Theos-Talk Archives (November 2005 Message tt00055)

Regarding the first quote you stated; I had sent out an e-mail
relating the systems of the brain to computer systems, and in a sense,
calling occultists the "hackers" of the universe. Of course, it sounds
silly, but it is interesting to note that the brain is like any other
dynamic or self-evolving system -- the whole is greater than the sum
of it's parts, and changing any one of the parts can drastically
change the whole.

Chaos theory 101:
Chaos theory is the study of unpredictable and complex dynamic systems
that are highly sensitive to small changes in external conditions.
(source: Dictionary.com)

Below is my original post relating to this matter:

---

Whenever I study a particular art, it improves my awareness in other,
seemingly unrelated aspects. This is one such occasion where my
interest in computer science lets me deeper understand the workings of
a human brain, and possibly more.

A colleague challenged me on something I mentioned a while back. It
was about using artificial intelligence systems that simulated the
neurons in the brain. He believed that the AI system, if it emulated
the human mind perfectly (meaning simulating all activity down to the
individual chemicals that are diffused in the neurons) it would
undoubtedly find a way to [a] become self-aware, and [b] find a way to
breach its original program and expand upon itself. It's a classic
case of AI Paranoia, which I never believed was possible.

So I started on designing a program to in fact, simulate the neurons
in the brain. I drew a rough plan, showing the feedback systems of the
neurons.

A feedback system occurs when 2 parts of a system pass data back and
forth, modifying it slightly in between passes. It can be compared to
when you tell someone a story, and they tell you it back using their
own wording. After a while, the story will be completely different by
just changing minor details each time it is told. This is similar to
how memories are stored in the brain.

However, not just the neurons themselves communicate messages. Systems
of neurons form and create their own groups, and those groups
communicate with each other. This adds another dimension to the
equation, because it increases the number of feedback systems almost
exponentially. This was to be expected, though, and does not really
compromise the integrity of the program.

I drew diagrams, and explained to him over and over that the systems
were still contained within the program and could not leave their
environment. There is no way the system could spill out.

Then it hit me. Not only did the "neurons" in the program form
systems, but the data itself did. This adds even more dimensions that
I wasn't aware of in the beginning. So what does this mean?

Nothing. The data was contained within the program's allotted memory.
Still no way of it leaving under normal circumstances.

But there was the abnormal circumstance--the ever increasing data from
the feedback systems would begin to fill up a lot of memory. If it
were to cause an overflow, there would be unpredictable results (most
likely crashing the program or altering other areas of memory that are
used by other programs). However, if [the program] were to recognize
some kind of
anomaly, he may try to exploit it. Repeated attempts would eventually
bring constant, predictable results, allowing him to control--at least
in part--his environment.

How is this any different from occult practice? Most of us train for
years in order to achieve perfected results, using all different
techniques until it works just right. Are we just designing our own
mind to reach beyond it's normal allotted boundaries to modify the
other programs in the universe?


-Mark H.

On 11/11/05, leonmaurer@aol.com <leonmaurer@aol.com> wrote:
> As cutting edge science sees it... They are getting closer and closer... See
> below:
> (extracted from a post to the Journal of Consciousness Study online e-mail
> forum)
>
> Unfortunately, not many on that list are yet inclined to risk their peer
> reviewable professional status to follow these radical (to them) precepts. Could
> established science give up materialism entirely? They would have to learn
> a whole new processs of transcendental deductive thinking and give up
> measuring the parts to induce the whole. How unthinkable... </:-)>
>
> Lenny
>
> *********************************
>
> "The Universe is a system. Knowledge of how the brain works requires
> knowledge of how a system works. The essential property of asystem in the
> most
> general sense is a working together of the relational elements. Knowledge
> of
> how individual elements work does not tell us how the elements work
> together.
> How the elements work together is a different ontology involving
> interactions rather than entities. The notion that chance and competition
> rule
> evolution is a political diversion. There are no instances of competitionto
> be found
> in the brain. By working together new forms are created. These new forms are
> emergent properties of the relationships between the constitutive elements.
> They are not entities per se, rather they are what entities are doing toeach
> other.
> Consciousness is not a thing which can be found, consciousness is anemergent
>
> property not unlike the meaning found in these marks before you."
>
> DAVID BOHM
> ____________________________________
>
> "Indeed, to some extent it has always been necessary and proper for man, in
> his thinking, to divide things up, if we tried to deal with the whole of
> reality at once, we would be swamped. However when this mode of thought is
> applied more broadly to man's notion of himself and the whole world in which
> he
> lives, (i.e., in his world-view) then man ceases to regard the resultant
> divisions as merely useful or convenient and begins to see and
> experiencehimself and
> this world as actually constituted of separately existing fragments. Whatis
> needed is a relativistic theory, to give up altogether the notion that the
> world is constituted of basic objects or building blocks. Rather one has to
> view the world in terms of universal flux of events and processes."
>
>
> KEN WILBER
> ____________________________________
>
> Bergson was also aware of the spurious reality of "things" because, - as he
> himself pointed out - thought creates things by slicing up reality into
> small
> bits that it can easily grasp. Thus when you are think-ing you are
> thing-ing.
> Thought does not report things, it distorts reality to create things, and,
> as Bergson noted, "In so doing it allows what is the very essence of the
> real
> to escape." Thus to the extent we actually imagine a world of discrete and
> separate things, conceptions have become perceptions, and we have in this
> manner populated our universe with nothing but ghosts. Therefore the
> Madhyamika
> declares that Reality, besides being void of conceptual elaboration, is
> likewise Void of separate things. The doctrine of mutual interpenetration
> and mutual
> identification of the Dharmadhatu represents man's highest attempt to put
> into words that non-dual experience of Reality which itself remains
> wordless,
> ineffable, unspeakable, that nameless nothingness. The Dharmadhatu is not
> entirely foreign to Western thought, for something very similar to it is
> seen
> emerging in modern Systems Theory, in Gestalt psychology, and in the
> organismic
> philosophy of Whitehead. As a matter of fact, Western science as a whole is
> moving very rapidly towards a Dharmadhatu view of the cosmos, as
> biophysicist
> Ludwig von Bertalanffy states: "We may state as a characteristic of modern
> science that the scheme of insoluble units acting in one-way-causality has
> proved
> to be insufficient. Hence the appearance, in all fields of science, of
> notions
> like wholeness, holistic, organismic, gestalt, etc., which signify that in
> the last resort, we must think in terms of systems of elements in mutual
> interaction."
> GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY
> ____________________________________
>
> Ludwig von Bertalanffy
> "Compared to the analytical procedure of classical science with resolution
> into component elements and one-way or linear causality as basic category,
> the
> investigation of organized wholes of many variablesrequires new categories
> of interaction, transaction, organization, teleology..."
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


--
Mark Hamilton Jr.
waking.adept@gmail.com