TEORIE, SISTEM, IPOTEZA?

...cate inteligente chiar nemediocre raman astazi inchise ideii de evolutie. Evolutia, pentru multi oameni, nu este decat Transformismul, iar Transformismul insusi nu este decat o veche ipoteza darwinista, la fel de locala si caduca precum conceptia laplaciana a sistemului solar sau deriva wegeneriana a continentelor. - Orbi, cu adevarat, nesesizand amploarea unei miscari pe orbita, depasind infinit Stiintele Naturale, castigand si invadand in jurul lor, Chimia, Fizica, Sociologia si chiar Matematica si Istoria Religiilor. Una dupa alta, toate domeniile cunoasterii umane se zguduie, antrenate laolalta de acelasi curent de fond spre studiul unei anumite dezvoltari. Evolutia, o teorie, un sistem, o ipoteza?... Nu numai atat, ci mult mai mult, o conditie generala careie trebuie sa i se plece si s-o slujeasca de acum incolo, pentru a fi adevarate si pentru a putea fi gandite pana la capat, toate teoriile, toate ipotezele, toate sistemele. O lumina invaluind toate faptele, o curbura care trebuie sa insoteasca toate trasaturile: iata ce este Evolutia.Pierre Teilhard de Chardin - Fenomenul uman

THE NEW ENLIGHTENMENT OR THE PANCAKE PEOPLE/ NOUL ILUMINISM SAU OAMENII PLACINTA

But today, I see within us all (myself included) the replacement of complex inner density with a new kind of self-evolving under the pressure of information overload and the technology of the "instantly available". A new self that needs to contain less and less of an inner repertory of dense cultural inheritance—as we all become "pancake people"—spread wide and thin as we connect with that vast network of information accessed by the mere touch of a button.
Will this produce a new kind of enlightenment or "super-consciousness"? Sometimes I am seduced by those proclaiming so—and sometimes I shrink back in horror at a world that seems to have lost the thick and multi-textured density of deeply evolved personality.
***
Operating systems make it easier for human beings to operate computers. They also make it easier for computers to operate human beings. (Resulting in Richard Foreman's "pancake effect.") These views are complementary, just as the replication of genes helps reproduce organisms, while the reproduction of organisms helps replicate genes. Same with search engines. Google allows people with questions to find answers. More importantly, it allows answers to find questions. From the point of view of the network, that's what counts. For obvious reasons, Google avoids the word "operating system." But if you are ever wondering what an operating system for the global computer might look like (or a true AI) a primitive but fully metazoan system like Google is the place to start.
***
The Gods evokes a world now inhabited by what Foreman calls "pancake people." These are "people who are 'thin,' because instead of including all the history of Western knowledge inside our heads, and shaping a vertical castle out of that knowledge, we have it all at our fingertips with computers, and we don't have to keep it inside of ourselves. By following all these bits of information we become spread horizontally, like pancake people."
***
As Richard Foreman so beautifully describes it, we've been pounded into instantly-available pancakes, becoming the unpredictable but statistically critical synapses in the whole Gödel-to-Google net. Does the resulting mind (as Richardson would have it) belong to us? Or does it belong to something else?
-----------------
Dar azi, vad in fiecare dintre noi (in mine inclusiv) substituirea acelei densitati interioare complexe cu o noua forma, sub presiunea bombardamentului informational si tehnologiei "informatiei la discretie". O noua forma de personalitate, un nou ego care necesita din ce in ce mai putin un repertoriu interior, mostenit cultural. In felul acesta devenim cu totii "oameni-placinta", largi si subtiri pe masura ce ne conectam la aceasta retea vasta de informatie accesata printr-o simpla apasare de buton.Va conduce asta la aparitia unei forme noi de iluminism, o superconstiinta? Cateodata ma simt sedus de cei care sustin aceasta idee, iar cateodata ma retrag in mine cu teama la ideea unei lumi care pare ca si-a pierdut cultul unei personatitati multi-fatetate si profunde.
***
Sistemele de operare ii permit omului sa opereze cu o mai mare usurinta calculatorele. In acelasi timp sistemele de operare permit si computerelor sa opereze fiintele umane. Aceste puncte de vedere sunt complementare. In aceeasi maniera in care replicarea genelor ajuta la reproducerea organismelor, in timp ce reproducerea organismelor ajuta la replicarea genelor. Acelasi lucru se poate spune si despre motoarele de cautare. Google permite oamenilor care poseda intrebari sa gaseasca raspunsuri. Mai mult, acesta permite respunsurilor sa-si gaseasca intrebarile corespunzatoare. Din punctul de vedere al retelei, asta e tot ce conteaza. Din motive lesne de inteles, Google evita expresia "sistem de operare". Cu toate acestea, daca te-ai intrebat vreodata cum ar arata un sistem de operare pentru Computerul Global (sau cu alte cuvinte o veritabila Inteligenta Artificiala), atunci un sistem primitiv cum este Google ar putea constitui un punct de plecare.--->"Tot ceea ce ii permite omului sa opereze retelele de calculatoare, in acelasi timp ii permite retelei sa controleze fiinta umana" (George B. Dyson - "Darwin printre masini").
***
"The Gods" evoca o lume de acum locuita de ceea ce Foreman numeste "oamenii-placinta". Acesti oameni sunt "subtiri" deoarece in loc sa-si imprime in creier intregul volum de cunostinte propriu Culturii occidentale, construind in felul acesta o structura verticala pe baza acestor cunostinte, ei au totul la dispozitie prin simpla atingere de buton a unui calculator. Ei nu sunt nevoiti sa memoreze toate aceste cunostinte. Prin setea de biti, acesti oameni se dezvolta pe orizontala, asemenea unei placinte, devenind astfel "oameni-placinta".
***
Dupa cum spune Richard Foreman, am fost inţărcaţi cu "placinte" aflate la discretie, am devenit sinapsele imprevizibile dar indispensabile ale retelei Godel-Google. Oare Mintea rezultanta ne apartine noua sa nu? Sau poate apartine altcuiva?

WILLIAM CALVIN'S MENTAL DARWINISM/ DARWINISMUL MENTAL AL LUI WILLIAM CALVIN

1) A DARWINIAN PROCESS IN THE BRAIN FINDS THE BEST THOUGHT FROM THE MANY THAT ARE PRODUCED CONTINUOUSLY
2) THOUGHTS EVOLVE SUBCONSCIOUSLY
3) DREAMING OCCURS ALL THE TIME BUT WE CAN’T SEE THEM WHEN WE ARE AWAKE
4) THOUGHTS ARE MOVEMENTS THAT HAVEN’T HAPPENED YET
5) THOUGHT ARISES FROM THE COPYING AND COMPETITION OF CEREBRAL CODES
6) OUR ACTUAL THOUGHT IS SIMPLY THE DOMINANT PATTERN IN THE COPYING COMPETITION
7) CIRCUITS IN THE CEREBRAL CORTEX ACT AS COPYING MACHINES; VARIANTS COMPETE FOR CORTEX SPACE
-------------------
1) UN PROCES DE NATURA DARWINIANA CARE ARE LOC IN CREIER SELECTEAZA CEL MAI POTRIVIT GAND DIN MULTITUDINEA DE GANDURI CARE ESTE ELABORATA CONTINUU
2) GANDURILE EVOLUEAZA LA NIVEL SUBCONSTIENT
3) VISELE AU LOC TOT TIMPUL, DAR NOI NU LE VEDEM ATAT TIMP CAT SUNTEM TREJI
4) GANDURILE SUNT MISCARI CARE NU AU AVUT LOC INCA
5) GANDURILE SE NASC IN URMA COPIERII (REPLICARII) CODURILOR CEREBRALE, PRECUM SI IN URMA COMPETITIEI DINTRE ACESTEA
6) GANDUL NOSTRU CONSTIENT ESTE PUR SI SIMPLU TIPARUL DOMINANT REZULTAT IN URMA COMPETITIEI TUTUROR GANDURILOR
7) CIRCUITELE DE LA NIVELUL CORTEXULUI CEREBRAL SE COMPORTA ASEMENEA UNOR MECANISME DE COPIERE (REPLICARE); VARIANTELE CONCUREAZA PENTRU SPATIUL CORTICAL

WHICH CAME FIRST, THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG?/ CARE A FOST PRIMA DATA, OUL SAU GAINA?

"A strange idea was pecking at his brain like a chicken in the egg, and very, very much absorbed him."(Raskolnikov)
Most people who ask themselves the question "which came first, the chicken or the egg", find themselves, I believe, in a logical error, or what Henry Bergson would say, a pseudo-problem. The logical error consist in beliveing that the chicken and the egg are two separate and distinct organisms, which they are not. They are part of the same organism, they ARE the same organism, although they are separated in time and space, at least temporarily. The chicken and the egg are part of the same life cicle. To ask which came first, the chicken or the egg is the same as asking which came first, me or my liver. The egg can be viewed as another organ of the chicken, although separated from it at some extent. I know that this explanation is counterintuitive, which eplains why this error is so common.
-----------
Majoritatea celor care ajung sa-si puna intrebarea "care a fost prima data, oul sau gaina?", sunt victima unei erori logice sau, cum ar spune Henri Bergson, o "falsa problema". Eroarea logica consta in a crede ca oul si gaina sunt doua organisme separate, distincte, ceea ce nu este adevarat. Oul si gaina sunt doua parti ale unuia si aceluiasi organism. De fapt SUNT acelasi organism, in ciuda faptului ca par separati in timp si spatiu. Oul si gaina sunt doua stadii ale aceluiasi ciclu de viata. A intreba care a fost prima data, oul sau gaina, este acelasi lucru cu a intreba "cine a fost prima data, eu sau ficatul meu?" Oul poate fi interpretat ca fiind nimic altceva decat un simplu organ al gainii, desi el apare separat de aceasta. Stiu ca aceasta explicatie este foarte putin intuitiva, fapt ce explica frecventa acestei erori.

ANIMALUL POLITIC

NO COMMENT

HAVE DAILY CONVERSANTIONS WITH GAIA / VORBESTE IN FIECARE ZI CU GAIA

From time to time I have read scholarly speculations about the birth of the ego. One school of thought on this subject is that, until around the time of the Greek poet Homer, when men and women heard a little voice in their head they thought they were hearing the voice of the gods speaking directly to them. Eventually, some hypothesize, it was recognized that this little voice was actually the human ego and not the gods speaking directly to us. Perhaps it is time to reconsider the source of those little voices. Perhaps our ancient ancestors actually did hear voices other than their own.

During this past year, I have paid more attention to the source of some of my thoughts. In doing so, I have come to the realization that more and more of my thinking has to do with this planet, her ecology, and the biosphere as a whole. My Western-trained mind, of course, notes that these thoughts obviously come from somewhere in the depths of my psyche, that my subconscious has deemed it time to bring these thoughts to the surface of my mind. Yet I cannot help thinking that perhaps, just perhaps, it is Gaia's voice I am hearing. Is it possible, I wonder, that humankind became so enamoured of this thing we call the ego that we lost our awareness that there are other entities who still communicate with us in some non-verbal ways? Shamans claim to have the ability to communicate with non-human entities. Why shouldn't everyone be able to use this facility, I ask myself?

Now I approach these questions from a different point of view. To satisfy my Western mind, I allow for the possibility that these thoughts of deep ecology that seem to spring forth unbidden are simply evidence of my own consciousness becoming more aware of the world in which it finds itself. To satisfy my soul, I like to think that Gaia is speaking directly to me. So, when I see a little shard of glass while walking on the beach, it isn't my conscience telling me to pick it up, it is Gaia, herself. For me, the message has more meaning if I think of it in this way. In the end it really does not matter where these thoughts are coming from, as long as I heed them.
www.matrixmasters.com
-------------------
Din cand in cand am citit speculatii academice despre nasterea ego-ului, a sinelui. O anumita scoala de gandire sustine ca in perioada marelui poet grec Homer, cand barbatul si femeia obisnuiau sa auda o voce discreta in minte, credea ca aud vocea zeilor vorbindu-le personal. In cele din urma, cred unii, s-a ajuns la concluzia ca aceasta voce discreta era de fapt ego-ul uman, si nu vocea zeilor. Poate ca este timpul sa revizuim parerea noastra despre sursa adevarata a acelor voci. Poate ca stramosii nostri auzeau intr-adevar in mintea lor voci care nu le apartineau.

Pe parcursul acestui an am acordat o mai mare atentie asupra provenientei unora dintre propriile mele ganduri. Astfel am ajuns sa realizez ca gandirea mea are din ce in ce mai mult de-a face cu aceasta planeta, ecologia acesteia, precum si cu biosfera ca un intreg. Formatia mea de tip occidental este convinsa desigur ca aceste ganduri provin de undeva din profunzimile psihicului meu, ca subconstientul meu a considerat de cuviinta sa scoata aceste ganduri la suprafata. Cu toate acestea nu-mi pot refuza sa nu ma gandesc la posibilitatea, oricat de implauzibila, ca aceste ganduri, aceste "voci" sa fie in realitate vocea zeitei Gaia. Ma intreb daca nu cumva este posibil ca omenirea sa se fi indragostit atat de mult de acest "obiect" numit "ego", "sine" incat sa fi pierdut intuitia in existenta si a altor entitati capabile sa comunice cu noi poate la modul non-verbal. Samanii pretind ca au abilitatea de a comunica cu entitati non-umane. Ma intreb oare de ce nu am avea cu totii aceasta abilitate?

Acum abordez problema cu totul altcumva. Pentru a-mi satisface gandirea de sorginte vestica, imi permit sa cred in posibiliatea ca aceste ganduri ce tin de "ecologie profunda" care par sa rasara aparent fara piedica sunt pur si simplu dovezi ale propriei mele constiinte devenite... constiente de lumea in care exista. Pentru a-mi satisface sufletul, imi place sa cred faptul ca Gaia imi vorbeste direct mie. Deci, in momentul in care vad un ciob de sticla in timp ce ma plimb pe plaja, nu propria mea constiinta imi spune sa o ridic de jos, ci Gaia insasi. Pentru mine mesajul are mai multa semnificatie daca il privesc astfel. In ultima instanta, nu este important de unde vin aceste ganduri, atata timp cat le dau atentie.

NO COMMENT