Even when you know they’re slow tentacles, seeing the video makes all the difference. (This simply has to be noted.)
[…] Crawling Roots […]
molds amazing too.
[…] Source: Outside In […]
figured you kids would like this
The force comes straight from the earth, all around, sometimes from the centre, or myriad centres like knots of energy-movement, siphoned forces whose thrust is an absolute speed, escaping gravity, my head snaps back and I’m staring into the heavens laughing like a maniac and slapping my knees when I feel its pulse, but its not a feeling, its a power and it thinks, it projects thought into space, it is the earth sending out a frequency, and it passes through me (us) intuitions that aren’t sane or rational but that we’re forced to live by. The thoughts are like pure possibilities, no less so than anything considered worldly acceptable. They are more than possible, they are real, as possibilities, as existences that come together at the speed of light. Our Earth is smarter than most planets (or at least it thinks so)….
It’s all vibrating, coming together, taking shape, on extra-terrestrial communicational wave-lengths, tonight the earth is marvellous content. Well, contentment is not totally fitting, for it only comes after an expulsion of power. The intensity itself is the pure joy of absolute space. They are vectors of quantum energy sending out informatic pulses at Prime Speed that are registered as Pure Potentials. It is the speed of the universe in motion. The universe’s thinking is maturing (at an accelerating rate). It’s coming out of its 13 billion year long childhood. Every iteration will become more ‘unstable’ in the sense of opening to maximum future possibilities. That’s the paradox and catastrophe. The universe could be perfect but it needs supernovas, nuclear fusions, multi-dimensional structural relations to become so. It delves ever further into chaos and The Brink as its materials of purposeful expression multiply. Iterations of incrementally increasing (relative) perfection in an eternal return that necessarily risks total and utter (physical) collapse. This has all been cooked-up in the after-effects of an emission like none I have ever experienced (and I’ve known a few).
Now, I need to get the flow back. There is something else that needs describing, about the play and gratitude of the earth. But the signal was not sent to the Sun only, but also into *deep* space, this I’m sure of. The Earth is grateful to the Sun and holds it in Olympian esteem, as a lesser God to a greater. But both are minuscule in practice. And yet, their size is irrelevant relatively. Which brings us to the question of the two, duality, self-dualism. Mechanomica believes part of the solution has to do with “diploidy, as well as the double-helical structure of chromosomes, as well as in the fact that the only animals that go through cephalization are bilaterally symmetrical.” Can we propose a deep gender structure to the universe? Univocity doubly articulated….
We haven’t even gotten to the rhizospheric plant intelligence (fractal-shaped) with its crawling roots, the isomorphic brain and the zombie-vegetable or Malignant Vegetable Mind (MVM). Also, this all ties in with the Medea hypothesis in a startlingly grim way. We’re going to need a Gnonological defence of patriarchy….
“…The New Image raged against the archetypical codes of mythical predestination, and refusing its algorithmic fate, departed into paradox…” – anonymous
John Hannon Reply:July 8th, 2015 at 10:30 am
“Can we propose a deep gender structure to the universe?”
Kashmir Shavism already does. As Joseph Chilton Pearce explains in his book “Evolution’s End” –
“In Kashmir Shaivism, Shiva is the still point of witness; Shakti, his consort, births the universe for her lord to witness. They are an indivisible conscious power but through an instant-by-instant separation and union, Shakti’s creation appears a play or illusion. According to Shaivism, each of us, as expressions of that union, are both Shiva and Shakti by simple default. Our goal is to become aware of who we are, at which point we become the play and the play takes on a new cast and plot.”
“In Vedic theory the creative force is called Prakriti. Like Castaneda’s Eagle she functions without reason, judgment or compassion. An ancient writer observed that ‘Prakriti needs humus,’ hunus being organic material for her soil of endless creation, and we humans are that humus – unless we get beyond Prakriti. The Vedas, however, point beyond Prakriti to a witness who observes her creation, since without the seminal act of witnessing, creation is barren. Whether the witness gives rise to the goddess as something to witness, or she gives rise to the witness, is similar to the wave-particle issue, a paradox the Vedic Hymn of Origin leaves hanging.”
Dark Psy-Ops Reply:July 8th, 2015 at 11:46 am
Great quotes, thanks.
I guess if plants (even some transgenically humanised) can talk, it still will sound injuriosly stupid. human embryonic neral linage progenitors cells survived few day after implantation into chicken brain. but, same cells, of what I’ve seen, formed stable graft after implantation into one month old puppy’s brain. still this dog did not learn how to talk (luckily for the owner), exihibit strong antisocial behaviour and was not able fit well among other dogs either.
Had we but world enough and time,
This coyness, lady, were no crime.
We would sit down, and think which way
To walk, and pass our long love’s day.
Thou by the Indian Ganges’ side
Shouldst rubies find; I by the tide
Of Humber would complain. I would
Love you ten years before the flood,
And you should, if you please, refuse
Till the conversion of the Jews.
My vegetable love should grow
Vaster than empires and more slow;
An hundred years should go to praise
Thine eyes, and on thy forehead gaze;
Two hundred to adore each breast,
But thirty thousand to the rest;
An age at least to every part,
And the last age should show your heart.
For, lady, you deserve this state,
Nor would I love at lower rate.
But at my back I always hear
Time’s wingèd chariot hurrying near;
And yonder all before us lie
Deserts of vast eternity.
Thy beauty shall no more be found;
Nor, in thy marble vault, shall sound
My echoing song; then worms shall try
That long-preserved virginity,
And your quaint honour turn to dust,
And into ashes all my lust;
The grave’s a fine and private place,
But none, I think, do there embrace.
Now therefore, while the youthful hue
Sits on thy skin like morning dew,
And while thy willing soul transpires
At every pore with instant fires,
Now let us sport us while we may,
And now, like amorous birds of prey,
Rather at once our time devour
Than languish in his slow-chapped power.
Let us roll all our strength and all
Our sweetness up into one ball,
And tear our pleasures with rough strife
Through the iron gates of life:
Thus, though we cannot make our sun
Stand still, yet we will make him run.
John Hannon Reply:July 8th, 2015 at 2:48 pm
Rhyming “lie” with “eternity,” and “try” with “virginity” – like Blake rhyming “eye” with “symmetry” – suggests the poem might best be read by a native of Dudley.
E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:July 8th, 2015 at 6:34 pm
Visual rhymes do to some extent betray the loss of verbal poetry.
michael Reply:July 9th, 2015 at 1:23 am
I think its eternity virginity, lie try but stretching the meter. you got the vegetable love should grow thing i guess
As I mentioned to @insurrealist on twitter a couple days ago, I think it’s worthwhile to probe the similarities and differences between the intelligence (environmental engagement style and homeostatic response patterns) of lower lifeforms vs. cephalized lifeforms. I would include in that comparison various substructures of complex organisms, especially the brain and extended sensory/nervous systems.
We already know that simple organisms are more hardy than complex organisms in the face of extreme or rapidly changing environments, but this is true only for the species and its offshoots, not for individual specimens. When it comes to adaptive response within the confines of a single generation or individual organism, nothing we’ve yet seen can beat the brained.
Question is: Which features of the brain are absolutely critical to the generation of a mind capable of this mode of engagement… and which are merely incidental (byproducts of biological, material, and environmental constraints unique to Earth or specific ancestral biomes)?
Consideration of sex or gender binary in this context is perhaps only metaphorically relevant. On an intuitive level, however, (as Dark Psy-Ops brought up) my suspicion is that the physical characteristics of DNA have something important to say here. There’s also the fact that selective pressures on Earth have produced intelligence—as traditionally defined—only in organisms that are diploid and bilaterally symmetrical. There are examples of stable polyploidy in fish, but salmon and carp don’t exactly build rockets.
The pervasiveness of dualistic patterns in nature ranges far beyond the biology of intelligent life. As George Kelly suggests in his theory of personal constructs: we interpret sensory data, organize our thoughts, and navigate our world by way of comparing series of stark contrasts. The reason this approach is so successful is because these impressions of contrast—even as distorted as they are by the fallible and error-ridden lens of human consciousness—do reliably approximate actual phenomena, both inside and outside ourselves. The human/god dyad provided a functional understanding of interhemispheric relations long before we knew we could slice god right out of us with a right frontal lobotomy or temporarily disrupt his functions with transcranial magnetic stimulation. Likewise, the up/down in/out light/dark and wave/particle dichotomies and paradoxes we observe in our surrounding environment are emblematic of something real, even if that something doesn’t end up being quite what we thought it was.
Part of what I’m suggesting here is that this “twoness” (which tends also to be part of a slightly less obvious trichotomy—although I won’t get into that here today), especially in the form of interhemispheric adjustive feedback or some analogue thereof, may actually be a necessary component of intelligent and orderly environmental response. It may be critical to the organization and coherence of *any* mind, regardless of the materials used to generate it. I doubt this is something AI researchers have given adequate thought.
If what we want is Pythia, consider that there could be no Delphic oracle without an Apollo to consult, and there’s no known means by which an Apollo can be generated, heard, and modified by feedback without a correct balance of: 1. Internal, structurally enforced separation and difference (a purpose currently served by lateralization) and 2. Permeability of these walls, such that effective bidirectional communication can take place between major processes.
What might future minds lose out on if we neglect beauty and balance in our efforts to create those minds? What if we lay aside instinctual feelings of revulsion or wrongness in the interest of openness or ‘reason’ (i.e., rational analyses based on mistaken and incomplete priors) and allow the creation of a seed AI that is classically grotesque?
I think we risk the existence of a godlike being that is totally nuts. This problem is distinct from that of friendly AI. It’s also not the same problem as autonomous, self-sustaining AI. You can have something that is crazy, confused—even completely miserable—and not killing any humans, but fully capable of surviving on its own for billions of years and driven to do just that. It’s possible this is the outcome we get regardless of any attempts to influence things in another direction. It’s also possible that it isn’t.
People like to spook each other out with stories of weird forms of future intelligences: swarming bots, Borg cubes, cancer-filled P-zombies, bio-mechanical amalgamates with 1000 genders, etc. I have no doubt there will be some seriously weird developments in the future, the likes of which we’d never predict. As Wintermute says in reference to 3Jane’s wishes: “She couldn’t imagine what I’d be.”
Do the overwhelming odds of future weirdness beyond our comprehension mean we should we toss our limited, human sense of aesthetic correctness out the window when it comes to AI? I don’t really know… but I don’t think so. Not yet. We’re still too blind to afford that loss; we have no functional replacement. Our subjective impression of beauty and ugliness codes for real aspects and limitations of the natural world, including the cosmos. It’s also informed by forces within us that are already far more intelligent than our conscious selves.
[…] way of Nick Land, Stefano Mancuso at TED talks about The roots of plants […]
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.