A little outside my grasp of things like “Squirrels.” But I found it odd that you brought up fluid dynamics. That term (or was it fluid mechanics?—maybe they are the same thing) popped up on a recent Facebook scroll. There was little explanation but a number of colorized images. One was very simple and graceful. Beautiful. I could feel the beauty of it in my heart. I wouldn’t know the first thing about the mathematics of it , but it touched me and I wanted to know more. I googled it for a while. But now it’s mostly passed, though the feeling is still there. And then there is Sheldrake’s morphic resonance, which popped up in the same way recently. I spent some time googling for some very basic explanation of the concept. What I am finding that there is an incredible morphic resonance occurring on Substack. And it seems to have a beautiful fluid structure to it. 🤔
Ha! How lovely! Yes, the whorls and tendrils of fluids beautifully remind us that we aren't responsible for all the order in the universe. Yes, Substack feels like it too has a similar, "emergent" pattern developing in intriguing ways. We don't need to know mathematics to perceive patterns, any more than words capture the scent of a beloved. We don't need to know physics to be in awe of a rainbow. Thank you, Judith, for sharing your insights.
I love how you take something as technical as fluid dynamics and use it to expose the subtle ways we get nudged, patterned, predicted, and looped by systems we barely notice.
The mirror vs possibility question hit me hard. If AI keeps reflecting back only what we already are, how much of our potential just evaporates? The recursion vs iteration part? That’s the exact kind of squirrel brained brilliance that makes your writing so addicting. Do you think the real danger isn’t the loop itself, but the fact that most people don’t even realize they’re in one?
I think the greatest danger is that people will receive what they need/want from AI and they won't care if they're in a dopamine loop that profits AI corporatists. The loop will intensify but it won't matter because it feels good and is efficient.
Fate...? I'm trying to tie that in... It's not a word I use. Did you mean that since I wonder if free will exists, I think we are bound by Fate to a certain destiny?
When you questioned free will, I thought it implied a level of determinism that was akin to fate. But I see how that was a leap my brain took that may not have intended. I then applied that lense to the rest of your essay.
I think you nailed your process, Dr. Morton. Thank you for contributing to this conversation. It's a very easy jump to determinism from questioning free will. But I am not a determinist, as you recognized. We know there are random events in the universe, and Heisenberg proved we cannot know all exactly, which determinism requires. Patterns "emerge" and persist and exhibit causation. I like the imagery of waves, and I have to remember that on the ocean, waves would not exist if water did not resist the wind.
All comedy depends on "out of context," (H)Arlequin. (smile) I had to translate from Spanish and did not read it all, but I would add Sarte's paradox to your discussion, and Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. Any self-referencing system, as you show freedom without ontological foundation to be, is either incoherent or incomplete. Thank you for taking part in this.
One more thought: Any (every?) ontological system eventually displays assumptions in its foundation. Else, it is a self-referencing system. But any self-referencing system will contain a contradiction.
A little outside my grasp of things like “Squirrels.” But I found it odd that you brought up fluid dynamics. That term (or was it fluid mechanics?—maybe they are the same thing) popped up on a recent Facebook scroll. There was little explanation but a number of colorized images. One was very simple and graceful. Beautiful. I could feel the beauty of it in my heart. I wouldn’t know the first thing about the mathematics of it , but it touched me and I wanted to know more. I googled it for a while. But now it’s mostly passed, though the feeling is still there. And then there is Sheldrake’s morphic resonance, which popped up in the same way recently. I spent some time googling for some very basic explanation of the concept. What I am finding that there is an incredible morphic resonance occurring on Substack. And it seems to have a beautiful fluid structure to it. 🤔
Ha! How lovely! Yes, the whorls and tendrils of fluids beautifully remind us that we aren't responsible for all the order in the universe. Yes, Substack feels like it too has a similar, "emergent" pattern developing in intriguing ways. We don't need to know mathematics to perceive patterns, any more than words capture the scent of a beloved. We don't need to know physics to be in awe of a rainbow. Thank you, Judith, for sharing your insights.
Greetings Erik, I hope you’re having a good weekend.
Just wanted to drop a comment, I’ve enjoyed your work for a while now, you appear on my feed from time to time, thank you.
You may enjoy my newsletter, I talk about historic books… it’s more interesting than you’d imagine 😉
Here’s my latest!:
https://open.substack.com/pub/jordannuttall/p/the-cost-of-love?r=4f55i2&utm_medium=ios
I love how you take something as technical as fluid dynamics and use it to expose the subtle ways we get nudged, patterned, predicted, and looped by systems we barely notice.
The mirror vs possibility question hit me hard. If AI keeps reflecting back only what we already are, how much of our potential just evaporates? The recursion vs iteration part? That’s the exact kind of squirrel brained brilliance that makes your writing so addicting. Do you think the real danger isn’t the loop itself, but the fact that most people don’t even realize they’re in one?
I think the greatest danger is that people will receive what they need/want from AI and they won't care if they're in a dopamine loop that profits AI corporatists. The loop will intensify but it won't matter because it feels good and is efficient.
If I'm following your asking if we treat fate as a predictable feedback loop. Is AI still part of that loop?
Fate...? I'm trying to tie that in... It's not a word I use. Did you mean that since I wonder if free will exists, I think we are bound by Fate to a certain destiny?
When you questioned free will, I thought it implied a level of determinism that was akin to fate. But I see how that was a leap my brain took that may not have intended. I then applied that lense to the rest of your essay.
I think you nailed your process, Dr. Morton. Thank you for contributing to this conversation. It's a very easy jump to determinism from questioning free will. But I am not a determinist, as you recognized. We know there are random events in the universe, and Heisenberg proved we cannot know all exactly, which determinism requires. Patterns "emerge" and persist and exhibit causation. I like the imagery of waves, and I have to remember that on the ocean, waves would not exist if water did not resist the wind.
A fascinating topic thanks for contributing to my thoughts around it.
Help me find it?
https://concienciacuantica.substack.com/p/la-contradiccion-ontologica-de-la-216?r=28npss
Be careful. I'm Harlequin.
All comedy depends on "out of context," (H)Arlequin. (smile) I had to translate from Spanish and did not read it all, but I would add Sarte's paradox to your discussion, and Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. Any self-referencing system, as you show freedom without ontological foundation to be, is either incoherent or incomplete. Thank you for taking part in this.
I'll translate it later so you can have fun.
One more thought: Any (every?) ontological system eventually displays assumptions in its foundation. Else, it is a self-referencing system. But any self-referencing system will contain a contradiction.
Thank you. Your comment is perhaps the most concise and powerful summary of my entire philosophical project.
You have beautifully articulated the necessary choice:
The self-referencing system inevitably leads to the Ontological Contradiction (the Anguish/Abyss of the modern subject).
The only way to escape this contradiction is through the acceptance of the necessary assumption that lies in its foundation—the Act of Being itself.
Your insight from logic and mathematics perfectly validates the necessity of the 'Leap' away from self-foundation.
By the way, I gave you an acknowledgment in the book, El Abismo y el Salto. Thank you for the mathematical reference; it was invaluable.
Thanks for the feedback, I'm almost finished with my second book.
I've run it through Translate. You and I have walked the same paths. I'll pick it up again when time allows.
Here the essay:
https://concienciacuantica.substack.com/p/ontological-contradiction-of-freedom?r=28npss
The book it's better.