Top Tags

Tag meme-space

Entries 3 Total

Self-Similarity of Identity in Networked Publics

SemanticWills‘ theoretical musings propel us deep into a Borgesian labyrinth of the networked contemplations of his interiority, a virtual schizopoliae populated by hustlers, pimps & the purveyors of an emergent artificial intelligentsia. Like a DJ theorist spinning new ideas, he plays the citational remix game and reminds us that being hyper-linked to the Virtual Motherboard on Social Networks is part of the addictive lifestyle choice that has become our shared zeitgeist”

- DJ Versimilage

{——– Start Transmission ———}

Bach: Prelude & Fugue in C Minor.

Morning thoughts from SemanticWill at the Zero-Moment point, caffeine crashes against the blood-brain barrier like a wrecking ball and clarity returns (which means you’re fucked and  I am going Meta). You can either blame the L-Tyrosine or the caffeine, but thoughts begin to crystallize, so I may step away from the more lyrical poetica of design thinking and return to pure symbolics (these are not easy, I apologize), also remind me to explain the idea about how networks exhibit and emergent behavior very much like fractals. ** see bottom for explanation

I (we) exist in social networks in the theoretical tradition of participating in crowds as the self-fulfilling prophecy of a neural meta-consciousness, as autonomous entities existing independent from my intentions of the individual it is made of, consciously acting in the world, and we can exhibit an emergence of identity.

When looking for factual proof of the existence of such a proactive, instead of fractal-like adaptive intelligence, one can only start by assuming that this entity I call (I) must produce some observable patterns. Patterns we can isolate and possibly decode.

I seek to decode, and then recompile this pattern.

We Vibrate in Ex(is)tacy

  • the evolutionary mist / raw simulated self is emergent
  • raw crystal of self below
    Fourier’s shade
    splendid drop
  • life underfoot – water years
    turning bare marvels
    mirrors deconstruct of grave intent
  • crystal lattices :: between authors,
  • us, is called some new transformation
    and ordered MAGnitude. . .the “I” as “we” in networked
  • publics

(which is what I was thinking this morning, so I wondered {quite a few comments}- I hope the combination of both radiation, and Thai last night didn’t leave me in too much disarrangement.)

Algorithmic Meta-Consciousness

My mind can emulate this screen can emulate the laws of nature and feed them back to me. Re,cur,sive,ly. That interactive self decomposes a function into a continuous spectrum of my frequency components, and the inverse transform synthesizes a function from its spectrum of frequency components.

Invented monadic memories can be replaced by genuine shared ones,

s,e,p,a,r,a,t,e,l,y

[realms of reality] can be folded-in and brought to uniform size and blended into one constructed lattice presupposed by its facets.

This is NOT monism. But it points into it. A Sassuerian signifier dependent upon that which is signified.

These are just the beginnings. This is what we say. We operate as synaptic agents of self-organized control, remixing pure simulations of worlds we have not yet invented; if you can see them, they are successful. Like viruses. Like genes seeking to replicate themselves.[Blackmore, Dawkins]

I may be the inter-connection to dreaming of new worlds, after all, dreaming is the moment the mind generates quasi-perception (it may also soon become the only private space left, once the agents of complete surveillance and control attain pervasiveness in Bentham like Panopticonic architectures), like a crystal growing, control systems accreting out of the social graph. Rereading the literature about interactive writing, an emerging practice amidst poetic praxis at large, the parallel becomes obvious to this idea of self-organizing, organic memetic growth. Preconscious (as in my morning pre-consciousness) writing is a conscious and paradoxical effort to tap into the screensaver-mode of my mind; interfacing it directly while self-assembling language, crystallizing on this screen, real-time, on Twitter, poetic syntax drip from my fingers like a Rorschach test, traditional descriptions of identity evaporating like ink soaked-up in blotting paper. Later, this writing seeks to “map” the ideas to other writings by connected authors in the virtual space. But how this plays out is still in nascent form. How will these feedback loops effect the writer’s interiority of their creative effort?

The credibility (read Authenticity) of its practitioners notwithstanding, it is interesting to me that, during interactive writing sessions, the writer by no means writes in a language he speaks, indeed the language does not have to exist at all. It has been pointed out that all interactive writing tends to converge and resemble each other and you might say that this is caused by all minds obeying to the same internal logical instruction set, just as salt-crystals all look roughly the same and for now we assert as conceptual instantiation that growing crystals of thoughts equals the organic growth of ideas in a hyper-real virtual space, fed by the the constant feedback loop of other authors contributing comments, encouragement, or re-mixed variations of the author’s original dialectic ideas which map ideas from the interiority to the exteriority of the Other, and then back again:

Protest: Still, the neuro-anatomy mapping leads to inevitable artistic questions about how we “create” or map in the world, if our consciousness is expressed sequentially proto-self > to core consciousness > to emotion > to feeling > to extended consciousness and back in different feedback loops, always refining the mapping procedures…

Contratemp: Can you consciously map these connections, or does the mapping happen organically: I suppose, by feeding certain pathways, and starving off others?

Retort: Both, Will, but remember that most of the processes are unconscious and only for maintenance of the organism until perceived by the organism by reaching a threshold of activation, usually with coordination between various of the proto self structures…

{–Pause Transmission: Refraction and Reflection –}

I am thinking this morning that the evolution of consciousness through human history is marked by growth in articulate attention to the interior of the individual person as distanced — though not necessarily separated — from the communal structures in which each person is necessarily enveloped. . . .thinking  The Inward Turn of Narrative (1973) Kahler had asserted in detail the way in which text-as-narrative in the occident had become preoccupied with and articulate about inner, personal crisis (shattered mirror effect) of self. The stages of consciousness described in a Jungian framework by Neumann in The Origins and History of Consciousness (1954) move toward a self-conscious, articulate, highly personal, interiority. The highly interiorized stages of consciousness, in which the individual is not so immersed unconsciously in communal, social media  structures, are stages which, it appears, consciousness would never reach without writing. Obviously this is a recent.

“The interaction between the orality that all human beings are born into and the technology of writing, which no one is born into, touches the depths of the psyche. Ontogenetically and phylogenetically, it is the oral word that first illuminates consciousness with articulate language, that first divides subject and predicate and then relates them to one another, and that ties human beings to one another in society. Writing introduces division and alienation, but a higher unity as well. It intensifies the sense of self and fosters more conscious interaction between persons. Writing is consciousness-raising.”

~ Gregory Vincent St. Thomasino

-Walter J. Ong (Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word)

{——– Restart Transmission ——-}

Networks, Fractals, and Viruses

At the beginning of this post, I made the bold assertion that social networks were like fractals. Let me explain that I think it is shaped like a fractal. That is to say, it is self-similar across all scales, at all resolutions, no matter how far down the rabbit hole you go, Alice. Any portion of the network has the same structure as the network as a whole. Neurons connect with each other across synapses in much the same way that various words on this page are linked to other sites across the internet. McLuhan claimed that, “electronic circuitry is [an] extension of the human nervous system” (Medium Is The Message, 1967, 40). But the opposite formulation may be more useful for our interactions here in this Simulated world: every individual brain is a miniaturized replica of the global communications network, and are both self-organizing and dependent upon a constant feed-back loop.

The network is the great [Outside] that always surrounds and envelopes me, even as I connect to it. But it is also the Inside: its alien circuitry is what I find when I look deeply within myself. The network is impersonal, universal, without a center, but it is also pertubingly intimate, uncannily close as hand. This is why Deleuze defines subjectivity as a folding (in): it is “an interiorization of the outside…a redoubling of the Other…a repetition of the Different…It resembles exactly the invagination of a tissue in embryology” (Foucault, 1988,98).

Burroughs makes a similar point when he suggests that “the whole quality of human consciousness, as expressed in male and female, is basically a virus mechanism”(Cities of the Red Night, 1981,25). In both cases, identity is implanted in me from without, not generated from within. My selfhood is an information pattern, rather than a material substance. I may describe this process that subtends my consciousness in several ways: as embryonic in-folding, as fractal self-similarity, or as viral, metastasizing proliferation. But the difference between these alternatives is just a matter of degree. The crucial point is that the network induces mass replication on a miniaturized scale and that my consciousness may exhibit a fractal pattern which is strikingly similar, especially as my consciousness and writing connects to other nodes, is fed by, and interacts with other writers in this virtuality.

Good morning. Welcome to Spring.

{——— End Transmission ——–}

Kid Versimilage, The DJ Wonderslut of Twitter

Your one-stop shop for spasmodic dribbles of watered-down insight, cringe-worthy factual inaccuracies, PreSim Twitter exhortations, jibber-jabber, and inoperative statements packed in a salty preservative brine of defensive egotism and paralyzing self-deprecation. No fatties.
__________________

So let’s start this party! Hide your daughters… Kid Versimilage, The DJ Wonderslut of Twitter with his man Pimpin’ Doc Baty @docbaty are making house calls! After the groundbreaking success of “Dr. Wonderslutecologyst,” Kid Versimilage hid out for years – he returns to practice with nasty skits and gritty electro-beats; his Pre-Sim rants that compliment his mental rhymes. Outta space has cometh. Trees are dying. Gorillas are driving pick-up trucks. And I can tell you no more. You’ll have to check this crazy simulation for yourself. Okay, and DJ Wonderslut? Where did that come from? Where’s the ultra-hipster music list?

Here’s something, not much but perhaps a half-decent starting point: here are the last twenty-five songs added to the my Superfly TNT Hip iTunes playlist. Might give you some idea of whence I’m coming from:

1. The Sleeping – “Don’t Hold Back”

2. Head Automatica – “Graduation Day”

3. Steely Dan – “Jack of Speed”

4. Chevy Heston – “Nancy Seduces the Couples”

5. Stiff Little Fingers- “Suspect Device”

6. Statuesque – “Three Quarter Moon”

7. Lucky Sperms – “Tomorrow Never Knows/Glass Onion”

8. Wipers – “D-7″

9. The Adverts – “Safety In Numbers”

10. Velvet Underground – “Velvet Underground Ad”

11. Collide- “The Lunatics Have Taken Over the Asylum”

12. Shellac – “Jailbreak ’95″

13. Alexander “Skip” Spence – “Lawrence of Euphoria”

14. Curtis Mayfield – “Move On Up”

15. Saccharine Trust – “Belonging to October”

16. Dredd Foole and the Din – “Not The Same”

17. Suicide – “Beggin’ For Miracles”

18. Theoretical Girls – “Keyboard Etude”

19. Sproton Layer – “Jam From Outer Space”

20. Elvis Costello – “Psycho (Live at the Palomino Club, 1979)”

21. The Who – “Tattoo”

22. Faust – “So Far”

23. Bad Brains – “With The Quickness”

24. The Jean-Paul Sartre Experience – “Jabberwocky”

25. Dream Syndicate – “Tell Me When It’s Over”

Now, I can delude myself and @docbaty about what a gloriously eclectic list that is (and that’s just an eighth or so of the whole), but let’s be frank – this is just your standard, everyday, self-conscious hipster lineup: a little classic R&B/soul to break up the wave of ivory that is the remainder of the list, only the hippest and cleverest classic rock artistes (the ‘Oo, the Dan, Skip Spence), oh-my-god-so-cool cover versions and pastiches, a tiny touch of electronica or whatever new term has been coined for it since 1998, some old-school punk (from when it meant something, F8k3rs!), bootleg selections from most of the more well-known artists up there, and a whole lotta indie-bred one-moreobscuremanship (not Mission of Burma/Sonic Youth/Minutemen [though they're all represented on the full playlist], but MoB/SY/Mm offshoots and antecedents; arcane choices from the Flying Nun and SST catalogues; and a few bands/artists that even I’ve barely heard of). Is this the scowling face of community-college rock at it’s you’re-too-hip-baby worst?

Should I perform some kind of act of penance for deciding to remove that Donnas song I liked once I started hearing it on the radio and seeing them perform it on SNL (or was my job, at that point, done)?

Am I revealing a ever-deepening scatalogical displacement meme right now, an ever-hardening artery of out-of-touchedness by even concerning myself with such things (the twenty-and-under-somethings being sure to look upon my 33-year-old tastes with undisguised, heavily-pierced contempt)? Should I be concerned that I’m not sure whether the Lucky Sperms track I downloaded from iTunes and uploaded to my iPod before listening to it may or may not have been transferred from 7″ to MP3 at the wrong speed? Or should I just relax, admit that I love all this stuff despite all my contortions, and consider putting that Rick Springfield song I heard backing up the funniest sequence in Wet Hot American Summer that I couldn’t remove from my consciousness for almost a week after wards up there next to my fave Go-Betweens, Fall and Spacemen 3 brain-spasms, since, hell, who will listen to these thing (or reads this post) but me anyway and I’m just indulging in these kinds of thoughts to avoid contemplating the forthcoming decimation of life on earth as we know it when the republicans sweep the whole show again after a Karl Rove inspired surprise act of contempt against American values – again?

So, enough – anyone know Doc Baty @docbaty? See – you learn something new everyday. Check it out. It’s guarenteed to give you an express ticket to an institution – maybe even the same one he was committed to. I heard he shared a 6×9 with @livlab and @mariobourque the Canadian abstract recapitulationist. I think most of this is spelled out in his upcoming feature length “Mario’s Lovepulp.”

A Virtual Life

I never considered myself an intellectual.

I never saw myself as being capable of “deep thoughts,” so on this Saturday, as I sit here with camomille tea, the Decemberists playing, and a rampant disdain for all that is neither real nor virtual, some thoughts I offer up. This should really be considered a continuation of my writing on Crystallization Of Idenity.

The actual and the virtual are mutually dependant. Neither being meaningful without the other. Every empirical object has its aura of virtuality; every virtual state is grounded in some sort of materiality. The virtual cannot be opposed to the actual in a way that the soul is traditionally opposed to the body. It is better to say, paraphrasing Kant (as we all do), that the virtual without the actual is an empty proposition, while the actual without the virtual is doomed to be blind.

Mom can’t put this back together.

I would say that the virtual illuminates the actual, but it is nothing without the actual’s support. The relation, then, between the actual and virtual is something like the one between hardware and software. A computer is able to calculate, and thereby to ‘Seem’ulate, an indefinite number of possible worlds. But this can only happen if each of these worlds is strictly correlated with a particular physical state of the machine.

Now, these machine states are themselves entirely actual, while the possible worlds that they support are virtual. There two dimensions are coextensive, yet entirely different in nature. Small changes in the actual physical state of the system may correspond to widely different virtual events and even to entirely different worlds which must needs then be mapped. This is why a software program can run, with almost identical results (huge caveats here relative to floating point integers and the way you C# compiler vis a vis you typical java compiler – sorry, rabbit hole, and not even Alice wants to go down that one), the point being those software programs could run on many different kinds of hardware, and why, conversely, a single piece of hardware can run many different sorts of software. Arguing from this theoretical disjunction, futurists like Ray Kurzweil foresee the possibilty of “downloading your mind (not soul), to your personal computer” (Age Of Spiritual Machines, 2000). It’s a question of learning how to copy the contents of your mind in sufficient detail and then installing that copy on a machine other than the brain: “we don’t need to understand all of it; we need only to literally copy it, connection by connection, synapse by synapse, neurotransmitter by neurotransmitter. Kurzweil seems to believe that we can do this without worrying about the underlying hardware of the brain; we can just ignore “much of a neuron’s elaborate structure,” he suggests, since it only “exists to support it’s own structural integrity and life processes and does not directly contribute to it’s handling of information” (Kurzweil, 125).

But contra Kurzweil, this distinction is entirely bullshit, for the brains “handling of information,” is itself a “life processes” that depends upon, and in turn effects, the structural integrity of the neurons (see Penrose). Indeed, one could not literally copy it in the first place unless one paid attention to the elaborate structures underlying it all that Kurzweil is so keen to toss out. Kurzweil does entertain the idea that a downloaded mind will need some sort of new body, if only because “a disembodied mind will quickly get depressed” (134). But he fails to grasp the full extent of the reciprocal correlation between the mind and body, or software and hardware, or virtual and the actual.