) awaits at
the highway.
Y'all take care, heah????
Don
Don Stockbauer
Strangelove!
Hey, I'm going to have to give up the Stockbauer Grain of Sand
Registry. I just can't compete against Rocky and his star registry.
I've run out of grains of sand, as Rocky will someday run out of stars
and fools that pay him 54 bucks each for his scam!!!!! I'm having to
go with the Proton registry (not the dick-hardening scam, but the
elementary particle). Then the Elementary Particle Registry. Then
the Whim Registry! Then the "How many dollars will we piss away in
Iraq Registry. Then the.... Then the....teh....the....
The....
Actualized Infinity Registry????
The Cantor Memorial "I was griven Nuts by Infinity" Registry?????
The Harlan Smith "Our Biggest Challenge is to keep Intelligent
Emerging Systems from self-destruction" registry????
The "Where does it awl end Rod Serling Memorial Registry" Registry????
Yall have a nice day, From the Nut ranch. Pay no attn to him, Buford.
"Just another nut, another troll stirring up trouble on our beloved
Virtual System, which is awl oui know."
Did I say to 1/2 a Nicene day? Well, please do!!!
"I'm in control here."
- Alexander Old Hag
A Mark Goodson/ Bill You Later Production
C 2004 DMS Productions
Toodle-Lewd-Wench-Sky
--------------------------------------------
Dear Cecil:
What exactly is a "merkin"? Ever since the word was thrust into my
consciousness it's been tormenting me. My Oxford English Dictionary
defines it as the "female pudendum," which seems a trifle sedate,
given the listed quote of 1714, "This put a strange Whim in his Head;
which was, to get the hairy circle of her Merkin ... This he dry'd
well and comb'd out, and then return'd to the Cardinal, telling him,
he had brought Saint Peter's Beard."
And it's downhill from there. The OED "b" definition says a merkin is
a "counterfeit hair for women's privy parts," and another dictionary
calls it a "pubic hair wig." Sorry, but these explanations defy
understanding. I mean, I've heard of niche markets, but this is
ridiculous. My own interest in the word isn't just academic, as I'd
like to make use of the fine quote of 1680, "Or wear some stinking
Merkin for a Beard," but I want to make damn sure I know what the
original item was. --Andrew Scheinman, Los Angeles
Dear Andrew:
Cecil doesn't have the most reputable sources for this kind of thing.
In fact, I blush to admit, I have been fishing for tips once
again on the Internet. I do not want to give the impression I spend
all my time on the Internet, but in the right hands it is a
wondrous tool, and in the wrong hands it is an even better one. Here's
what's turned up so far:
A merkin is somebody who lives in Merika. (Har!)
They used to shave off all the pubic hair as a cure for syphillis, so
the well-to-do used wigs.
Before penicillin was around to ease the lives of the promiscuous,
these were used to cover up any sores prostitutes may have obtained in
the line of duty.
They used to treat the syphilitic with mercury, which caused baldness.
The merkin is for women with no pubic hair. Some people just don't
develop hair down there, and this can be embarrassing.
In days of old a common problem was lice. One of the ways people dealt
with this was to shave all the hair off their bodies, including arms,
legs, and pubes. Wigs became very popular. Pubic wigs caught on
slowly, starting among the kinkier set, but eventually became halfway
respectable.
A merkin is a crotch wig for both men and women and is usually worn on
the outside. Have you ever seen a Scot in full regalia? That little
fur "purse" in front is a merkin.
In a country of mainly dark haired people, a prostitute may wear a
blond merkin to be unusual and therefore more desirable. (Got this
from a dictionary of sex.)
One of the more recent uses is to allow exotic dancers to comply with
local laws prohibiting full nudity. They wear what amounts to a
flesh-colored panty with hair on the front, appearing to the patrons
of the establishment to disrobe completely without actually doing so.
In a sci fi story by John Varley called something like "The Barbie
Murders," a group of women gives up individuality (and sex) and
undergoes surgery to become perfect nonsexual beings resembling Barbie
dolls. This involves losing genitals, pubic hair, etc. One Barbie goes
back to being a woman for a night, painting on nipples and using a
merkin.
Fascinating, ja? Erudite answers from around the globe, and not one of
them duplicates another. Also, one is still left with a nagging
question: who's a merkin supposed to fool? By the time you get to the
level of intimacy where somebody is going to see whether you have
pubic hair or not, your range of observation, as we might say, is such
that a wig is not going to make for a very convincing masquerade,
strippers possibly excepted. VOICE FROM THE NET: Yeah, but during the
period when merkins were popular, the degree of intimacy among the
upper class was low even during sex. ME: What's that supposed to mean,
you had your valet do it for you? You sent it in by mail? Clearly more
investigation needs to be done.
REAL SCOTSMEN CARRY PURSES
Dear Cecil:
Despite what that imbecile on the Internet may have told you, the "fur
purse" in front of a Scot's kilt is not a merkin but a sporran. It is
simply a pouch and has no sexual significance. --Anonymous
Cecil replies:
Reminds me of a joke.
Q: Why do Scotsmen wear kilts?
A: Because sheep can hear zippers.
KEEP ON MERKIN
Dear Cecil:
The topic of merkins came up a while ago in a mailing list of word
fans on the IBM internal network, and a participant told of going to a
bar that offered prizes to amateur nude dancers. There were a lot of
rules; some made sense (no touching the customers), some didn't (pubic
hair required). A woman in the party considered going up, but she
shaved herself; however, the management provided merkins. She said
they looked like little mustaches. The whole scene was a little too
weird for her, so she decided not to dance. --Philip Cohen, White
Plains, New York
Cecil replies:
Thanks for sharing, Phil. I'll have you know that Cecil recently
conspired to give his good buddy Charlie the architect a merkin for
his birthday, something for which, Charlie's girlfriend assured me,
Charlie had developed a desperate craving ever since having read about
merkins in this column some months ago. Since the local sex-toy shop
was fresh out (and yes, we thought of the Merkin-tile Exchange joke,
too), we decided to improvise by presenting him with a large
industrial mop dyed a tasteful bevy of dayglo colors. The classiest
part of the whole production, however, was the instructions. Anne
provided the safety tips and owner registration card ("It is
imperative that we know how to reach you promptly if we should
discover a safety problem that could affect you"); I added hints on
operation and use. Sample:
"Confirm that merkin is the proper size before wearing. Use of an
improperly sized merkin may result in paralysis or death.
"On first use your merkin may be stiff and difficult to attach
properly. Do not be embarrassed to ask for assistance. For best
results we recommend that four persons be recruited for this
purpose--one to grasp either leg, one to apply the merkin, and one to
act as lookout.
"Once the merkin is in place, it should be appropriately lubricated
using light sewing machine oil, petroleum jelly, #2 fuel oil, or I
Can't Believe It's Not Butter when on sale at Safeway. Do not use so
much lubricant that it dribbles in the street. Merkin should not
'squish' when in use.
"Your merkin is highly flammable. Do not use if temperature rises
above 73 degrees. If merkin ignites while in use, seek assistance by
running into the nearest street and shouting, "I'M ON FIRE GODDAMIT."
Do not panic. The number of people who die as a result of burns from a
flaming merkin is surprisingly small."
We had it delivered to the office. Unfortunately the firecracker
didn't go off. But it was a birthday Charlie won't soon forget.
--CECIL ADAMS
[Comment on this answer]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Return to the Archive ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Straight Dope / Questions or comments for Cecil Adams to:
ce...@chicagoreader.com Comments regarding this website to:
webm...@straightdope.com Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 Chicago
Reader, Inc. All rights reserved. No material contained in this site
may be republished or reposted without express written permission. The
Straight Dope is a registered trademark of Chicago Reader, Inc.
sdlang