Buck & Meta Thought
by phil on Wednesday Apr 2, 2003 1:28 AM
darthbucky: I was fascinated this morning with a really weird idea
darthbucky: All morning
PhilDhingr: what's that?
darthbucky: Here goes....
darthbucky: The first thing species on this planet developed was the ability to send out an infinite number of commands
darthbucky: From their neural network to their various parts
darthbucky: Next, they started having thoughts
darthbucky: More abstract, didn't necessarily have a direct effect
darthbucky: They could have an infinite number of these little thoughts
darthbucky: Then, meta-thoughts
PhilDhingr: yes, yes, yes.
darthbucky: Not only an infinite number of them, but somehow on an infinite number of levels
PhilDhingr: pseudo-infinite, right?
PhilDhingr: and the lower-order species had smaller neural networks and less outlets, and therefore, less in quantiy, but pseudo-infinite nonetheless
darthbucky: There's some kind of weird complexity here, because in some ways "wow, it was a waste of time worrying about that" counts as a more complex thought than the most complex of single-level thoughts about VRML or whatever.
PhilDhingr: and our current operation, outside of consciousness, any movement or lack thereof, is an infinite output.
darthbucky: Then you get SYSTEMS of meta-thought
darthbucky: Programming languages
darthbucky: And an infinite number of them
darthbucky: (theoretically, anyway)
darthbucky: Again, at many levels of complexity
PhilDhingr: emergence to order the infinity of neural blu-blah.
darthbucky: So what's the next step?
PhilDhingr: the next step is blogging.
darthbucky: You want to say something like "the Omni-thought"
darthbucky: The singularity
PhilDhingr: I am the omni-thought
darthbucky: But that doesn't work
PhilDhingr: the singularity?
darthbucky: Because you can't have an infinite number of them
darthbucky: And because the Omni thought has only one level of complexity
PhilDhingr: I think there's an upper-bound on the levels that can be consciously grasped.
darthbucky: Probably somewhere, yeah
PhilDhingr: what's to say there isn't an omni-thought beat occurring and we're just the cells of that thought.
darthbucky: You can't have a (meta-)^85 thought
PhilDhingr: i.e. world-wide discussion leads us to the beautiful whole of "democracy" let's say, or "justice"
PhilDhingr: or "freedom"
darthbucky: Those aren't omni thoughts
darthbucky: They aren't everything
darthbucky: Or there wouldn't be separate words for them
darthbucky: So I then started doubting the existence of the omega point
PhilDhingr: omega point?
darthbucky: Something I've previously had at least some degree of faith in
PhilDhingr: faith, a bitch.
darthbucky: Do a google search...somebody can probably explain it better than I can
darthbucky: Essentially, it's the point at which mankind has accomplished everything that can be accomplished
darthbucky: All possible avenues have been pursued
PhilDhingr: can I post the transcript of this into the blog?
darthbucky: Sure...but I don't feel like I've come to any sort of conclusion
PhilDhingr: I know, neither have I, but I think that's part of the message.
darthbucky: I dunno
PhilDhingr: and I'll leave that in there :-)