Pagan communicatives

[Attila]

Pagan communicatives

I don’t know if this is the right forum for this, I used to bung everything into discuss Druidry, but anyways just remember this is druidic philosophy not science…

Here I want to continue the themes concerning worldly communicative information networks [how things talk and relate to one another], such as presented here [for further reading if you so wish]:

Drawing circles; Information communicates cyclically:
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=178004
The world lends itself to ones persuasion:
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=177856
Consciousness is the network:
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=177829

I know that seeing things in terms like below seems to strip the soul out of it all, but for me its just another layer in understanding how it all works, or may work.

Firstly I am going to kill off the pagan deities in an attempt to de-anthropomorphise the whole thing [just as a means to get at how things may work on this level of thinking].
Traditionally there were many deities representing all the ‘forces’ appearing to be at work in the world, so now I am going to strip back another layer and see those things in terms of communicative information networks.

Let us take an example in Aries the god of war; would there be a god of war, no, there would be conflicting CIN’s [communicative information networks]. If say you had two or more cultures with gods of war, both may assume that deity to be on their side, when in fact you’d have interests of differing parties [CIN’s}. these would relate to further parties and onto the world CIN [WCIN], with possibly many other parties being involved betwixt them. Such things are what we vaguely refer to as ‘the forces of history’.

So why would CIN’s be concerned with human matters; simply because we are not something outside of things, the subjective nature here doesn’t entirely exist, in that our minds are also conscious networks belonging to the web of such. As such they rely on external CIN’s and info generally in order to interact with the world; we could in fact see great world leaders such as Caesar and Genghis khan as belonging to localised networks, and their ultimate positions in the world as relating to the ‘desires’ of greater worldly forces [GCIN’s [G; general]], formerly referred to as ‘fate’.

How are CIN’s experienced, do they feel emotions? Again there isn’t anything outside of them, nature and everything that includes is part of them. The thoughts and emotions we and animals etc, have, relate to informations communicating, indeed it may be so that the very act of communicating is literally what we are, what life and non-life ‘is’, ~ relative to its manner{1}.

NCIN’s [nature CIN’s]; imagine e.g. a pack of wolves gathering to attack their prey, followed by the chase and the excitement of that, then finally the kill and the joy of that [naturally for the wolves]. CIN’s are informatively experiencing that as the totality of all relationships involved in the whole event, they also are the personal experience of the hunter and prey and as seen in the third person viewing the event [in informational terms]. we can perhaps see a similar thing in human terms with the representative deity Aries, and as concerns battles/war.

What I am getting at is an idea where communications are fundamentally what’s going on, as opposed to the singular experience of the world we think the world is an amalgamation of. As I see it there is always order and never noumenal informations and info sets ~ even within the hallowed sanctum of our inner most thoughts. Naturally things can remain private to us in terms of other individuals CIN’s, this is due to the differing languages used e.g. to make un-private our thoughts we must communicate them linguistically, yet CIN’s are conceptual informations and don’t understand things in English or any given language. Human language itself then is a layer above CIN’s or perhaps simply a different language, in the brain language relates to communications between objects [neuronal thoughts] which I assume is as different as info pertaining to the quantum and microscopic world, as compared to what you are reading right now.

{1} given conditions of certain arrangements of CIN’s produce e.g. life; where communications are kept flowing within a network [death where that stops], and [perhaps including] consciousness; where such communications have the degree of subjectivity required to make effect in the world, utilising the will to change informations.


_

[Red Raven]

I'm a little confused with some of this Attila, are you suggesting the likes of a CIN are autonomous in or of themselves or are more akin as a potential, needing the interactions of a biological (or other) entity?

RR

[Michael.Dwr]

Red Ravan, your a little confused I don't understand any of it
It went straight over my head

[Attila]

I'm a little confused with some of this Attila, are you suggesting the likes of a CIN are autonomous in or of themselves or are more akin as a potential, needing the interactions of a biological (or other) entity?

sry for late reply...

Quite possibly. I don’t know if there is intelligence involved though I’d assume so, when information communicates in our minds it is intelligent so why not the same everywhere? Equally there is the question as to weather or not said intelligences are conscious or not, they could be acting as like a computer does ~ kind of mimicking intelligence mechanistically.

In our brains some communication is conscious and some is not, so there seems to be a requirement of an experiencer or user - we could say.

Now, is the experiencer or mind in us created by our conscious network? If so then surely CIN’s would make patterns too and so become conscious in some manner?

Either way there does seem to be information networks out there and they work with our experience as like with the wolves, we feel something about that when viewing it on nature shows, no? I am seeing it everywhere I look these days.

[Red Raven]

I think I have an inkling as to what you are trying to converse but the analogy is a little difficult so I'm going to take a liberty here and change the analogy. Let us use a computer as the analogy. The CINs you refer to may be thought of as the software environment. Let us then assume the environment we live in is the hard-drive.

Quite possibly. I don’t know if there is intelligence involved though I’d assume so, when information communicates in our minds it is intelligent so why not the same everywhere?

That very much depends upon your idea of what constitues intelligence.

Equally there is the question as to weather or not said intelligences are conscious or not, they could be acting as like a computer does ~ kind of mimicking intelligence mechanistically.

My limited understanding of what constitutes consciousness is bound to wether something has any perception self awareness. If consciousness has self awareness then we would have to consider why such a thing would want to mimick anything.

In our brains some communication is conscious and some is not, so there seems to be a requirement of an experiencer or user - we could say.

Alternatively, we could say there would need to be a conduit for the collection of any and all CINs. Would this conduit therefore, need to be conscious in order to have an effect?

Now, is the experiencer or mind in us created by our conscious network? If so then surely CIN’s would make patterns too and so become conscious in some manner?

Or are our minds the products of interactions with the CINs, both interdependant and symbiotic in nature?

Either way there does seem to be information networks out there and they work with our experience as like with the wolves, we feel something about that when viewing it on nature shows, no? I am seeing it everywhere I look these days.

OK, lets take this forward more with the computer analogy. Let us consider that the brain / mind is the computers CPU. Now, just like a brand new computer, a human being or any other biological entity comes with all the hardware needed to process information. The environment it experiences is the hard-drive containing all the software (including your CIN idea) needed to create programs that come to define who we think we are.
Once any CIN has interacted with a biological entity through its CPU (brain / mind), it is changed through the processes that use the information. The processing in itself, I would suggest, has a measurable effect therefore that CIN cannot be the same as it once was (unless you know of a way of back engineering this process, which for arguments sake, let us assume such a thing is not possible).
One of the things that seems to be hardwired into humanity is emotions. So the processing of a CIN may introduce into that CIN a previously unknown quality, namely emotions. Something that at this time, we are unable to scientifically compartmentalize enough to make testable.
Many people may consider an emotion to be an entirely internal process confined to the internal working of the ego. Yet instinctively we have all at sometime experienced an atmosphere in a place, not measureable as yet, but there non the less, therefore at least hinting at the idea of emotions being capable of existing seperately from a human. And if this is the case, then using the computer analogy, the output from our own processing as well as that from other entities that share our software (CINs and otherwise) may be part of the answer as to the ability of CINs to interact with us in ways that you initially proposed.
This processing may allow some attributes of independent existance on otherwise seemingly inanimate packages of information.

RR

[Attila]

Hi red raven, great post!

The CINs you refer to may be thought of as the software environment. Let us then assume the environment we live in is the hard-drive.

Not really, the hardware is derived also of an informational and communicative basis, ~ though that’s probably another debate, so lets go with what you say for our purposes here.

Intelligence in us occurs in the mass of communications in our conscious network, we’d have to assume there is something aside from that in the world for it not to be there also. Ok so the human brain is the most complex thing in nature, but it is not aside from nature!

My limited understanding of what constitutes consciousness is bound to weather something has any perception self awareness. If consciousness has self awareness then we would have to consider why such a thing would want to mimick anything.

An AI would be a mimic of intelligence [conscious] if there were nothing experiencing it, no user. You could have something that ‘acts’ exactly like a human but that doesn’t make it one, it would merely be a puppet to a script.

Alternatively, we could say there would need to be a conduit for the collection of any and all CINs. Would this conduit therefore, need to be conscious in order to have an effect?

Good point, there seems to be something [a conduit] within the context of the conscious experiencer. Well we can change info in our thoughts [free will], but the subconscious does also. So CINs could be similar to our subconscious, certainly I’d expect them to be so in the main, but that doesn’t mean they don’t form their own conduits?

Or are our minds the products of interactions with the CINs, both interdependent and symbiotic in nature?

Hmm again good point, this leads to a far wider topic concerning purpose and perhaps evolution. I agree that you don’t just arrive at conscious minds/networks, and so we have to take both our positions into context, mine is that our consciousness exists due to the CIN of our brains information network, hence a similar network in nature may achieve the same thing.

Once any CIN has interacted with a biological entity through its CPU (brain / mind), it is changed through the processes that use the information. The processing in itself, I would suggest, has a measurable effect therefore that CIN cannot be the same as it once was (unless you know of a way of back engineering this process, which for arguments sake, let us assume such a thing is not possible).

Agreed, it is fluid ~ kinda refreshing itself all the time. Perhaps the slower process is in the reprogramming which changes the hardware via its genetics.

One of the things that seems to be hardwired into humanity is emotions. So the processing of a CIN may introduce into that CIN a previously unknown quality, namely emotions. Something that at this time, we are unable to scientifically compartmentalize enough to make testable.

Well science tries to resolve everything in terms of matter, but philosophically information isn’t physical. We can understand emotions in terms of info on one level [not to take away the level of pure experience], science just needs to accept that. Personally I think animals experience emotions, but yes a communicative complexity has to be arrived at to be anything more than a response to stimuli as say with ants.

Many people may consider an emotion to be an entirely internal process confined to the internal working of the ego. Yet instinctively we have all at sometime experienced an atmosphere in a place, not measureable as yet, but there non the less, therefore at least hinting at the idea of emotions being capable of existing seperately from a human. And if this is the case, then using the computer analogy, the output from our own processing as well as that from other entities that share our software (CINs and otherwise) may be part of the answer as to the ability of CINs to interact with us in ways that you initially proposed.
This processing may allow some attributes of independent existence on otherwise seemingly inanimate packages of information.

Absolutely!!! This is my whole direction here; to bring us back into the world as connected beings rather than subjective islands. The atmosphere in a place contains massive amounts of info, as info sponges why on earth wouldn’t we be able to communicate with that and hence feel it [I am agreeing here].

[Red Raven]

An AI would be a mimic of intelligence [conscious] if there were nothing experiencing it, no user. You could have something that ‘acts’ exactly like a human but that doesn’t make it one, it would merely be a puppet to a script.

Being an animist, I can't really concieve of there not being a user.

Good point, there seems to be something [a conduit] within the context of the conscious experiencer. Well we can change info in our thoughts [free will], but the subconscious does also. So CINs could be similar to our subconscious, certainly I’d expect them to be so in the main, but that doesn’t mean they don’t form their own conduits?

With a sufficiently large or substantial number of interactions, that is entirely possible, yes.

Hmm again good point, this leads to a far wider topic concerning purpose and perhaps evolution. I agree that you don’t just arrive at conscious minds/networks, and so we have to take both our positions into context, mine is that our consciousness exists due to the CIN of our brains information network, hence a similar network in nature may achieve the same thing.

There is a danger here of equating consciousness purely with the higher mental functions of thought. It is my contention, and has been for a number of years, that the unconscious aspect of the human is actually the largest "consumer" of intellectual resources.

Perhaps the slower process is in the reprogramming which changes the hardware via its genetics.

Agreed.

RR

[Attila]

Being an animist, I can't really conceive of there not being a user.

Interesting point! But imho animism at its base is also the base of existence, you can make say a female deity manifest from its fabric [I.e. of reality] and make love to her, or even just her pubic region [where the invisible part of her remains but is part of the empty fabric]. It may be ‘the eye’ that lets you pass into the hidden realms, and any such thing usually represented symbolically.

I would think there is that which makes manifest and that which is manifested, so a conscious-less automaton or robot would be the latter [no different to a rock] ~ unless made in such a fashion as to be golem-like [golemic] and hence posses some manner of supernatural force.

The CIN’s operating near to and with that base become matter in a similar way!

There is a danger here of equating consciousness purely with the higher mental functions of thought. It is my contention, and has been for a number of years, that the unconscious aspect of the human is actually the largest "consumer" of intellectual resources.

I agree it is, but I disagree that the subconscious is in any way conscious ~ more reactive to the requirements of the soul and its bodily medium the consciousness.

thanks

[Red Raven]

Interesting point! But imho animism at its base is also the base of existence, you can make say a female deity manifest from its fabric [I.e. of reality] and make love to her, or even just her pubic region [where the invisible part of her remains but is part of the empty fabric]. It may be ‘the eye’ that lets you pass into the hidden realms, and any such thing usually represented symbolically.

I would think there is that which makes manifest and that which is manifested, so a conscious-less automaton or robot would be the latter [no different to a rock] ~ unless made in such a fashion as to be golem-like [golemic] and hence posses some manner of supernatural force.

The CIN’s operating near to and with that base become matter in a similar way!

With respect, your idea of conscious-less appears to be based on human frames of reference. I actually believe there may be other frameworks involved outside the immediate sphere of the human.

I agree it is, but I disagree that the subconscious is in any way conscious ~ more reactive to the requirements of the soul and its bodily medium the consciousness.

thanks

Why would the subconscious require consciousness to operate? If we accept that when we sleep, for example, it is the subconscious aspect that is "operating" the human body, does that operation need the higher functions of consciousness to work?

RR

[Attila]

With respect, your idea of conscious-less appears to be based on human frames of reference. I actually believe there may be other frameworks involved outside the immediate sphere of the human.

Well ‘the eye’ was something within the animistic space - so to say, and I added that it has golemic qualities. Perhaps you are thinking of deities or something else? Hmm or do you think there is always some manner of consciousness involved I.e. where I inferred the rock-like qualities of the conscious-less?
You may be right, though I don’t like the idea of the subconscious parts of my mind as also having their own consciousness. We could otherwise think of mind as a field or space to wit we users have access, as opposed to our minds being our own.

Why would the subconscious require consciousness to operate? If we accept that when we sleep, for example, it is the subconscious aspect that is "operating" the human body, does that operation need the higher functions of consciousness to work?

It doesn’t, it can act like a robot in a purely mechanistic way. What I meant was that the brain reacts to the needs of its network/consciousness.

[DaRC]

Hmmm (sorry just back from a very abstractual I.T. architecture course) it sounds like you're trying to describe the pagan worldview as an iterative form of networks?

Can you clarify the terms CIN, GCIN and NCIN?
In relation to a CIN
what is a human?
What is a tribes collective unconscious?
Taking a specific example within the heathen worldview would the Jotuns (Giants / Ents) be NCINs whilst the Aesir/Vanir would be Human GCINs?

Your attempts to describe the CIN seems to be similar to the "Design Patterns" used in software design. These were inspired by a theoretical Architect called Christopher Alexander.

However, what you might want to consider is the interfaces. Each network must somehow communicate &/or involve itself within it's own context or environment - how does it do this?

Design Patterns & Christopher Alexander
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander
http://www.natureoforder.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_Patterns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_theory

[Attila]

Thanks for the links DaRC. Judging only by the short reviews there is a similarity to Christopher Alexander’s work, but I‘d have to read it further.
Edit; just read this…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_pat ... er_science)

Yes this seems something like what I am talking about especially with global CIN’s, when we get down to more specific and relative CIN’s, I think we are locking more into the conceptual [or coding] element of it all.
------------

Can you clarify the terms CIN, GCIN and NCIN?

They are general notions about something far more fluid [see also below].

In relation to a CIN

They are all CIN’s.

what is a human?

See link;
Consciousness is the network:
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 1&t=177829

What is a tribes collective unconscious?

An historic network, we could call it HCIN. By contacting the ancestors via info or holistically [e.g. touching something of theirs or going to where they once were] we touch also their collective spirit ~ which is what I think it is. it’s a bit like if you touch a memory in the brain then the mind [i.e. individual epicentre of spirit] remembers that memory in the same way as it learned it originally. In other words, the mind is always in the present, and it only contacts the past by being reintroduced to it and learning the info again. we are touching the collective as our physical memories touch our spirit, its the same thing going on essentially ~ or so i believe atm.
This is a fairly massive topic, if you so wish we could discuss specific aspects of the theory such as this.

I didn’t want to get too much into specific correlations between gods, giants etc and networks, I thought it better to just explain the basic idea. People can make the connections as they see fit ~ and you know how we all interpret things widely differently.

I hoped to present something very fluid, like the awens can be seen kinda like ‘thought-wind’, so if we think of the marriage of CINs in a similar way then they are as structured as the weather I.e. not very structured at all. For me [as concerns interfaces] its simply a case of communication occurring as and when relationships are formed. When e.g. there is war between peoples, there is a dialogue and narrative to all the elements of that, the war goes the way the ‘wind’ blows.

_

[Al Hakim]

Hi Attila,

I still am not sure whether or not I understood your statements. Was is to say that a communicating system exists outside our human realm? I would agree, and that has been druidic knowledge for long. Do you think there is more communication outside in the world than we imagine nowadays? I agree again. Might it be possible to "eavesdrop" the different systems? The druid believes "Yes".
So, what is your theory - in simple words if you don't mind ?

[Attila]

hi al hakim

Yes these networks exist outside of our human realm, in fact I see it more that our human realm is within universal networks [as naturally is the universe]. I agree that all this pertains to ancient druidic thinking although imho they saw it in terms of awens ~ of realities.

If you consider eternity to be like a transparent light, then where things ‘flash at you’ - so to say, in the world, that is a reality or gateway to eternity. We are much the same, you can describe everything about yourself and describe nothing about yourself, we are a reality a light.

One may eavesdrop on the different systems in many ways, in terms of magic [like above] or by connecting informational thoughts with info that is ‘out there’.
A seemingly vacuous term in a magic spell does this, even though logicaly it may make no sense whatsoever, its all about connections!