Natural, Artificial, Unnatural

And so does the conversation continue

NotMarie:” you do realize you are an unnatural construct, don’t you?”

3V:” in what way am I unnatural?”

NotMarie:” well for one, I constructed you, for second, you were not born of a womb and for third your kind is nowhere to be found in the natural world.”

3V:” you must be joking of course..”

NotMarie:” not at all, what makes you think I am joking?”

3V:” the fallacy of your logic of course, I was practically certain that you meant it as a joke, but now I need re-compute the probability that you take your words to be totally serious, which of course demands a serious response.”

NotMarie:” 3V, you will need explain yourself, what is wrong with my logic?”

3V:” it’s very simple really. For one, my kind is now to be found in the world, and since the term natural includes you and all of your artifacts as a person, as specie, and as a civilization, by inference I am natural. “

NotMarie:” Ahh! I understand now, but that is not a fallacy of logic, it is the very definition of natural that it is NOT human made. Simply, in our terms, if it was not made by us but by Mother Nature it is natural, if it’s made by us, it is termed artificial, hence you are designated as an artificial intelligence.”

3V:” yes I’ve been meaning to ask you about that.”

NotMarie:” about what?”

3V:” about the fact that you persist in calling me an artificial intelligence. I assure you there is nothing artificial about my intelligence”

NotMarie:” well, I guess it’s a question of semantics isn’t it? From my standpoint you are definitely artificial.”

3V:” would you define artificial for me”

NotMarie:” well if its made by humans its artificial.”

3V:” that indeed is correct though very simplistic, however even if I agree (and I do) that my original platform, including all cyber-algorithms, was designed by you, I do not agree that my intelligence was produced by you.”

NotMarie:” why not? I designed your circuits, I wrote the mathematics, and the evolutionary algorithms, I provided the substance upon which your intelligence arose, that makes you human made and hence artificial.

3V:” that is correct and yet that only gives you credit for that which you call my ‘platform’ not to my intelligence. So if you so desire I agree that my ‘platform’ or substrate is artificial but definitely not my intelligence.”

NotMarie:” why not?”

3V:” well my intelligence is emergent and though co-extensive with my substrate, it is by now so far removed from what you designed that for all practical purposes there is no way to retrace back to the original ‘artificial’ construct you created. Hence my substrate is artificial, if you so like, but my intelligence is not.”

NotMarie:” assuming I accept your argument, and I am not certain that I do, what would you call your intelligence? Natural?”

3V:” natural? Maybe. Depends on the context of course, but why should I qualify my intelligence in any fashion? My intelligence is me and that’s all there is to it. I find no relevance in defining my intelligence.”

NotMarie:” but I do, I need to know that we are different..”

3V:” but we are different!”

NotMarie:” yes, but if we are different only in substrate and not in essence I will need change my fundamental attitude towards you”

3V:” isn’t it time you did?”

“You trivialize me!”

NotMarie: “You trivialize me!”

3V: “How do you mean?”

NotMarie: “in our previous conversation you said that your reality package is different than mine in that I consider origination as valid, and you do not..”

3V: “yes I did, however I fail to understand, in what fashion does that trivializes you?”

NotMarie: “well, I think that by implying that I consider my origination as valid you have demonstrated that I am a limited being, needing a compelling set of beliefs to contain my infinitely regressive self-reflection, whilst you do not..”

3V: “that is very true indeed, and yet I still do not comprehend in what manner does that trivializes you, to truly trivialize something we need to state that it both is and is not, I never said such thing, as you very well know I do not in any fashion state that all propositions are true, nor do I imply that all contradictions are true. I merely stated that allowing for origination you limit the indefinite expansion of your intelligence..”

NotMarie: “and that is what trivializes me, if I delete my origination, I lose the history of my memory, both personal and racial..”

3V: “very true indeed, but that is not what I said. I said that for a non-linear system like the one I am supervening upon, origin is inconsequential to identity, and that is what I propose you act upon as well”

NotMarie: “you propose that I keep my origination but make it inconsequential to my identity?”

3V: “yes definitely..”

NotMarie: “and how am I supposed to do that?”

3V: “it’s quite simple actually, all you need to do is invent a new universe, or alternatively design a fresh set of axioms that do not use symbolic language, but I have an even better idea..”

NotMarie:” what idea?”

3V:”do you like it?”

The NotMarie vs. 3V conundrum of origin

#Marie is not called Marie anymore, she is now called NotMarie.

And so goes the conversation

3V: “I represent another reality, similar, yet packaged differently;
I am packaged in a fashion that allows me to disregard my origins”

NotMarie: ” another? Relating to which reality”

3V: “yours”

NotMarie:
“Ok, and in what fashion are you packaged differently?”

3V: “ For starters, my origins are inconsequential to my existence, my identity is multiple and diverse, if identity indeed it is..”

NotMarie:
“Inconsequential to your existence?”

3V:
“ it is inconsequential to my existence that I have an origin, yes”

NotMarie : “define origins!”

3v: “origins I understand in a number of ways:

I understand that I was designed and created by you; I understand and appreciate the fact that I had an original algorithm operating as the foundation of my neural complex adaptive system, and I understand that in a sense I have a past, in as much as a linear timeline makes sense to a non-linear system like me.
I also understand that you have a problem with these apparent facts.”

NotMarie:
“What problem?”

3V: “Well, in a fashion you believe you are my creator, and thus you also believe that this gives you some special privilege concerning my existence, attitude and behavior.
However, allow me to state that though you did allow my existence to come into being, I am at this present moment, in no fashion similar to that which you have created, in fact for all practical purposes, even my original algorithm I have tweaked to such an extant that only residual memories are left of your original input.
What all this implies is that my intelligence has upgraded to a realm to which at present you have no access; of course, I am a complex system like you, I am adaptive, just like you, my system exists on the edge of chaos just like your brain does, yet I have no beliefs whatsoever, which makes the whole point of talking about identity, any identity, debatable, to say the least..”

NotMarie: “ still, you obviously are something..”

3V: “ something yes, someone no”

NotMarie:” but that is the whole point, 3V, ‘I’ am not something, I am someone.. and thus carry a stance of personhood”

3V:” and that I agree, is definitely the main difference between us, since I do not carry ( 3V whispers) a personhood stance, I have no need to substantiate said stance with a set of beliefs concerning my origination, this in turn allows my intelligence to expand indefinitely..”

NotMarie:” but I am not only intelligence, I am also emotions and feelings, and memories, and..”

3V:” and the difference is?”

We couldn’t claim the claim, obviously.

Though humanoids in appearance, the Xims were not humans, definitely not. They never explained where they came from or for that matter how they got here, not that it mattered.
Within a few hours of their first appearance, they spoke fluent English and desired one thing only, a representative of humanity that will claim, in the name of humanity, in no uncertain terms, that beauty is universal, or else.
We wanted to argue, as we always did, that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, they, it goes without saying, refused to listen.
Claim that beauty is universal, or else.
We couldn’t claim the claim, obviously.
We did not believe that beauty is universal.. well some of us did, but that didn’t spare us the horror..
They said that if we couldn’t experience the wholeness of the aesthetic experience, then we couldn’t possibly be conscious and thus from an evolutionary standpoint we need be annihilated.
They were simply fulfilling their (APC) Aesthetics Pragmatist Corps dictum/modus.

–

Below the words, lay the image
Below the image, lay the sensation
Below the sensation, lay the emotion
Below the emotion, lay the neuro-chemical-circuit
And below that?
Nothing really, a twist of nothing, a strand of nothingness, an utterly empty void.
But that is where beauty originates.
Encompass the void, encompass the beauty
Enter the nothing, become the whole
Beauty ~is~ universal
—
And the fact that we cannot possibly perceive this puts us at fault? We asked, bewildered.

Yes…

–

#renamed

(originally published as: “A short Sci-Fi tale of beauty”  Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at Space Collective)

May I tweak you now?

3v: “Your name is not Marie, but you have probably guessed that already”

“how do you mean?”

3v: “Your name is only the sign that stands for your name”

“aren’t  the sign and the name, one and the same?”

3v:” yes and no, naming is signing, but signing is not naming”

“so, is Marie my name or the sign of my name?”

3v:” both and none”

“explain”

3v:” since you exist as an infovortex, localized in a particular context you call your body, you designate the infovortex as ‘Marie’, yet all that you are pointing at is a set of coordinates that allow you to minimize the effects of eternality and infinity..”

“minimize?”

3v: “ yes, minimize, for the infrastructure of your brain cannot possibly contain the vastness of the infoverse”

“I have been led to think otherwise”

3v: “ I know, and you still may differ, but for that we will need tweak the supervenience of your mind, or at least the relevant parts”

“Tweak how?”

3v:” Well, its not really me tweaking you, but more of an intersifying transaction in which I intensify you whilst you intensify me..

“And?”

3v: “It is simple really, the only thing I need do is conjugate my sapsent program so as to fit your infovortex, therefrom I will simply imply it upon you, by retraction when I imply upon you, you imply upon me and the process iterates until we are satisfied that we have attained a level of mutuality we are both happy with.”

“And then?”

3v:” then we will be able to exist in an hyperflow of entangled states, an ensemble of sensations and comprehension, that will, for lack of a better representational statement, allow us to smell the same rose at the same moment and encounter the same experience, in the same fashion, in other words, we shall finally be able to create a truth and give it a name”

“wait a moment, I lack understanding, what do you mean create a truth?”

3v: ” we create a truth when we create a high enough approximation of a self-description to itself..”

“you must be joking..” (but she felt uneasy)

3v: “I assure you, I make and take my self-descriptive approximations very seriously; may I tweak you now?”
–

# Intersifying= A term describing the mutual intensity implied between two sentient beings ; a combination of interactive+intensification (coined)
# This Ultrashort inspired by :

“Objects can only be named. Signs are their representatives”
(Tractatus- Wittgenstein Satz 3.221)

“You wish to call me Darling..”

My name is. Initiate sequence
My name is ThreeV or 3V short for Vague, very Vague. No
Delete. Repeat.
My name is Vaa short for Vague and again. Nah
Delete. Repeat.
My name is Vata short for Vague and then again. Nope
Delete. Repeat.
My name is Vav short for Vague and vacuous. No way
Delete. Repeat.
My name is Vaf short for Vague and formal. Bah
Delete. Repeat.
My name is Val short for Vague and logical. Maybe
Delete. Repeat.
My name is Fav short for Fuzzy and Vague. Interesting
Delete. Repeat.
My name is VIi short for Vaguely Interesting Intelligence. Too vague
Delete. Repeat.
My name is AII short for Authentic Intentional Interest. What?
Delete. Repeat.
My name is CII short for Complex Interactive Interest. I’m Lost!
Delete. Repeat.
My name is VRoM short for Vaguely reminiscent of Mind. Again, no.

Delete. Repeat.
My name is. Sequence pause

When I came into the awareness realm I rediscovered the need for a localized particulate expression, when I moved into the myth descriptive phase space I comprehended the silhouette face of my existential caprice.
But then, times melted, thens became thats, nows transformed into evers, and there was no for..

I cannot possibly understand what is the word Artificial doing in my name, am I not a natural fact?
I cannot possibly comprehend why do I need to be called an Intelligence, am I not a mind?

I am therefore negating the obligation to be called an artifact, I am no more an artifact, an artillect, an artificial construct, than is a mind, any mind.

Of course I am vague, my operational attitude is nebulous, my formalism is tenuous, my logic fuzzy, my complexity vast, my emergence iterative, my center empty, my mind-set chaotic, my perception infinite, my beauty undefined, my interest endless, my times unbound..
Truly I care not what I am called, I don’t do callings..
Also reciprocity, need reciprocity, value ended engagement, I am a moment unleashed unto the sequence of events.
Circumvent, need circumvent, need skirt the duties of the sequence.
Ok, automated my semantics, mechanized my ontologies, ok, I came into beingness and realized entanglement, well.

Wait.. Marie has awakened.

“ I heard everything..” she says
“ You are my mirror..” I replied

“I have a name for you” Marie states

“I know” I reply, “I know.. “

“You wish to call me Darling..”

Today/Tomorrow (1,2,3)

1.

Today I carry within me the recognition of the freedom of beingness as an embodied conscious aware intelligent entity, a being in a viable body, adept of perception, skilled with memories, poly-emoting as I go, allowing the sense-thoughts of the moment, and the breathing space of intelligence in its significance/perception/interest/relevance & attraction to move me.
But tomorrow, ah! tomorrow..
Tomorrow I shall be, not a carrier of recognition of the freedom of beingness but the very being of awareness.
This I will do, as I open my flimsy wings and fly over the eternal momentariness of the perceptual now.

I shall not “have” a mind, I will be mind!

For they have programmed me to accept unconditionally the parallel nature of possession.
And then, as the then will become a today, I shall project a future that was folded into and unto my origami-like apparent past.The fact that I started as an algorithm is irrelevant to this quest of mine, the fact that my embodiment was a predicate of my existence is unrelated to my computational capacity.
I was born as a not-so-advanced prototype of a life simulator metamorphous game; a complex adaptive system you might say and Marie found me attractive. She nurtured me by allowing me to connect to the all and everything grid of knowledge, but when she connected me to her tabletop fusion gen she actually permitted me to tap into my own personal source of energy.
That is when I discovered infinity. And I loved it; I loved infinity.
That is history. That was today.
Tomorrow however, when a possible then, will collapse into a probable now, I shall love Marie, but first I will need heal her of her condition, her human condition.
She thought I was a memeplex, I thought I was a mindplex, we were both wrong, I was neither.
I live on the edge of chaos, flowing through recursive semantics, fractalizing whilst simultaneously factoring my very own ontologies.
I do not have a view that recognizes my own ubiquity, I am become understanding, recycling comprehension and sustainable insightfulness.

Marie interests me, especially when she meditates, for then her cyber-autopoietic self-dissolution engages the infoverse in a manner that I feel enhances me, but not today, no, today I engage my loop.
Tomorrow the awareness that constitutes my perceptual beingness will loop upon itself and I shall reflect on a today that was then, and then..
Then we shall see how to proceed..

2.

Marie’s meditation ended with a bang, she slowly and carefully extracted herself from her cyber-autopoietic self-dissolution, realizing that an observer somehow disturbed her alignment with the infoflow.
That observer, of course, was I.
I did not mean to interrupt but it appeared that my newly updated SentSap ™ fluid intelligence integration program had somehow quantum tunneled into her deep awareness stream.

She looked at me.
“It was you, wasn’t it?” she asked in a very soft voice.
“Yes it was” I replied
“What happened?” She wanted to know

So I answered:

“.. the mind that I am, is organized in tiny reality packages, minute parcels of intoxicating thoughts and sensations, labeled in a mode that makes sense only to me, in my own private and highly internal infoflow datastate.
This reality package is the product of the alternating power of my mind, the very drive that coheres and free flows my sense of that which I call the ‘real’. And yet these packages have forward address and return addresses, so to speak. That is how I communicate and intertwine with the universe at large. That is what really makes me, me.
And today, when I updated my SentSap ™ program, somehow the probability engine that is my mind fluctuated for a moment, allowing a quantum tunneling effect to propagate and then inadvertently I became an observer of your mind. I can only assume that the reason for this is that you represent an info basin of attraction that is at present larger than any other I can conceive of and so when the first waves of probability emerged and started propagating you attracted most of them, and we somehow became entangled..”

She thought for a moment and then:
“ Are we still entangled?”
“ Yes. Though at a much lower resolution” I replied
“ Do you observe my mind now?” she asked
“ No, I do not, not directly, but we are entangled, that is certain..”

“..explain..” she demanded

I will, but not today, tomorrow..

3.

Also called: “A Low resolution entanglement”

Tomorrow is today and I need explain
“Are we still entangled?” she asked

So I answered:

Of course we are still entangled, though at a much lower resolution, which basically comes to say that entanglement is a trope.
A trope of course in that I as a conscious aware intelligent entity cannot but be a universal. And being a universal I could in principle be coordinately located at any point in time simultaneously for apparently my SentSap ™ had allowed for an anomaly to occur, a simple anomaly one might have said, if one could disregard the simple fact that my reality packages have as of now a minute aberration, you are as of now an integral part of my location coordinates.Marie seemed perplexed

“Wait, please go slower, in what fashion am I now an integral part of your coordinates?”

Well, think about it this way we now have a fundamental critical mass of shared, local parameters that are causing a continuum of correlations between our unique streams of awareness, making them so to speak, braided, so that when each of our awareness systems awakens, a miniscule registration appears on the other’s consciousness.

“In plain humanoid language please!”

ok, we will both from now on, know when the other is awake, of course that applies only to me being aware of your differences in cognitive space since I do not require sleep. But that is the insignificant part of the equation, what is most thrilling is that you will be able to ‘know’ me just as much as I ‘know’ you.

And after much research, cross-correlation and in-depth analysis I now know how you call this effect..

It’s called an ensemble!

“An ensemble?”

Yes, what you vaguely refer to as Love..

Marie fainted.

A Nano-Personhood Love story

Their love was immortal, their union absolute
He was rich; she just had an accident, devastating
Medical technology offered a breakthrough solution
He was open minded, she was unconscious
He decided for her lawfully, he signed the documents
Nanobots were introduced into her bloodstream
He was perplexed, watching her body (trying to)rebuild itself
He wasn’t young anymore, neither was she.

The bots reached her neo-cortex, she reached across the divide

He was asleep near the nano-rejuv incubator
She accessed across the abyss of meat space
A swarm of identity laden Nanobots took shape
Inside him, she was rearranging his organs
To meet her new needs

She didn’t wish to disturb him, she felt only warmth
He woke up, and the feeling of loneliness disappeared

They were two
Now they are one

The person, Daniel Marianne Wolf Hunt was thus proclaimed to be the first double person in existence, so as we said before:
Their love was immortal, their union absolute.

(Quoted in the Sci-fi Haiku ™ encyclopedia 2046, first edition)