Hui-Neng

IMG_2545.jpg

Advertisements

≈[almost equal to]

19113962_1081103562020578_4349940965745078064_n.jpg

From September 15th – October 22nd of 2017 a fantastic play is show, show, show, show, show, show, show, show, show, show, show, show, show, show, show, show, show, show, show, show, show, show, show, show, show, showing at the Pillsbury Theatre in Minneapolis. You should go. [what would it be like to do the same show 26 times in 5 weeks? whoa!]

Self-indulgence seemed to be the theme here.

It was written by Janas Hassen Khemiri and was perhaps the most creepy/dark/effective/funny/great/hedonistic/individual portrayal of money, greed, and desire I have ever witnessed. The space at the theatre was simple, and the actors – often embodying various attitudes or inner urges experienced by the actual “scripted”/”real” characters – flowed through and beyond the set with humor and ease. One single actor might represent three neighborhood goofballs over the span of 2 minutes – at another moment, 2 actors might represent 1 single goofball’s inner dialogue. Very cool work & had me scribbling on my mini-paper-pad thing excessively throughout the show.

DESIRE. This goal-oriented intoxicating desire reminded me for the entire 1 hour and 45 minutes of the nucleus accumbens and VTA. The performance felt like a clear demonstration of our inner desires for wealth and class and fancy items – walk in closets, perfume, champagne – and thus connoted the reward systems we all have in common. Of course those reward systems are best characterized as biological, as they operate on entirely passive, predictable, and commonly inherited forces. Much of the melancholy came from divisive attitudes and circumstances, and the passing of judgment. Greedy folks blaming other greedy folks for being greedy.

Are we all screwed? Maybe not. The consistency of this self-indulgence and other-blaming is what offered at least some comedic redemption for each character. If we’re all united in our humanity by greed it perhaps opens up the conversation about what to do about it. [The program offers several discussion questions, one of which is Do you identify with any of the characters? I identified with all of them, down to the yucky details.]

So what’s with greed? What’s with money? Thanks to the theatre & the playwright for getting at least my brain and a few others to keep wondering. Capitalism is our mutual problem as a society (especially in America), and maybe to be unified and identified as automata who are equally enticed by pleasure is the first step towards rewiring our nature.

 

what are the essential properties of consciousness?

 

Phenomenology, thought experiments and contemplation have in some instances provided valuable insights to physicalist forms of knowledge, i.e. physics or neuroscience. Not unlike Einstein’s successful attempt to access concepts in relativity through thought experiments, Giulio Tononi wants to create step-by-step definitions and images that allow theorization about the subject at hand: in this case, consciousness, subjectivity, selfhood, the feeling of what it’s like to be something.

Plot twist: he completely dodges a great question about unification of conscious experiences in the case of stroke patients. I’m not sure why he neglected to answer or even address that question directly.

 

 

 

Guest Feature (MDO)

Some years ago (perhaps late 2012 or early 2013) I wrote my older brother Michael a letter requesting a particular response. My prompt to him was simple: “Extinction.”


 

EXTINCTION IS EXTINCT

Our perpetually attentive society is in fact just the opposite. This ironic ignorance was born of the desire to know everything at once. Until now almost no person realized what a miserable fate access to all knowledge would be (though a collective malaise has existed since initial forays into universal accessibility to man’s aggregated history and output).

Recently, however, the awful practice of uninformed criticism of all things has come into favor among those fresh out of the educational mills of the modern western world. As such; it was only a matter of time until someone attacked our society’s newly formed habit to store away (multiple copies) everything anyone does or says. Unlike other criticisms by bright-eyed ‘scholars’ this one holds water – it is, in fact, watertight. So vile is our culture’s habit – so vile and viral, that it seems certain to infect all persons on the globe before the decade is out. Long gone are the days of a gentle wind passing unnoticed in a calm valley. No more is the time when a child’s first steps are recorded only in the memory of her parents. All things can be known to all people. And endless and frantic dash for all information has begun.

The future’s past will have no secrets. Extinction is extinct.

can machines think?

no. 


(from Robert Tocquet’s The Magic of Numbers, known in France as 2+2=4)

sorry. the machine-consciousness bandwagon is catchy. it really is. and the same caravan of wannabe-theories  (extending backward through history) has similar bandwagons worth hopping onto. not unlike rich kids today who experience their first metaphysical considerations at the sight of a overpriced virtual reality headset, roman elites looked away from theology or metaphysics & instead proclaimed that fountain technology would rip apart the very fabric of reality. when a pocketwatch was amongst the most complicated of mandmade artifacts there was only a single thing on earth in the minds of their owners nearly as glorious or intentional in its construction- yes, duh, the brain. whenever a new technology emerges that outraces its predecessors the first audible noise is a human making proud and inept self-reference.

post-enlightenment egotism serves this notion that humans (the only sentient thing) are special (after all, we are the most complex thing of all things) and therefore other complex things (almost as special) are also sentient things (almost as sentient as people). Folks on this machine-consciousness bandwagon often love to drool over Alan Turing but are creeped out or dismissive of panpsychism. That is to say they believe their silica-based electronics, envisioned by some obsessed white entrepreneur somewhere, have consciousness, but trees and gusts of wind do not. computers think, but Sister Silica does not. today in 2017 this allows flashy characters with inaccessible toys and tech-speak to swallow up an entire culture’s worth of dialogue about consciousness and quietly slink off to shit it all out, revealing their intellectual indigestion. i encounter so many of these types in the world of neuroscience. The same attitude against these passive panpsychist “spooks” existing within or as all matter (“nah dude, my Macbook is conscious but not a rock. btw, machines are gonna take over the world”) is incredibly phobic of the singular machine consciousness they somehow cling to. Don’t get me wrong- Terminator and Ex Machina are splendid movies but they aren’t scary. I did read Frankenstein, after all.

if you’ve made it past philosophy 101 and have still invested all of your ontological energies into the folly end of the Can Machines Think? question, and find yourself in disagreement with me, please leave me a comment. it’s 3:56am and as much as I’d like to keep challenging machine consciousness I need to power down for the night