Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_) Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_) / Items

FH(_)- the next step, contract & principles

Get Feed

Following the latest developments on this thread I believe we came to a number of provisional conclusions.

Friendship in Hyperconnectivity {FH(_)} is a highly complex aspect of our networked world and developing to be an influencing element in more ways than one.

It appears that FH(_) is a nexus within a larger cluster of networked relations which though comprising a multitude of nodes, involves a wide array of propensities, attitudes and objectives which need be taken into account if FH(_) is to become as “REAL” as FM(_), if not more so (in the future).

The influence we see is a reciprocity and mutuality between M(_) and C(_) with information flowing both ways; moreover given that we operate on  a multidimensional phase space which is fuzzy, to say the least, we can safely assume that FH(_) is slowly but surely becoming the main domain of relationship actuation. It is my working assumption at this point that as hyperconnectivity increases and more humans become part of the global mind, the manner and fashion of engagement in meaningful relationships resulting in FH(_) will diversify and branch into a large number of operational attitudes.

These operational attitudes in turn will allow for all hyperconnected humans to engage in all human activities via networks of interests such as ‘twine’, a possible instance of a Polytopia.

Given these so called operational attitudes (modalities of relations is another term that can be applied here) it can be surmised that a set of principles are emerging that are NOT an extension of M(_) into C(_) but a new set of non-written agreements that have both a social context and an attitudinal milieu.

Just to pinpoint some changes that are already apparent, it is obvious that many minds wish to enter a relationship in hyperconnectivity without for example designating (or indeed implying) their bio-gender, their bio-age, their bioperson location (seeGPS) and so on.

I believe that this is a very important development that is both overlooked and underappreciated by researchers and examiners of the net and emerging computational grid.

The above of course has many implications, not least of which are concerned with privacy and social contracts of liberty and freedom in H(_). Liberty of pursuit of one’s interest in the manner and fashion one deems best fitted to oneself and the manner by which a new kind of reputation mechanism is put in place.

Minds desire to connect with minds, minds desire to extend their realities into the grid, minds emote (take pleasure) and feel on the hyperconnected multidimensional infoscape. That is one of the realities we see unfolding in front of us, and one which I am fascinated by since I believe that in due time the hyperconnected infoscape will become the basis from which (and upon which) the global mind/s emerges (or will emerge).

As KK has presented and Nova S. has elaborated the OM is emerging, huge numbers of machines+ huge numbers of minds+ immense number of connections= Hyperconnectivity.

However, it is the kind of emergence that is of interest here and not the obvious reality of connectivity and the OM. The kind of emergence we are looking for is one in which the individual and the collective merge seamlessly to produce a higher form of existence, a combined interactive intelligence, in which both the unique individual and the group operate on equal terms to attain a combined increase in intelligence.    

There is no doubt that the super-organism hypothesis is correct to some extent, it is however the Cultural Hyper-adaptation, the dynamic and amorphous fashions of our changing attitudes (and in consequence behaviors) that are of interest here. 

At present, given the embryonic state of the hyperconnected infoscape, we can see different perspectives and views operating simultaneously and concomitantly, some of which, at times, enter into conflict/s.

These conflicts I believe are solely a result of the underdeveloped non-written agreements of contact and relational inference between infonauts of different minds.

We have created a map of FH(_) as an initial view of the possible interactive elements situated at the base of the hyperconnected infoverse, but it needs much refining and language definitions to clarify the web of interactions we are currently producing.

Can we now create a new concurrence? are we capable of defining the new contract of FH(_), the principles?

your thoughts, suggestions and comments are appreciated

 

Comments

  • Public Comments

    • notthisbody notthisbody
      12 months ago


      Though I have been in a C(_) coma in terms of activity (solely due to lack of a constant connection and the calls of M(_), I have been following this polylogue and catching up when I can. It has been a joy to watch it evolve and explode. And hello to all who I have already experienced sharing with.

      In the study of synesthesia, a particular type is called Mirror-Touch synesthesia. It brings into the mix Mirror-neurons in the brain.

      http://www.twine.com/item/11myk305y-1zr/study-people-literally-feel-pain-of-others-livescience

      "Mirror-touch synaesthetes actually feel a touch on their own skin when they watch someone else being touched. Perhaps as a consequence, they also show more emotional empathy than normal people."

      C(_) empathy can work both ways, just like in M(_). It can both be increased and diminished through a certain social or self conditioning.

      HC(_) can increase our ability to empathize with others through our tele-senses. Through empathy do we connect emotionally with others. Therefore I find this essential when finding its place in FH(_). Empathic emotional interaction, whether it be positive or negative, is basic to our consciousness.

      Our tele-synesthetic senses are becoming more and more entwined, and we are just in the embryonic stage, as Wildcat has said.

      I see our tele-sensory hyperconnectivity opening up the doors to E(_) {empathic emotional interaction} in FH(_).

      What happens when we can feel what someone else is feeling? For real? Feel their pain? Feel their happiness? And vice versa?

      I see this being a great tool in H(_) and M(_) conflict. There's a method to this in M(_) as well, called mirroring. "I am listening to what you are saying - I understand what you're saying - and I understand how that makes you feel."

      With E(_) in FH(_), it will be the ability to immerse ourselves - "I am thinking what you're thinking - therefore I understand why you're saying what you say - and I feel how that makes you feel."

      Some sort of measure of empathetic reasoning would also be an integral part of the trust ecommony, as well as the rewards ecommony, for empathic emotions can be highly satisfying - as we witness in this twine.

      I empathize with how many of you...feel? Think? I don't find those complete. There is a milieu here - where thinking and feeling meet at a noetic understanding.

      Since empathy is based on the noetic understanding of a unique subjective experience, and we look at this sharing of subjective experience as Art, in FH(_) we will have very powerful tools to share these experiences. E(_) will enable the entities involved, if willing (or required), to FEEL viscerally a connection with another entity OR cloud of entities.

      I imagine E(_) to be an extremely powerful element for constructive or destructive use in FH(_) as an operational attitude of both C(_) and M(_).

      These are just some initial thoughts. Any takers?
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
        12 months ago


        you mean like the movie 'strange days'.. clearly a shared E() would be extremely interesting and have considerable impact on human behavior (of course we could still turn it off). Watching a documentary on Africa and experiencing the emotions of the people in the documentary 'for real' would be quite an interesting experiment. I am willing to bet that donations would go up considerably.

        "Some sort of measure of empathetic reasoning would also be an integral part of the trust ecommony, as well as the rewards ecommony, for empathic emotions can be highly satisfying - as we witness in this twine."

        Yes, I would agree, however would trust now be higher resolution or unnecessary? If one can 'read the mind' of your counterparty, does this just mean that people who are untrustworthy would learn to disguise their 'feelings' or that we simply wouldn't be able to trust sociopaths? does trust simply enter an arms race at this point?
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • wildcat wildcat
          12 months ago


          "Yes, I would agree, however would trust now be higher resolution or unnecessary?"

          neither, trust will become the sympathetic interactive measure of "knowing". of course we could if we so desire, call this a higher resolution, but on a very immediate basis, the E(_) will allow an immediacy (and intimacy) of mutuality we at present cannot fathom. I trust (see that pesky word again ;-) that an enhanced human , extended bioperson will relate to another in a completely different manner than we experience for now, if for no other reason that when transparency reigns supreme, trustworthiness becomes the only 'trusted' currency. (maybe circular and a bit redundant but I hope my point is clear).

          btw, I don't think the terminology 'reading the mind of your counterpart' is the correct one, how about 'merging' (with your counterpart for a limited period)?
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

          • starwalker starwalker
            12 months ago


            hi notthisbody, like the entrance of clearly defined E(_) and very much agree with the general sense, though need to hear more on what do you mean by noetic understanding, for it can take different directions. by all means connections are FELT;-).
            Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

            • notthisbody notthisbody
              12 months ago


              "The word "noetic" comes from the ancient Greek noûs, for which there is no exact equivalent in English. It refers to "inner knowing," a kind of intuitive consciousness - direct and immediate access to knowledge beyond what is available to our normal senses and the power of reason."

              taking this definition, I envision E(_) opening up channels for direct and immediate access and the ability to share this "inner knowing" that all of us have based in our subjective experience through our own modalities, unique to every individual. If we look at the exploration, identification, and sharing of commonalities and differences in "inner knowing" as basic to a higher level of communication - I guess what I'm talking about is the possibility of noetic communication between entities that increases the ability to tap into an collective, intuitive consciousness that is beyond any one of us in particular and can only be fathomed when we are open to E(_) with others.
              Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

              • notthisbody notthisbody
                12 months ago


                In fact, I've reread the wikipedia article, and the part on Noetic Science is particularly relevant here.


                "Noetic science explores the nature and potentials of consciousness using multiple ways of knowing - including intuition, feeling, reason, and the senses. It is disciplined inquiry into the "inner cosmos" of the mind (consciousness, soul, spirit) and how it relates to the "outer cosmos" of the physical world. It explores the frontiers of consciousness from three perspectives:

                (1) First-person perspective by supporting individuals in the exploration and development of their own subjective consciousness (e.g., meditation and other spiritual practices). Emphasis on inner knowing and personal transformation.

                (2) Second-person perspective by exploring and supporting transformative relationships and intersubjective consciousness (e.g., compassionate dialogue, community building, collective wisdom). Emphasis on transformative learning and collective wisdom.

                (3) Third-person perspective by gathering data about objective physiological correlates of consciousness (e.g., research using rigorous scientific protocols, including experiments in psi, mind-body healing, and subtle energies). Emphasis on scientific understanding.

                These are the complementary elements of a "noetic science." All three perspectives value and employ multiple ways of knowing - including intuition, reason, and the senses in varying combinations. The goal of this work is to support individuals in transformation of their own consciousness (developing their innate human potentials and creative capacities) as a foundation for collective transformation toward a global wisdom society."



                I'd say these polylogues fit somewhere under "noetic science", yeah?
                Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                • starwalker starwalker
                  12 months ago


                  noetic can also be translated in correlation with the concept of mind http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/noetic, which i think goes very well with your pointing both to subjective experience and consciousness and the entangled relation in between them. i think what you called "the ability to immerse ourselves" and "sharing commonalities and differences" is definitely a very non trivial aspect of consciousness, considering that it emerges as a subjective experience and yet, as if, expands beyond the realm of the subject we are, through communication "that increases the ability to tap into a collective, intuitive consciousness".
                  I like very much the concept of E(_) being introduced in correlation with this profoundly non trivial aspect of consciousness, expressed as ability to grow beyond its initial property and contour of arising. Or maybe it could be said, the ability to dynamically reshape its contour, in order to include relevant grounds of interaction and fertility. Wildcat and then you use, describing these polylogues, the word milieu, a milieu where thinking and feeling meet at a noetic understanding, which after all what said in the last comments:) i understand as the ability to immerse myself "in coordination" with the coordinates where different thinking and feeling meet in a noetic understanding, which is like saying the ability to immerse myself "in coordination" with the subjects which are the nodes of this fuzzy network.
                  and this, while emerging as live experience, i would call, as you did, both an art and a science in development.
                  in a way it doesn't matter if i am, or will, actually be "reading your mind" or anybody else's as long as the openness of E(_) increases the ability for the players, me you, to emerge in coordination, and thus expand the contour of subjectivity to include a more interesting game.

                  trust in this sense is not based on a "complete" knowing nor on a complete "sameness" (of ideas, references, feelings and so on) as much as on the emerging ability to coordinate our experience and in this case internal dialogue into a more fertile polylogue.
                  Along with it we may converge on more than one ground or not, it does not really matter as long as the fabric of the particular contour of coordination is not torn. is it a good take?
                  Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                  • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
                    12 months ago


                    starwalker, I think you pinpointed an important aspect in relation to trust in the context of this polylogue, in saying:
                    "trust in this sense is not based on a "complete" knowing nor on a complete "sameness" (of ideas, references, feelings and so on) as much as on the emerging ability to coordinate our experience and in this case internal dialogue into a more fertile polylogue."
                    To take it further, in my mind it translates to: seeking trust as an emergent, perhaps volatile, dynamic grounds open and changing within interaction, rather than seeking trust as a predicted stable ground. I think the shift from M(_) based notions to C(_) is reflected in this view of trust and vice-versa, this view of trust can support the shift.

                    Of course the question of coordination of experience, as you put it, is pivotal. How do you suggest we go about it?
                    Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                    • starwalker starwalker
                      12 months ago


                      agree that this view of trust is one of the factors both reflecting and supporting the shift from M(_) based notions to C(_) and FH(_).

                      thinking for example of the overall realizations around privacy, transparency and identity, brings about as well a reflection that, no matter how technologically advanced, trust is not and probably will not get to be a 'predicted stable ground' nor a familiar one. basically i think because predictability and stability are not aspects in our subjective emergence of trust (though we try to fit them there at each round of human advancement).

                      i think the solution to our question of trust is much more in the direction of connectivity and inherent resiliency of a network than in isolation of stable and safe grounds. i believe this overall thread and set of polylogues, from the opening of FH(_) to the new concurrence spoken by wildcat is a line of coordination of experience. the emergence by writing of an unspoken agreement, connecting nodes and concepts and images. So i believe first of all we go about it, and find out how as we are:-)

                      i think E(_) and mirror neurons are for now the first and best answer in this direction. Though am sure more can be inserted, anyone?
                      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • starwalker starwalker
      12 months ago


      hello wildcat,
      pondering for a few moments your invitation, into further refining what you describe as the emerging of "a set of principles that are NOT an extension of M(_) into C(_) but a new set of non-written agreements that have both a social context and an attitudinal milieu." And again when you mention shortly after as an example that "it is obvious that many minds wish to enter a relationship in hyperconnectivity without for example designating (or indeed implying) their bio-gender, their bio-age, their bioperson location and so on."

      and correlating from there to the concept of E(_) {empathic emotional interaction} as brought in by notthisbody.

      seemingly a contradiction in between, on one side, leaving out of the picture all personal details and on the other being close enough, intimate enough to "immerse ourselves" and reach emotionally (with lightened tentacles:-) on the other side of a fuzzy network. And in all of it we are talking of trust, and extending our projection up to combined interactive intelligence. The emerging difference in our reactions in between M(_) and C(_), when laying out this contradiction, are quite strong.

      i indeed think that part of it is correlated to the embryonic state of the hyperscape, and to the way we (humans) maybe able to grow into it, while growing its multidimensional dome. A new, still relatively un-furnished space, vacuuming us from a hyper-super-over-described M(_) world, where anything, from underwear till electronic devices, is, a part from performing some function, a principal describer and teller of me, before i even had time to think what i would like to say...;-)

      i supposedly have a name, a horoscope, a haircut, a curriculum, a gender and a gender type and of course a hobby, which define me, and if i'm good at it (and we are:), no more is required of me in order to present myself to basic communication in M(_), no pressure and nor space to engage other gears, though again everything depends, and this IS a generalization (and a provoking one). funnily enough here one enters naked from general 'rental' tellers, being it advertisement or history (though rating is a kind of fig leaf;-)).

      In my understanding intelligence, both individual and collective, demands a genuine effort of description, the plowing of visceral question marks, not necessarily more far from us than 'what is this all about?' to begin with. Any new layer of coherency emerging demand this descriptive effort as much as life demands air (so to speak). And rare are, after millenia of historical memory, the reflective spaces allowing for few moments the luxury of optimism..:) the lightness of not knowing who 'you' are, and the grace of moving with it. Whether the infospace is about to become the main channel of us or not yet (still got few things in denver..:).

      i like this invitation opening itself for more. following the line of this comment i would describe as one of the non-written attitudes that of meeting in FH(_) in a fashion that address each one directly and particularly, while not assuming on any basis who actually stands in the particular address.

      you ask can we create a new concurrence, would like to understand more what you mean by concurrence.
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
        12 months ago


        hope you have a "good" haircut, and not one of those chop-jobs you get from a flo-bee http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqVb-cV2tUQ
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • wildcat wildcat
        12 months ago


        "you ask can we create a new concurrence, would like to understand more what you mean by concurrence."

        there are many ways to understand the concurrence I am talking about, chief amongst which , to my eyes, is a meta-concurrence; an agreement of allowance on a multidimensional basis, which will permit, multiple and simultaneous interpretations of a given set of info/data. this will allow in turn the set of all possible interpretations to be as real as possible (within the confines of the meta-concurrence). given this fuzzy phase space of all possible interpretations having a legitimacy (inherent and irrevocable), we could state that the main goal of such a meta-concurrence as I envision, is the betterment of all human interactions for the purpose of increase in combined interactive intelligence, the results of which are fundamentally an increase in freedoms and liberty, themselves resulting in increased well-being for all.
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • starwalker starwalker
          12 months ago


          if i understand, the space you are picturing by meta-concurrence is one that maximize the number of open / possible paths of interpretations (variation?) upon the existing set of data (realities?), fostering an increase in the combined interactive intelligence. The first question coming to mind concerns directly interaction, in the sense that multiple and simultaneous interpretations, coexisting on a same level of legitimacy will require a completely new / different system of communication.

          Going back to the question raised some time ago on twine if two humans having different ideological systems of reference can be friends / intimate, in M(_) we were never particularly good at it (though Odi et Amo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hFlsR_y2t4&NR=1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_85 goes a long way back;-), although no specific immovable obstacle stands in the way (other probably than ourselves). Here your words point in C(_) to the full bloom of diversity as a betterment and even enrichment of possible interactive intelligence.

          on a further thought seems to me as if the interaction involved in concurrence demands in any given moment a clear context - a temporary defined contour of overlapping among diverse interpretations- and C(_) allows this clarity to be held in a more accessible way. It is easier in C(_) to clearly separate the dimensions of meaning involved in a polylogue. and thus the intimacy sustaining the interaction is not torn in the process. would you agree?

          given your description of concurrence, i believe the answer to the question can we create a new concurrence demands quite some further mileage in my mind.

          referring to above comment (see bio-gender, bio-age, bio-location..), your thoughts on the possible line of C(_) etiquette, of an addressing which is always personal, while never assuming directly who or what exactly am i meeting in such address.
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

          • wildcat wildcat
            11 months ago


            I am thinking very deeply about this issue, as it seems that there is a motion now towards ending anonymity on the net, besides the issue of privacy there is to my mind a much larger issue that concerns our future identities, if a change in our minds is required (as I believe is necessary for our evolution as specie) the very fact that you will not be able to connect to other humans (or any other kind of entity) without revealing the nature of your bioperson entails that we will need carry the baggage of M(_) into C(_) which is part of what I believe needs to change. the point is that we will try to create a new kind of etiquette, yet this etiquette will work only if certain fundamental parameters of our M(_) lives will be assimilated into, so to speak, a new form of identity. this identity will indeed need enter a new kind of agreement (see my meta concurrence proposal). I wish to refer to you based on your ideas, your thought processes, your innovation, our cross fertilization and collaboration and so on and not be bothered by your (again excuse my french) M(_) life. sounds terrible? I do not think so, I strongly believe that the net (transforming into the grid) can become a liberating experience, a maturing experience for many minds to coalesce into a new kind of reality. (the option of investing our M(_) identities will always be there if we so choose), but as a rule I think that the freedom from the need of identifying oneself with neolithic notions of gender and location, age and so on should be optional.
            By eliminating such needs, our new etiquette will be based on online trust as we discussed before, a trust that will be concurrent with our on-going communications and polylogue, eventually as nothtisbody suggests and I agree some form of empathic emotionality will be technologically available, at this point it will be up to us to create a new form of relationship and interconnectedness. moreover I believe that we are in fact creating special contexts of interests in which the most important aspect is indeed that which you mention as "clearly separating the dimensions of meaning involved". I definitely agree with you that this very fact allows for sustaining intimacy in interaction.
            see, from my standpoint I am responding to a comment two weeks old, but it makes no difference whatsoever, as we can account for time shifting (cross space time polylogues), but I am responding to it now, which connects me to you and by-passes the M(_) quasi-linear illusion of continuity and allows for a continuity which is of real interest, in this case our on-going conversation.
            Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

            • Phil Duby Phil Duby
              11 months ago


              there is a motion now towards ending anonymity on the net: yes, see recent post http://www.twine.com/item/11ycnkbx7-hd/the-end-of-online-anonymity

              I see no NEED for ending C(_) anonymity, for conversation or connexion purpose, but it does appear to be becoming embedded in the technology. Apparently due to other concerns, where people tend not to 'play nice' when they figure they are anonymous, and do not have any consequences to their C(_) activities. Sigh.

              carry the baggage of M(_) into C(_) which is part of what I believe needs to change: big +1

              I wish to refer to you based on your ideas, your thought processes, your innovation, our cross fertilization and collaboration and so on and not be bothered by your (again excuse my french) M(_) life.: YES!!

              For the rest, the new etiquette (I prefer to expand that to culture) will need to be continuously redefined based on the changing technical capabilities of the available communications mediums.

              Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

              • wildcat wildcat
                11 months ago


                etiquette expanded into CC(_) = cyber-culture via hyperconnectivity (carries a deep resemblance , semiotically at least, to CC=creative commons, a fact which appeals deeply to me)
                Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

            • starwalker starwalker
              11 months ago


              find very much relevant not to carry our baggage of M(_) to C(_). Basically i think because it will leave very little if no space, nor incentive, for re-thinking how we describe ourselves. uncharted spaces and fresh evolutive niches, re-ignite our considering and assessing routines on what, who, why we are and what do we love/want/vote for:)). C(_) is still a relatively uncluttered space (comparatively to M(_)) and an opportunity, if we shall work out how to understand and sustain diversity.

              i think one of the battles at play in our contemporary collective minds is in between the paradigm of 'necessity' for herding masses (to prevent dangers - ending of anonimity) and the paradigm of necessity for free relating and creating among individuals (based on generation of mutual interests). Maybe the evolution of our specie, you relate to, has to bring about a full break-through in it.

              "the net (transforming into the grid) can become a liberating experience, a maturing experience for many minds to coalesce into a new kind of reality." ++1 we should be using this towards a collective increase in clarity. Maybe one should ask as well what is clarity in a process of meta concurrence. I suspect once including multiple interpretations coexisting on a same level of legitimacy (though not necessarily of desirability) clarity itself needs a re-assessment.
              indeed intimacy dis-joint from time and joined with our on-going conversation.
              Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

              • wildcat wildcat
                11 months ago


                "intimacy dis-joint from time and joined with our on-going conversation" +1
                very much like this description, intimacy in C(_) then becomes the ground upon which our mutual interests play.

                concerning clarity, it is my view at present that the very concept of clarity should indeed be re-assessed. to my eyes the continuity of meaningful expression/existence via hyperconnectivity represents a new kind of mind actuation and by consequence a new kind of clarity emerges. I understand certain issues of life better via H(_), especially issues that at core are transcendent (see the emergence of the global brain/mind), the one mind concept for example, the incessant chatter, the overflowing of emotions, sensations and so on are firmly exemplified in FH(_). however it goes much deeper than that, the new mind floats upon the ocean called the infoverse, never before have we been able to access (i'll leave the digestion issue for a different post) so much infodata with so little effort and never before were our minds in need of a such a high demand for discrimination and filtering, this very demand stands at the basis of the new form of clarity that emerges.
                granted that not all of us can sustain such a high deluge of information and still manage to retain a semblance of sanity, however, given enough time for new habits to form (trust evolution to take care of that) I think that our minds, well our cortexes at least, will develop into a new kind of processing machines, holistic and highly specialized in discrimination capability.
                same discrimination capability will in time develop into a new form of trust. I have written elsewhere about cyberintuition, which i believe is a new form of cognition (stemming from our surplus of cognition) developing as we speak. using the cyberintuition capability the human mind will evolve (and is evolving as we speak) a new form of consciousness, a.k.a cyberconsciousness...
                Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                • Phil Duby Phil Duby
                  11 months ago


                  so much infodata with so little effort  That could have the opposite effect from what you describe (I hope not).  In ages past, when humanity lived in the jungle, picking food from the environment without too much effort (even if the jungle was also a dangerous place), there was little incentive for change and progress.  It was not until humanity started moving into harsher environments that progress got moving.  We may have the habit now, of pushing the envelope, to avoid falling back onto the 'easy' path.  Or at least enough of us that others will need to follow to 'stay competitive'.

                  Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                • morningstar morningstar
                  11 months ago


                  "the new mind floats upon the ocean called the infoverse, never before have we been able to access (...) so much infodata with so little effort and never before were our minds in need of a such a high demand for discrimination and filtering, this very demand stands at the basis of the new form of clarity that emerges" +1
                  …this will probably need/trigger a development of combined (instant) transmission of meta-tools of apprehension closely coupled and engrained with/within the info that travels on the waves and ripples of the infoverse. Ie. there will be a need to refine tools of apprehension for mind/s to sustain the info-upload and to juggle the uncertainty overload, which is currently boggling minds and creating clarity issues specially in M(_).
                  Possibly FH(_) can provide the grid for facilitation such that “…our cortexes at least, will develop into a new kind of processing machines, holistic and highly specialized in discrimination capability” (wow!) this I find crucial
                  Studies in neurobiology http://bfc.positscience.com/resources/reading/the-brain-that-changes-itself-norman-doidge-16.php demonstrate that it is possible to expand and enhance brain plasticity thus implying that the mind can change itself .

                  “using the cyberintuition capability the human mind will evolve (and is evolving as we speak) a new form of consciousness, a.k.a cyberconsciousness...” +1 this jumps a level deeper...
                  …can be seen as the emergence in itself of a direction. There are many implications, need to think more on this one...
                  Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                • starwalker starwalker
                  11 months ago


                  @wildcat
                  "the continuity of meaningful expression/existence via H(_) represents a new kind of mind actuation and by consequence a new kind of clarity emerges" +1 very much concurring.
                  mentioning one more aspect related in my eyes to the emergence of the new form of clarity, together and part of the CRITICAL demand for a new and evolved discrimination capability. Clarity as we extract it from M(_)( "The state, or measure of being clear, either in appearance, thought or style" http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/clarity) is usually defined in correlation with an (un-explicitly) agreed paradigm. Being it a paradigm of thought, representation, belief system or other. A paradigm which is active and reflected simultaneously in all meaningful layers of expression of the participants (all present in the room and their way of "appearance, thought or style"). Thus having at times un-necessary (and pretty rooted in M) correlations with 'conformity' to meaningful layers which are not necessarily 'relevant' to a specific moment or discussion. This conformity is actually our best solution in M(_) not to raise beyond reason the ratio of noise/signal (other possible way to think of clarity).
                  Yet when coming to court the idea of concurrence and meta-concurrence, and projecting an open space for multiple interpretations, the above translation of clarity is a big obstacle. For it either projects us into a 'babel tower' event (no clear signal and exponentially growing noise) or to an inevitable (and tendentially bloody) war of paradigms in the sake and name of clear communication.

                  what the newborn space of C(_) and CC(_) provides, us, in this concern is what i would call "contextual relevancy". Clarity is defined solely in correlation to to the on-going conversation / context / extended moment. Thus whatever the Topos (used here as a better, freer and evolved description of paradigm:) i use to describe myself, as long as i adhere to the particular layer and context at play, differences in topos among us do not stand in the way of clarity. i.e. we can think differently and have completely different paths of activation, cognition and actuation and still communicate in a fertile and intimate way.

                  i wish to use this to address as well the issue of 'anonymity'.
                  first of all i propose to change the term, for i do not think that anonymity, as in anonymous comment or package, is entirely the issue.
                  though have no immediate suggestion.

                  @ Kurt, i agree much that anonymity (as in avoiding direct interaction) is not a pre-requisite of the change. Yet the space coming with the new system of representation is; in as long as we withhold from performing simply copy-paste from previous one, or using default set of restrictions from known system to limit number of available options (which our mind stubbornly refuses to compute:), independently from increased dimensionality. In that anonymity is an expedient to release communication and interaction into "contextual relevancy" and out of very rooted ways of human assessment for trust/importance/belonging/liking/disliking...It is not an expedient in this sense for the 'many who are strongly bound to their artificial identities based on gender race metier, ideology etc' against the many who enjoys freedom and do or do not need this, as much as it is an expedient for the architecture of the overall new space which is C(_) and CC(_). It is about creating opportunity for a clearly and consciously discriminated choice of disclosure of aspects of identity as you say, according to 'contextual relevancy'. It is, as wildcat put it, sustaining such choice free, and thus the architecture stable.

                  concerning continuity of an existing address in interaction, much was said already in last instances of this polylogue, will simply use FTF expression to say that i believe we are seeking "an intelligent partner for communication", and enormously enjoying the finding of it..;-), and thus always needing a reasonable ratio signal/noise in representations of communication.
                  Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                  • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
                    11 months ago


                    interesting point re putting context first rather than individuality first, artificially suppressing individuality may allow a contextual primacy to emerge and strengthen, if I don't stretch your meaning too far.

                    "creating opportunity for a clearly and consciously discriminated choice of disclosure of aspects of identity"
                    this is foundational
                    Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                    • starwalker starwalker
                      11 months ago


                      @Kurt need to understand better how you are stretching me...:) 'artificially suppressing individuality' not sure am getting the view of it, few more words..?

                      in the meantime: from your remark I understand my mentioning of 'contextual relevancy' above in relation to C(_) walks a thin line. The way I use it is not meant to erase individuality as much as to allow communication in between individuals to get to fertile interaction (allowing interface of differences without noise shooting to unbearable levels).

                      I think for the purpose of this discussion we may also describe a difference in between the terms identity and individual. To keep it very simple i would say the first indicate a description or a contour (of me), the second indicate an effective agent. The first is something that I can, if needed, always adjust and modify to better fit a moment or an interaction. The second is foundational, though a-priori not necessarily implying on the level of specific descriptions (i.e. the layer where identity is negotiated) as long as functional.
                      If we agree on that, may be relevant as well to define the term ‘context’ for this discussion. Again keeping it simple would say that context is the ‘momentary reality of interest’ emerging in the on going communication of a polylogue among individuals. It is not in this sense an a-priori ‘externally’ set or imposed scenery (ex. ideology). It is emerging and being iterated in communication / interaction.
                      Hope it does promote further iteration towards clearer waters..
                      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                      • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
                        11 months ago


                        "In that anonymity is an expedient to release communication and interaction into "contextual relevancy" and out of very rooted ways of human assessment for trust/importance/belonging/liking/disliking..."

                        I think you understand just fine, since you proceed to address it.

                        Interesting that I read your individual as grouping identities, or agents just after writing another comment to that effect - not so much stretching going on after all.

                        In my work context is a scoping exercise, and there is no correct scope, only a useful one. We draw a circle on an infinite blank page so that we can make sense of infinity. The circle has no intrinsic reality.
                        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                        • starwalker starwalker
                          11 months ago


                          'Interesting that I read your individual as grouping identities, or agents just after writing another comment to that effect - not so much stretching going on after all.'
                          stretching very much welcome, engaging demands some overlapping, never thought it trivial.
                          other than that glad to hear understanding going in correlated direction, though till spoken confirmation, it is just personal guess..

                          phrase above, one more line, distinction between identity and individual does not necessarily define individual as grouping identities (starfish charm). It does loosen the privileged coupling bioperson-identity-individual, opening a question upon validating it or any other couplings as best for given context. Indeed there are quite few interesting comments further on this polylogue.

                          context as scoping exercise +1 very clear.
                          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                  • wildcat wildcat
                    11 months ago


                    @starwalker,
                    "what the newborn space of C(_) and CC(_) provides, us, in this concern is what i would call "contextual relevancy". Clarity is defined solely in correlation to to the on-going conversation / context / extended moment."

                    I think you nailed it, bravo! contextual relevancy may yet prove to be the single most important aspect of intelligence (to be applied to future AI as well), having said that, I still think that we may need account for the larger need of subtleties in human communication which are not inherently implicit in context relevant situations. for though it is true that clarity emerges when the contextual relevancy is explicit, it is similarly true that much of human contact is contextually irrelevant but gives a coherent picture of the interlocutors, so it may be the case that in the larger scheme we need a /some kind of of envelope in C(_) to account for that which is not contextual relevant yet adds subtle meanings to the polylogue. again this concerns the stability of the architecture and the inherent freedom embedded in our abstract faculties.

                    "we are seeking "an intelligent partner for communication", and enormously enjoying the finding of it..;-)" +1

                    Now that is fascinating, maybe Kurt should send this to C.Shirky et al, there is so much of this going on here on twine that we may offer this as part of what twine is all about, how a social network evolves into a network of interests and upgrades the meaning of it into a social network of interests by which and in which intelligent partners communicate/collaborate..
                    the embryonic beginnings of a future polytopia instance?
                    Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                    • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
                      11 months ago


                      Clay's not on my speed dial, unfortunately, he'd be fun to have for dinner. Maybe I should spend the $4500 and hit TED, but if they really wanted me there you'd think they'd comp me yes? If you guys all vote often enough in twine-wars maybe it'll hit his housekeeper's radar and we'll get a mention between bacon and orange juice. Embryo's often die. Let's not take ourselves too seriously.
                      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                    • starwalker starwalker
                      11 months ago


                      Wildcat, will take your encouragement to bring further thoughts into it. Though before, think the question of subtleties in communication, as you raise it, is a critical point and not an easy one to keep in balance.

                      Present state of avatars + written words seems as poor representation for this (beginning of some search http://www.twine.com/twine/11p9mrwqf-3b7/avatar-what-a-concept).
                      Yet, in my mind part of the question goes back to the beginning of this thread and to empathy E(_) as introduced by notthisbody. And to anonymity as ‘conscious choice of disclosure of aspects of identity’ as mentioned by Kurt, which I believe helps sustaining the lightness of it (no set of reflections yet rigidly in place).
                      Once the context of iteration takes precedence in sustaining clarity of interaction, I believe the coherent picture of each interlocutor is partly left to empathic extensions and part to game. In C(_) in much greater proportion than in M(_). I personally enjoy that my empathic ‘sensors’ towards an interlocutor of this polylogue are free from inbuilt reactions heritage of M(_) (ex. reproductive sys influence, reaction to glitter and all other primitive triggers antecedent my evolved look:-). Free and active in this sense to play by the laws of attraction, in - and around - the relevant context and in co-ordination with 'intelligent partners for communication'. And up to personal calibration.
                      I think the game of coming to know while not knowing can be a way to sustain the subtlety of coherency (in a counter-intuitive way), before more advanced interfaces will conquer us, our time and investment.

                      I believe the subtleties you bring to light, belonging to human communication, are moving with us inevitably, no matter the medium or lack of medium for that matter. question in my eyes at the moment is how to sustain them as free floating subtleties..

                      polytopia future instance sound worth a beginning to me, independent of outcome..
                      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

            • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
              11 months ago


              I would disagree that anonymity is a prerequisite for the change, though it may be the expedient path for many who are strongly bound to their artificial identities based on gender race metier, ideology etc. I believe an identity system which allows choice in disclosure of identity aspects is the ideal implementation the web should follow, so that one can contextualize the disclosure of such information. This I think will come in time. Your bank needs to know who you are (not necessarily your bio person identity of course, simply that you are in fact the account holder), your conversation partners do not, though trust and relationship are built upon stable identities (not fully articulated bio person identities, but simply stable symbolic representation of mind). I could engage in this conversation with a different symbol (user name) each post, would this detract from the comprehension of the message, or the amount of information in the system - I think so.
              Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

              • wildcat wildcat
                11 months ago


                "choice in disclosure of identity aspects is the ideal implementation the web should follow" +1 yes of course

                And only if the choice remains free can a stable system be maintained, which is the issue at play. stability disintegrates when identity dominates interest.

                "I could engage in this conversation with a different symbol (user name) each post, would this detract from the comprehension of the message, or the amount of information in the system - I think so"

                I am uncertain concerning this aspect, if you will maintain the same line of interest and same applicable intelligence though under different guises I think that meaning expression will be maintained and comprehension of the message will extend its integrity. a point comes to mind, do you think it matters on any level to a reader of this polylogue (who knows not who is Kurt or who is wildcat) who wrote what? if the stream of consciousness of said reader can maintain a line of meaningful symbolic representation the particular avatar+ nickname or name, of the speaker might lose relevance? hmm.. needs more thought
                Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                • notthisbody notthisbody
                  11 months ago


                  i agree. as well i've been questioning the need for avatars in many aspects of hyperconnectivity. obviously if you're interacting on a social network that has great crossover into M(_) (such as facebook) there is great value in being identified as 'your self'. but the creation of avatars in H(_) can also be a hindrance to communication - yes, you're leaving 'your' body behind in M(_) but creating a new one in C(_), and with that can come the same pitfalls as M(_) has, namely, ego, popularity, gossip, etc.

                  i believe that avatars in H(_) would be highly valuable if our actions actually created and let grow our avatar. I am working on concepts similar to this type of system.

                  Already we see that here on twine - many of us do not post much information at all about our M(_) existence, preferring to retain a surface layer of anonymity (its always possible to dig each other's existences out hypothetically, and in many cases easily). And all of you who I've experienced this polylogue with, I know nothing about you and it doesn't matter because we've developed trust solely based off of our continuing actions and ideas.

                  i believe that the people will always figure out how to keep certain of their H(_) actions or thoughts anonymous. its like the struggle against DRM. Right now, most people do not see a very large threat from not protecting their anonymity, though I believe in the future this will be a precious thing, heavily guarded...

                  for instance what if there was a service in which the M(_) person registered with and created an avatar with. this said service would be designed to render impossible the tracing back of an avatar to their M(_) counterpart. there you are. that's something that could combat the prevalence of avatar emulation by intelligent computer programs, bots, what have you, while still providing anonymity to those who desire it.

                  one M(_) person can be many different avatars - as far as I know starwalker and rpfiii are the same person playing a mind game with themselves :) which may not be too far off the truth. (sorry, see both your names right below this comment box)

                  i agree with you, Wildcat, if we took this polylogue and stripped it of its authors, completely, I do not think it would make so much of a difference. BUT at the same time I've entered a trust economy with some more than others, and am more willing to learn from one or the other. and THIS has spread beyond this polylogue.

                  then again...once trust has been earned, the ability one has to trick those who have trusted them, or guide them in a wrong direction, is much much more possible.

                  i believe anonymity extends itself much better to the creation of collective intelligence because you are not dealing with any representation of an entity (which can lead to conclusions and preconceptions), but solely the Essence of that said entity - what they share.

                  waht we need is both - the ability to set different levels of anonymity in our M(_) and H(_) existence very specifically and be certain about those levels of anonymity. for both anonymity and transparency will be important depending on the Topos in which you currently inhabit.
                  Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                  • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
                    11 months ago


                    nope, not starwalker--I'm not that pretty. (although we do both have that PIERCING stare)

                    Re. Avatar's, just from personal experience within Twine, the avatar we present of ourselves can have significant meaning, or not, but the fact that it can change allows the user to reflect certain emotional content or "feeling" over time. Not sure if you were around a few months back, notthisbody, but there was an entire sequence of Twine events centering around this very aspect, started when pomlover changed his avatar to Dr. Evil from Austin Powers. http://www.twine.com/item/11dq9538x-30w/the-changing-faces-of-twine

                    Since this is primarily a written medium, the ability to communicate non-written 'visual' context is severely restricted-you can't see my face as I write, so you have no emotional feedback as to my mood, intent, or context. That avatar provides some of this, and changeability provides the user additional avenues to express emotion.

                    That being said, I think I disagree with Kurt in that, just because someone changes their picture presence, or even changes their user name,
                    Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                    • Phil Duby Phil Duby
                      11 months ago


                      Changing the picture or user name (actually alias) is not an issue as long as the result is still reasonably identifiable as the same person from previous conversations.  A completely new user name (member id) is not the same as changing the handle.

                      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                    • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
                      11 months ago


                      rick, you must have used a "please delete the rest of my post" character - do finish your thought..
                      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                      • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
                        11 months ago


                        woah. That's weird. I think I had a few more paragraphs there, but now they're gone. (must have p.o'd the TwineGods or something). Sorry, don't remember what I wrote now...
                        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                    • starwalker starwalker
                      11 months ago


                      whoa rpfii, not discarding fast an opportunity;-) eras spent looking for a relevant alter-ego expression, maybe we should merge into one avatar and give it a shot:)))...how would it be different by the way, given sufficient threshold of coherency, having two 'warm bodies' instead of one relating to the same avatar?
                      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                      • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
                        11 months ago


                        LOL--I think we might confuse the heck out of everyone else, since only you/I/me/us would know which one is writing and commenting, unless within the comment were sufficient 'inside' info to aid others in identification. What would we be called, starfish? haa-haaaah!
                        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                        • starwalker starwalker
                          11 months ago


                          to begin with starfish is not bad:)) other than that, once you have an avatar, which is one and sustains continuity, why should it be clear in anyway from the outer side that beholds it that there is one, two or more 'warm bodies' interacting as it? in this sense apart from you/me/us, and possibly not even that, why would someone need to know or deal with it at all? the serious question in it is what will eventually take over, the 'identity' linked to the specific warm body? or the identity and voice of the particular avatar? (like to say for example that when i or you sit down and write as starfish we release the typical characteristic of the identity of one's warm body, and flow with one's mind into the coordinates from which starfish makes sense and think from there) of course it would have to bring some very interesting advantage for the both of us to go into it - maybe a very unique combination of intelligence or a particular locus of reflection or a great icon for the avatar;-() - still, is it closer to science fiction or to the way our mind works already with any substrata?
                          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                          • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
                            11 months ago


                            starfish then would be doing a great deal of talking to itself, which from an outsider's point of view might be a little disconcerting? Also, if multiple warm bodies are interacting via a common avatar, what's the point of the avatar itself then? We all might as well just call ourselves

                            Bruce.

                            Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                            • starwalker starwalker
                              11 months ago


                              why to itself?..i think it would be interacting with others like our avatars do..
                              what's the point of an avatar? i think it is a non trivial, actually very interesting, question..mostly at the moment the point of it is to represent "me" or to extend "me", as spoken in previous sessions, into C(_), to allow "me" an interface for interaction and exploration. In M(_) it goes without saying that one warm body is the sensible interface for the concept "me". And in C(_) is it still necessarily the case? maybe we may convene that it is indeed the most interesting and best solution to correlate individual identity and avatars to one warm body and not two or three. And we definitely work at the moment by this paradigm. Yet maybe it is an open relevant question, demanding its argument for validation.. isn't me the best possible "me"??;-)) and i can definitely see the need for a collective Bruce avatar..lol
                              Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                      • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
                        11 months ago


                        talk to webferret
                        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                  • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
                    11 months ago


                    "And all of you who I've experienced this polylogue with, I know nothing about you and it doesn't matter because we've developed trust solely based off of our continuing actions and ideas."


                    "that's something that could combat the prevalence of avatar emulation by intelligent computer programs, bots, what have you, while still providing anonymity to those who desire it."

                    again, multifaceted identity management can address this, without disintegrating contribution from a point source - and yes, this will be big business soon.

                    "one M(_) person can be many different avatars"

                    this may not be a problem in this polylogue, but it is a problem in other contexts (voting, for example)

                    "you are not dealing with any representation of an entity (which can lead to conclusions and preconceptions), but solely the Essence of that said entity"

                    essence needs representation or it becomes 'mere' existence - again contextually this may or may not matter
                    Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                    • wildcat wildcat
                      11 months ago


                      "essence needs representation or it becomes 'mere' existence"

                      if we can find a way to equate 'essence' with information, then in a future scenario in which upload is an option it may very well be that for some 'mere existence' is all there will be. representation will be embodied by the infoverse matrix. interesting notion this idea of essence without representation, am not sure this carries any semantic implications but its a nice thought.
                      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                      • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
                        11 months ago


                        which is why i don't think human beings would survive uploading in any (relatively) meaningful way, they would disintegrate, in the most literal sense of the word, and become agency-ness - this bag of skin and bones as a haphazard grouping function of agencies is what makes us interesting. a strong wind doesn't last a week, a hard rain a single day, if the universe cannot make things last, why do we attempt to? I can hear Ray Kurzweil singing 'I wanna live forever'.
                        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                  • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
                    11 months ago


                    "but the creation of avatars in H(_) can also be a hindrance to communication - yes, you're leaving 'your' body behind in M(_) but creating a new one in C(_), and with that can come the same pitfalls as M(_) has, namely, ego, popularity, gossip, etc."

                    when a person becomes a monk, they are taking the easy path to the destruction of ego. this is not to say monasteries are bad, just that they are expedients, and should be applied appropriately.

                    "i believe that avatars in H(_) would be highly valuable if our actions actually created and let grow our avatar. I am working on concepts similar to this type of system."

                    a meta-expression of identity, creating its brand - certainly another way around the problem, and also deals with the problem of sample size, interesting - I think I saw something on avatars being generated - something to do with identity actually, don't remember..

                    "i agree with you, Wildcat, if we took this polylogue and stripped it of its authors, completely, I do not think it would make so much of a difference. BUT at the same time I've entered a trust economy with some more than others, and am more willing to learn from one or the other. and THIS has spread beyond this polylogue."

                    paraphrasing:: it would not have an effect on THIS polylogue, but it would have an effect on our mental representation of point sources of cognition, increasing entropy rather than decreasing it (locally of course, no physics debates required), and decreasing overall 'value' in the system, as this representation allows us to allocate our attention, currently a fundamentally scarce resource
                    Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                • Phil Duby Phil Duby
                  11 months ago


                  I could engage in this conversation with a different symbol (user name) each post

                  I agree with Kurt on this.  That would detract from both comprehension and the amount of information.  What is lost is continuity.  The background of previous dialog that has built up trust and expectations.  That background provides the context for each future message from (identifiably) the same entity.  It is possible for each message to stand alone, but that would require including a lot of contextual information in every message, that is normally built up over time over multiple messages with the same entity.

                  For choice in disclosure of identity aspects, I believe it should be personal choice, and that it would have a tendency to expand over time, as trust is developed.

                  Re notthisbody, avatars, communication, pitfalls: How much impact having or changing avatars in C(_) effects the communication depends on how the various parties perceive the avatar. Whether the avatar is the person, or just the current 'suit' being worn by the real person.  This overlaps into / from M(_).  Some people have different 'personality' depending on what they are wearing (or choose what to wear depending on their mood).  Others change very little whether in ragged Tee and cutoffs, or dressed to the nines.

                  Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                  • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
                    11 months ago


                    well put
                    Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                  • Phil Duby Phil Duby
                    10 months ago


                    Re identity, privacy, disclosure: Found chi.mp reference in a twine bookmark. From the "about" page:

                    Manage Your Identity

                    Even though there is only one “you” – there are different versions of you – you might have “public you”, “family you”, “work you”, “crazy you”, “significant other you” and maybe “secret you”.

                    Your chi.mp site includes a granular privacy feature – Multiple Personas.  When developed, this feature will allow you to create multiple versions of you for different visitors when they are on your site.  You assign content and contacts to each Persona that you create – this allows you to control “who sees what”.  For example, people you don’t know see “public you”, your boss sees “work you”, your close friends might see “crazy you” and your family members see “family you”.

                    Create as many Personas as you need.  You control “who sees what”.

                    That covers well what I mean about choice of identity aspects disclosure.  There is only one "you", but what is shared with others varies by context and time.

                    The services is still invite only beta, but will keep an eye on it.

                    http://www.twine.com/item/11r8m7vy1-5w/chi-mp-content-hub-and-identity-management-platform

                    Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
                  11 months ago


                  "if you will maintain the same line of interest and same applicable intelligence though under different guises I think that meaning expression will be maintained and comprehension of the message will extend its integrity. a point comes to mind, do you think it matters on any level to a reader of this polylogue (who knows not who is Kurt or who is wildcat) who wrote what? if the stream of consciousness of said reader can maintain a line of meaningful symbolic representation the particular avatar+ nickname or name, of the speaker might lose relevance?"

                  For me the conjunction of 'nick-avatar-content aggregate' is a meaningful layer in the interaction. It expresses itself in more than one layers. Being a near neolithic (o.k, not quite, but near enough:) I probably still need to hang my impressions on something which evokes my feelings and sensations. So having a more or less stable pole is helping me form necessary attachments to the sustenance of interaction.
                  It also stimulates curiosity as to people's choice of nick and avatar, which I think is relevant in the multi-layered event of the interaction. I don't so much 'need to know' that which may or may not be contained in these factors, but it enriches my experience just sensing there is a story there.

                  As for the content aggregate, to me it seems a very relevant aspect to be able to associate a certain bit of interaction with previous or parallel ones (on different twines for example, or in other exchanges online, etc.). Its an enriching factor. It adds to complexity and I think it contributes to the level of intelligence activated within communication.

                  All of this can remain anonymous, in terms of associating it with a particular bio-person in M(_). But I guess what is being made clear to me while making this response is that anonymity is far more diverse than I thought to begin with.
                  Ultimate anonymity, including wiping clean the board in each instance of interaction, would be very inhospitable to communication in my view.
                  Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                  • notthisbody notthisbody
                    11 months ago


                    "anonymity is far more diverse than I thought to begin with.
                    Ultimate anonymity, including wiping clean the board in each instance of interaction, would be very inhospitable to communication in my view."

                    +1

                    I grok this. What I would love to see is the visualizations of this content aggregate, with beautiful and meaningful ways to interface with our own and others' personal Topos, wherein we can represent, in tele-sensual glory, the constant change of our infoverse - our extended info-person's recognizable shapes and forms in which we can choose the mechanics of our 'sight', how much we want to be seen and how much we choose to see
                    Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                    • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
                      11 months ago


                      both of you reflect an impression I have that human beings do need to believe there is a warm body on the other side of the network connection - that the controlled randomness that is a human mind is intrinsically enjoyable to us, in a way that mere information is not. there is an order there that is changing, living; and engaging with it we can come to know it, to see its beauty, to merge with it in the way that a husband and wife get things done without assigning tasks.
                      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                      • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
                        11 months ago


                        Kurt, if your 'both of you' includes the ideas I expressed on the subject, let me make some distinctions.
                        ... now, does it matter that I weave a line of continuity from a reference in previous comment to your possible reference of it, to it being a representation of some "meta-me"? Probably not, but does it contribute to the facilitation on one hand and enrichment on the other of this nook of the polylogue? I think yes. It creates for one, denser information clusters around the node called in this case Fast T Friend. The denser the information, the 'better' the flow of hyperconnectivity (to put it simply).

                        Now, having said that, I will address the point you raise. I doubt that there is a strong connection to a belief in "a warm body on the other side of the network connection". In saying - I probably still need to hang my impressions on something which evokes my feelings and sensations - I refer mostly to a coordinate which aggregates information within fuzzy yet semi-stable state. Such that resembles (but improves upon) a representation of an intelligent partner for communication.

                        I'd like to distinct here between the habit of associating the coordinates with a bio-person (which I think we shall collectively grow out of in time) and having a "stable" recurring identity, such as a nick-avatar. The point I make in relation to the latest concerns above all the factor of aggregation in some sort of continuity. In these regards, I think ultimate anonymity, as I mentioned before, doesn't serve our best interest.

                        There is much more to say on this, I find it a fascinating line of interest. I for one would love to partake in an entanglement with other than old fashioned 'husbands and wives' in which collaboration will supersede getting things done without assigning tasks... :-)
                        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                        • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
                          11 months ago


                          "collaboration will supersede getting things done without assigning tasks... :-) "

                          I call this *net

                          "old fashioned 'husbands and wives'"
                          an example only, to be sure

                          "'d like to distinct here between the habit of associating the coordinates with a bio-person (which I think we shall collectively grow out of in time) and having a "stable" recurring identity, such as a nick-avatar"

                          I am having difficulty seeing how I would manage multiple identities in one context from one bioperson without having multiple personality disorder. it may be entertaining to do so if one had that sort of time, but to do it seriously for serious reasons begs the question of why have multiple identities in a given context? (I can think of some, like gaming voting systems and manipulating rating systems etc). 'I' as one bioperson will interact in different contexts differently (pointing to starwalker's context centric point earlier) and perhaps contexts are more important structures than bio-persons for the next stage.

                          Going in the other direction, one which starfish have been discussing (conjugation intentional) - if a conversation occurs with one avatar playing both sides either the avatar is mentally ill or two bio persons will be parsed out of it. My comment on webferret is a subtler one, I have seen several modes of communication from webferret which I have joked point to webferret being more than one person, but of course this may well simply be a heightened context sensitivity of webferret versus other bio persons that makes it appear to me that these are more than one person.

                          Is there in fact a benefit to having a level of representation above a bio person grouping biopersons - well of course, currently it is called variably, a company, an organization, a community etc etc. Generally speaking these groups of biopersons are formed either to strengthen a signal or to compensate for a partial signal (blend the strengths, complementary competencies etc). All of these structures are artificially fixed in my mind and rules allowing for fluidity of such constructs are sorely needed.

                          In some interactions multiple parties acting through the same representation are clearly useful. This is especially relevant when we deal with the time dimension if it is highly important. My trader friend doesn't go for a shit without having someone cover his positions while he is gone, acting for the rest of the world as 'him', and providing a reasonable substitute (similar training etc). In other cases the competencies may be complementary in an environment of fast context switching (a criminal answering questions is interrupted by his lawyer if something prejudicial is about to be said or a dangerous question asked).
                          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                          • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
                            11 months ago


                            Maybe Webferret is just unstable--M.P.D. bipolar, etc...he DOES have a rather sinister-looking glare...

                            (jk WF, no need to lock up my server with webbots)
                            Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                          • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
                            11 months ago


                            "Is there in fact a benefit to having a level of representation above a bio person grouping biopersons"?

                            At present I treat this option as an open place holder. There isn't yet a pragmatic context in which it is imperative, but I think such amalgam of intelligence will prove interesting. I know it will certainly be interesting for me to immerse with 'other than me', and be able to manifest, articulate, express, create, via such agency. Thus I wouldn't want to put it to measure with what we currently know or deem relevant or useful, nor to adhere to previous 'groupings' as the rule.
                            Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                            • wildcat wildcat
                              11 months ago


                              " I know it will certainly be interesting for me to immerse with 'other than me', and be able to manifest, articulate, express, create, via such agency." +1

                              fascinating take. can you elaborate on this? how do you see this immersion still allowing for the level of individuation we know at present?
                              Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                              • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
                                11 months ago


                                "how do you see this immersion still allowing for the level of individuation we know at present? "

                                Excellent question. I think the question we should ask first is What is individuation? What is it composed of? Is our present conception of Individuation devoid of entwining with others? And most to the point: how is the procedure of individuation incorporating 'other then me'?

                                If the idea of individuation is solely based on an innate association of the concept 'individual' with a single bio-person, then by definition this 'individual' is lacking individuation to my mind. I begin with the thought that individuation is a procedure endowed by heightened conscious awareness, and I see no inherent contradiction of such heightened conscious awareness with immersion.
                                Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                                • wildcat wildcat
                                  11 months ago


                                  "If the idea of individuation is solely based on an innate association of the concept 'individual' with a single bio-person, then by definition this 'individual' is lacking individuation to my mind"

                                  Thats a mysterious statement, FTF, isnt it the case that the very meaning of the term individual is accepted to correlate to a single bioperson? isnt this the very cornerstone of our 'belief' in personal agency?
                                  do you mean to say that an individual is an emergent phenomenon/a of a multiplicity? of biopersons? of society? of culture? (in M(_)? in C(_)?) in both?
                                  I think I can agree to some of this if the direction you imply by immersion is one of a parallel future reality (I mean parallel to the individual) in which some of our conscious realities will be immersed yet others will remain private, if however you mean that individuality will dissolve into an immersion state of multiple persons then I need more explications.
                                  Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                                  • Phil Duby Phil Duby
                                    11 months ago


                                    "isnt it the case that the very meaning of the term individual is accepted to correlate to a single bioperson"

                                    How about changing "bioperson" to something more generic.  Like "set of [more or less] consistent interface / interaction patterns".  This will then get back into levels and dimensions of connexions, and allow for non bioperson individuals.  At various levels, we already do this in M(_).  A business, corporation, government [department] can each be treated as distinct individuals, separate from the people in them.  The same is true to varying degrees of other groupings: clubs, societies, twines, families, households.  Having a 'relationship' with a grouped entity does not preclude separate relationships with the group members, but it CAN 'flavour' each of the relationships.

                                    An entity [for purposes of connexion and dialog] does not need to a single [bio] person.

                                    Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                                    • wildcat wildcat
                                      11 months ago


                                      in general I agree, the generic term I use is "topos" (as in polytopia) which fits snugly with your :""set of [more or less] consistent interface / interaction patterns", however I do think that for the time being and for the foreseeable future, we still need to maintain a certain distinction, at least for non casual talk, between the bioP and the entity this mind becomes .
                                      having said that I definitely agree that an "entity" is a good term. lets try and see how this works out. the trouble of course will start when we will need apply the same term for robots, androids, AI, hybrids and such, what will be the differentiating factor?
                                      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                                      • Phil Duby Phil Duby
                                        11 months ago


                                        I picked entity while thinking about AI as well as bio groups.  I had not encountered topos previously, but the wikipedia 'summary' paragraph does match well.

                                        "for the time being and for the foreseeable future, we still need to maintain a certain distinction, at least for non casual talk, between the bioP and the entity this mind becomes" agreed. Just did not want to limit to that.

                                        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                                  • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
                                    11 months ago


                                    @wildcat, well, not so much a mystery, as perhaps requiring clarification on my behalf. When applying the term Individual, I tend to regard it with somewhat more than the indication of a single bodied life form. I take 'individual' as a pointer of a distinction embedded with character, so to speak. Hence, individuation I take to be a procedure in and by which a 'unit' coheres and enriches itself with character.

                                    Individuation in this style of thinking requires 'knowing oneself' and knowing at large. It is, to my understanding an ongoing dynamic event that involves interaction. In M(_) as in C(_), though the means and allowances differ in these two.

                                    Back to immersion, it is my notion here that one such exciting allowance would be to experience life with, within, through (and more relation words we currently may not yet have) another and others.
                                    Not as a permanent state of affairs, yet as a substantial experience that I see as possibly deeply changing our perception and the reach of our comprehension as individuals.
                                    Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

                      • starwalker starwalker
                        11 months ago


                        "the controlled randomness that is a human mind is intrinsically enjoyable to us, in a way that mere information is not" ++1
                        very much like the description, believe much there is to say on the subject. strongly correlated in my eyes to the growth and expansion of our cognition. Indeed i believe that human thought and its most rich branching - learning, realizing, creating, insighting.. - whether emerging in clear aloness or in physical entanglement, does somehow engage with this order that is "changing, living" which is the mind of a one. coming to see the beauty of controlled randomness..
                        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

              • Phil Duby Phil Duby
                11 months ago


                Recent related article (privacy, identity)
                http://www.twine.com/item/11yzzprc3-s0/privacy-issues-avoiding-becoming-a-victim-of-online-crime
                Especially the part about "partial identities".
                Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • starwalker starwalker
      12 months ago


      good is the word, rpfiii i agree..working on the haircut;-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5HRzaOFhec
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • . .•∞º˙ . .•∞º˙
      12 months ago


      lol
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
      12 months ago


      wildcat, very big questions here, invoking thought and many feelings.
      you ask: Can we now create a new concurrence? are we capable of defining the new contract of FH(_), the principles?

      my first response may seem as a step back, yet, i find that it is a necessary one for me to relate to the above (as well as the many polylogues under this twine).
      Is such concurrence altogether new to us? is the capability that different? at times i feel that many of the aspects depicted in these polylogues reflect what we are and have been - minds free to form and reform in a fluid hyperconnected fashion; and when i am so inclined to think, it seems to me that C(_) at large appears so different then M(_) in being an ecology that makes an allowance that otherwise may be more thinly apparent to us.
      Will this ecology further change us? I strongly believe so. Will it in time change us beyond the capabilities now mostly exceptional or none existant to humans? probably so.

      We are used for example to a sense of continuity composed around an axis that correlates to an aggregation of experience accessible via our bioperson senses. this creates an emphasize that overshadows other experiences. But we are already sustaining a hyperconnected reality, we are simply mostly existing in an ecology that rates the axis of M(_) continuity as extra valid.
      We are alredy transcending bio-gener, bio-age, etc. in many instances of our interactions, but our reflective environment seems to keep these distinctions at our immediate attention.
      Taking these lines, i think we are capable of forming a habitat in which relevant contracts will take residence. I am of the view that such contracts will emerge, since they are already and will further be aparent to fit better the more free style of being and interacting that is enabled in our new ecology.
      That said, i'm not saying it isn't relevant to discuss these principles, as such discussion does bring about greater resolution of our changing realities and it stretches our mental and emotional boundaries.
      Yet I trust that with the increase of intelligence and positive feedback of greater freedom to explore that intelligence, the new contracts will be shaped and reshaped in accordance.
      I guess i'm saying we are to great extent at liberty already. umm.. i like that thought:)
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
        11 months ago


        "capable of forming a habitat in which relevant contracts will take residence" this in fact is the most important project

        "C(_) at large appears so different .. being an ecology that makes .. allowance[s for capacities] that otherwise may be more thinly apparent to us" ... "I am of the view that such contracts will emerge, since they are [there] already and will [become more] apparent"

        yes.

        The inter-mediated relationship makes us aware of new 'senses' new ways to experience the world through other minds - this clunky thing called the internet is just the beginning of that expansion of consciousness.

        When you work out, you stress muscles to make them stronger and more resilient, but of course we are not working out for the sake of working out, the usefulness of those muscles will (dis?)prove itself through time. We are building capacities here, that we hope will be effective, no more.

        We must be aware of the possibility that these are not capacities we are building as well;

        All my life I mended and patched the bucket
        when all at once the bottom fell out
        no water in the bucket!
        no moon in the water!
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
      11 months ago


      Kurt, please explain: "We must be aware of the possibility that these are not capacities we are building as well".
      btw, i train with falling bottoms, recognizing that it is indeed the reality of all my buckets... :)
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
        11 months ago


        you take the one, you lose the many - any capacity can also be a limitation - it is important to consider all capacities according to their expedience, and be very aware of how they limit us (are not capacities)

        in learning, every day we pick something up
        in enlightenment, every day we put something down

        "i train with falling bottoms"

        this is a wonderful turn of phrase, I shall file it and hope for an opportunity to use it.
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
      11 months ago


      Well, there is a co-influence in the matter of capacities building. Our muscles exercise in certain correlation to the tasks they perform and the conditions within which they operate. Similarly, I think other capacities we develop emerge in correlation to the variety of ecology's requirements within which they rise. While you may be right in "you take the one, you lose the many" on the local perspective, on the whole I think we can agree that evolution is emergent in nature, no? meaning, in this context, that capacities are more flow-like then local and finite arrangements.

      Oh, and as to "this is a wonderful turn of phrase, I shall file it and hope for an opportunity to use it.", the Genie is always thrilled to oblige :-)
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • morningstar morningstar
      11 months ago


      Hello to all :-),
      Am relatively new to twine and have been exploring. Found out only few days ago that there was a whole line of commentaries that make this twine alive, so have been reading up and have enjoyed a recursive plunge retracing the genesis of all the comments in the pleasure of continuous discovery:) this in itself is a possibility offered by HC(_).
      it’ll probably take a few entries to bring up the several threads that reading the ongoing polylogue has triggered regarding FH(_) and FM(_) interaction , mutuality between M(_) and C(_), trust, direction etc.

      Taking start from your words Wildcat, will try to dive in at the deep end… It is true to my experience both in M(_) and C(_) that
      “Minds desire to connect with minds, minds desire to extend their realities into the grid, minds emote (take pleasure) and feel on the hyperconnected multidimensional infoscape”.
      What seems to facilitate the interconnection and create that sense of connectivity that is other, and yet so real, is the collapse of a series of constructs and infrastructures that have, up to now, built up in the M(_) all sorts of obstacles and impediments to the possibility of “increase in combined interactive intelligence”. In a sense what we seem to have reached is the end, or the beginning of the end, of Proxemics (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxemics) as humans have known it - we can term it as M(_)P - and the birth of something that we can call Prox-semics H(_)Ps, in which minds relate to minds from within a continuously forming descriptive playground, beyond what one looks like, genders, security distance, and all sorts of messages that the biological person in M(_) may or may not convey and actually be entangled in. FH(_) stems a sort of virtual intimacy and vicinity, which becomes real and creates a new allowance, by the sole sharing of words, thoughts, meanings, semantics, in a nonphysical context, in which the non tangible (semantic) medium becomes the context and the medium itself. In between is the evolving emoting mind. This is where E(_), introduced by notthisbody, becomes relevant and can allow bridging back and forth between M(_) and H(_), while a new platform of H(_)Ps, which may gradually even become independent of M(_), continues to build up, through FH(_), and re-enforce itself as a trampoline extended towards coming futures. It seems to me as mind/s building itself a new meta-semic-infrastructure of sorts: ie. meta-concurrence.

      So when Wildact you ask: “Can we now create a new concurrence? are we capable of defining the new contract of FH(_), the principles?” I think that this intimacy generated by Prox-semics, where the boundaries between minds and, by extension, between biopersons, are abolished, and there is space for merging and further emergence of something new, can definitely become an aspect of the principles for a new contract of FH(_). Would you agree?

      I like very much your response to a beautiful entry of Starwalker’s, when you say:
      “there are many ways to understand the concurrence I am talking about, chief amongst which , to my eyes, is a meta-concurrence; an agreement of allowance on a multidimensional basis, which will permit, multiple and simultaneous interpretations of a given set of info/data. this will allow in turn the set of all possible interpretations to be as real as possible (within the confines of the meta-concurrence). given this fuzzy phase space of all possible interpretations having a legitimacy (inherent and irrevocable), we could state that the main goal of such a meta-concurrence as I envision, is the betterment of all human interactions for the purpose of increase in combined interactive intelligence, the results of which are fundamentally an increase in freedoms and liberty, themselves resulting in increased well-being for all”.
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
        11 months ago


        "is the collapse of a series of constructs and infrastructures that have, up to now, built up in the M(_) all sorts of obstacles and impediments to the possibility of “increase in combined interactive intelligence”."

        this is our opportunity, a considerable one in my mind.

        "in which the non tangible (semantic) medium becomes the context and the medium itself." hmm very nicely put
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • wildcat wildcat
        11 months ago


        Hi morningstar, welcome to the club, and first thank you for an interesting post and also for calling our attention to the proxemics page on wikipedia, I wasn't aware of this.
        "FH(_) stems a sort of virtual intimacy and vicinity, which becomes real and creates a new allowance, by the sole sharing of words, thoughts, meanings, semantics, in a nonphysical context, in which the non tangible (semantic) medium becomes the context and the medium itself" +1

        that is the very real opportunity of FH(_), from which stems the need for said meta-concurrence, and of course not only do I agree that we are witnessing something new, fresh and in a sense, still mind boggling, I sincerely believe that our future depends on how good we will be in creating this meta concurrence. there are many issues involved but for starters I think that the main issue at play at present is the manner by which our minds translate "ambient intimacy", I think that the very fact that we as minds have this ability to perceive a narrative in a written context that implies a much larger reality and much subtler at that, says a lot about our developing ability to emote via the grid.
        I concur with Kurt about this:
        " the non tangible (semantic) medium becomes the context and the medium itself." +1
        very well put indeed! and since to my mind what we do on the net is a direct extension of our semantic consciousness, I see the medium and context as the modern day action of meaning continuation. if we accept that consciousness is not something that 'is', but something that we 'do' (or something that our brains do), then by implication our actions on the net are a direct continuation of our meaningful existence.
        FH(_) is really a breakthrough in human cognition that I think at present is very nearly missing from the ongoing investigation of the world-net and its implication for the future evolution of humankind.
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • morningstar morningstar
      11 months ago


      Hi wildcat,
      hi Kurt,
      am taking the cue for diving in again:) and first of all thank you for the beautiful response and for the welcome
      … agreed that FH(_) is a considerable and real opportunity that we humans have come to and can explore, I think that not only this epoch opens to a flourishing, motion similar in richness and fertility to the one witnessed during the renaissance, but that it’s billowing in all directions. The gap between the thinking and the happening is quite short and condensed, as one can imagine to occur in a non tangible context and medium, yet at the same time there is still a certain amount of plasticity and elasticity, present and demanded, a space for interface, though transparent it may be

      @wildcat :“our future depends on how good we will be in creating this meta concurrence” +1

      we, or at least i don’t know yet how we can do this, but there is also a need of creating an awareness to this, giving rise to questions like to what extent, who participates, both in C(_) and M(_) or only-only, etc…. The effects of FH(_) in C(_) can, I believe, be transduced back into M(_) thus concurring to further removal of excess baggage, as tackled in the posts above, possibly generating a virtuous circle sort of effect. Thinking of the possible effects of this in terms of mutuality between M(_) and C(_), was also asking myself, and it can be debated, if a state of mind expedited in C(_) can be transduced into and become effective in M(_). I think yes, but then also that, for as long as it lasts, needs be linked in the meta concurrence, in the new contract of FH(_).

      Would like to hear more on the issue of “ambient intimacy” and the way mind translates it…. Our ability to emote via the grid is connected in my mind to connexion, to direct plug-in (ie.openness), availability, and pleasure of interaction, with and without bodily interface. It’s like: mind speaking to itself and getting surprise answers:) increasing synapsing and also interplay between C(_) and M(_), where pleasure, as Starwalker put it in another post, is FELT, (… a zooming beam of connexion between planes:), for it to be real there needs to be communication…

      “if we accept that consciousness is not something that 'is', but something that we 'do' (or something that our brains do), then by implication our actions on the net are a direct continuation of our meaningful existence.” - this I really never thought of and has got me pondering – ‘do’ in the sense of creating or designing or what?

      “FH(_) is really a breakthrough in human cognition that I think at present is very nearly missing from the ongoing investigation of the world-net and its implication for the future evolution of humankind.” 1++

      Has gotten a bit too long for the etiquette, so am stopping for now
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

      • Kurt Laitner Kurt Laitner
        11 months ago


        "if a state of mind expedited in C(_) can be transduced into and become effective in M(_)"

        hmm this is almost a topic in itself - anybody ever immersed themselves in computer game worlds then walked outside and experienced a weird sort of perceptual shift, as though the world were more yet less solid than before? - this question really drills to the core of consciousness and the processing of external stimulus with or without internal representations - there is no reason a C() representation cannot be applied in M() but another question is should any representations be being applied in M(), which for the time being we are still experiencing as a platform for C() until we upload ourselves.. :-)

        "It’s like: mind speaking to itself and getting surprise answers:)"
        wonnnnnnderful - online conversation is similar in many ways to internal dialogue, but much more fun due to the random surprise factor

        there's etiquette for post length? who knew?
        Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • wildcat wildcat
          11 months ago


          started playing spore..... the external stimuli disappeared.. ;-)
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • Phil Duby Phil Duby
          11 months ago


          Don't play demolition derby games, then head for the freeway. =P
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

        • morningstar morningstar
          11 months ago


          “there is no reason a C() representation cannot be applied in M() but another question is should any representations be being applied in M(), which for the time being we are still experiencing as a platform for C() until we upload ourselves.. :-)”

          it can probably be thought of as part of the flux of interconnectedness, occurring during a phase of transition such as the one we are experiencing in and at the moment. a moment that is very fertile and can generate overflow and interchange in languaging, perception and interrelation in the mutuality of C(_) and M(_) itself. For example, to give a very simple example, a bit like what happened with the use of text messaging on mobile phones which created a new zip-code in itself: WHT R U UP 2?:) that then transposed into other forms of communication.
          Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • wildcat wildcat
      11 months ago


      BTW folks, I have noticed that this FH twine is up for best twine vote.. so?
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • Fast T Friend Fast T Friend
      11 months ago


      my vote for this twine has already been placed !:-)
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • notthisbody notthisbody
      11 months ago


      my vote's been made, too.
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)

    • Martin Petrov Martin Petrov
      11 months ago


      mine too
      Friendship in Hyperconnectivity - FH(_)
    Add a Comment
Report This

Twine is about discovering, collecting and sharing the content that interests you. Learn More

Join Twine

Stats

First Posted By

wildcat

First Comment By

notthisbody

Tags

Community Tags

Who's Interested In This?

Forgot your password?