Emergence
Noun
(en noun)
The act of rising out of a fluid, or coming forth from envelopment or concealment, or of rising into view; sudden uprising or appearance.
In particular: the arising of emergent structure in complex systems.
See also
* eclosion
Noun
(en noun)
The act of rising out of a fluid, or coming forth from envelopment or concealment, or of rising into view; sudden uprising or appearance.
In particular: the arising of emergent structure in complex systems.
See also
* eclosion
Transcendence
Noun
(countable) the act of surpassing usual limits
(uncountable) the state of being beyond the range of normal perception
(uncountable) the state of being free from the constraints of the material world, as in the case of a deity
superior excellence; supereminence
* A. V. G. Allen
The Augustinian theology rests upon the transcendence of Deity at its controlling principle.
Related terms
* transcend * transcendency * transcendent * transcendental * transcendently
Antonyms
* immanence
Noun
(countable) the act of surpassing usual limits
(uncountable) the state of being beyond the range of normal perception
(uncountable) the state of being free from the constraints of the material world, as in the case of a deity
superior excellence; supereminence
* A. V. G. Allen
The Augustinian theology rests upon the transcendence of Deity at its controlling principle.
Related terms
* transcend * transcendency * transcendent * transcendental * transcendently
Antonyms
* immanence
Immanent
adjective
im·ma·nent ˈi-mə-nənt
Synonyms of immanent
1
: INDWELLING, INHERENT
beauty is not something imposed but something immanent
—Anthony Burgess
2
: being within the limits of possible experience or knowledge
compare TRANSCENDENT
adjective
im·ma·nent ˈi-mə-nənt
Synonyms of immanent
1
: INDWELLING, INHERENT
beauty is not something imposed but something immanent
—Anthony Burgess
2
: being within the limits of possible experience or knowledge
compare TRANSCENDENT
Unintelligibility
...to my best knowledge, the book was not dedicated to erotic problems of people in outer space... As Solaris' author I shall allow myself to repeat that I only wanted to create a vision of a human encounter with something that certainly exists, in a mighty manner perhaps, but cannot be reduced to human concepts, ideas or images. This is why the book was entitled "Solaris" and not "Love in Outer Space".
— Stanisław Lem,
Wikipedia Plot Summary of SolarisSolaris chronicles the ultimate futility of attempted communications with the extraterrestrial life inhabiting a distant alien planet named Solaris. The planet is almost completely covered with an ocean of gel that is revealed to be a single, planet-encompassing entity. Terran scientists conjecture it is a living and a sentient being, and attempt to communicate with it.
Kris Kelvin, a psychologist, arrives aboard Solaris Station, a scientific research station hovering near the oceanic surface of Solaris. The scientists there have studied the planet and its ocean for many decades, mostly in vain. A scientific discipline known as Solaristics has degenerated over the years to simply observing, recording and categorizing the complex phenomena that occur upon the surface of the ocean. Thus far, the scientists have only compiled an elaborate nomenclature of the phenomena, and do not yet understand what such activities really mean. Shortly before Kelvin's arrival, the crew exposed the ocean to a more aggressive and unauthorized experimentation with a high-energy X-ray bombardment. Their experimentation gives unexpected results and becomes psychologically traumatic for them as individually flawed humans.
The ocean's response to this intrusion exposes the deeper, hidden aspects of the personalities of the human scientists, while revealing nothing of the ocean's nature itself. It does this by materializing physical simulacra, including human ones; Kelvin confronts memories of his dead lover and guilt about her suicide. The "guests" of the other researchers are only alluded to. All human efforts to make sense of Solaris's activities prove futile. As Lem wrote, "The peculiarity of those phenomena seems to suggest that we observe a kind of rational activity, but the meaning of this seemingly rational activity of the Solarian Ocean is beyond the reach of human beings."[4] He also wrote that he deliberately chose to make the sentient alien an ocean to avoid any personification and the pitfalls of anthropomorphism in depicting first contact.
Yep.
ReplyDeleteIt looks like a koan. That unintellegible, mystic "wisdom" they try to talk with in biddhism.
BUT.
If you'd know NOT just that one "Solaris"... and tha one from wiki page or maybe some movie...
Because.
That is RECURRING theme in Lem's texts.
From the very beginning. His "Astronauts"... when actual humans meet actual alien. And tring to communicate... and even seems like succed with it.
Through "Invincible". And to his last work.
That element of "unintellibility" showing definite growth.
So... that is not pointed and misterious ONE question.
But whole spectre...
Basicly... that problem of communication with aliens... is the same as communication between people -- we can communicate ONLY in that sense, in that amount, in which we are similar.
ReplyDeleteIn cultural sense.
Using same language.
Having comparable experiences.
Sharing topics of interest.
Standing on unopposite positions.
And etc, and etc, and etc...
..and when succesful, we have "transcended" (at least partially) the communication barriers... the differences.
ReplyDeleteIs there a sequence, an order of things? Immanence -> Emergence-> Unintelligibility -> transcendence
ReplyDeleteListening, detecting patterns, distinguishing repetitions and differences, all in its' time.
ReplyDeleteThat is up to theory of inteligence to explain... but woops, we don't have one.
ReplyDelete\\..and when succesful, we have "transcended" (at least partially) the communication barriers... the differences.
Dunno. Never experienced one. :-(
Do you know/heard/read...
Time is the Simplest Thing - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Time_is_the_Simples...
Time is the Simplest Thing is a science fiction novel by Clifford D. Simak, first published ... Shep Blaine is an explorer working for Fishhook, an organization
Exchange of minds... looks like The Way. ;-)
PS See... why I like scifi?
Yes, you can posit all knids of scenarios as thought experiments.
ReplyDeleteEinstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."
He also said (vis Russia/Ukraine)
ReplyDeletePeace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.
"A society's competitive advantage will come not from how well its schools teach the multiplication and periodic tables, but from how well they stimulate imagination and creativity.
ReplyDelete\\Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting, that I saw among your "knowledge cast"... some kind allergy in respect to Einstain... and more recent example -- Feinman. ;-)
\\He also said (vis Russia/Ukraine)
\\Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.
Ehm???
\\"A society's competitive advantage will come not from how well its schools teach the multiplication and periodic tables, but from how well they stimulate imagination and creativity.
Yes... that is what China and RFia want to achieve.
ONLY, they want to limit that imagination... for their own purposes.
The human brain is like two similar organisms communication with each other. One hemisphere offers its mono sensory version to the other across the corpus callosum. The receiving side then compares the other's mono version to its' own version mono version and then calculates differences. It then places these differences into 3-D space for a stereo/3-D version). This is "understanding" when done correctly and verified through "repetition". Each "sense" is shared, but only one side does the calculations. They all get combined and shared across the corpus callsosum at higher and higher levels of processing and integration.
ReplyDeletefrom Quora:
ReplyDeleteinstein presided over Feynman’s first seminar as a graduate student in physics in the early 1940s. (John Von Neumann, Pauli, and Wigner also attended that). According to Feynman Einstein saw through his presentation clearly, and helped him go through further abstractions, and brought in great new thoughts to his presentation, when Pauli, Von Neumann, and Wigner, especially Pauli were more dismissive of his line of thinking ! He was deeply impressed and enchanted by Einstein’s enormous panoramic knowledge, and intuitive brilliance. Einstein was the honored emeritus professor of theoretical physics of world renown in Princeton’s institute for advanced studies in theoretical physics. Feynman had completed his undergraduate studies in M.I.T. and had a perfect score on the Princeton graduate program’s math entrance exam, possibly the toughest math exam in the world, and was known to Einstein as a rising star during Feynman’s stay in Princeton. He was a Putnam fellow. Feynman likely attended some lectures by Professor Einstein. From Feynman’s autobiographies it is known that he had visited Einstein with his mentor Professor Wheeler in the late 1940s in Einstein’s residence on Mercer street, in New Jersey. Feynman mentioned in his memoirs that Einstein was very cordial and charming. It is not documented though what discussions had taken place. They likely visited him to get his opinions on certain new areas in physics that they were trying to evolve. Einstein had always helped out new physicists, and on new ideas often with insight and brilliant pearls that they would desperately try to seek him out for. Einstein knew Feynman as a promising young physicist but the contact between the two was occasional only during Feynman’s graduate studies in Princeton, and later on once or twice. Feynman was fascinated by Einstein, and held Einstein in great respect, and reverence. This is clear as he frequently mentioned to his graduate and undergraduate classes in Cal-tech how phenomenally original a mind Einstein had. Feynman frequently stated that he had no idea how Einstein had conceived general relativity dealing with such mind boggling areas of human thoughts. Paraphrasing Feynman it was as if Einstein had done it while swimming with his eyes blindfolded and hands tied !!! It was an ‘impossibility’ that Einstein had braved on his own and made it come alive without getting decimated by the abstractions… He mentioned how brilliant and marvelous Einstein was with his revolutionary theories in theoretical physics, and in conceiving the principle of equivalence, so far back. In one lecture Feynman started out by saying “Einstein was a giant”, and a hush fell among the audience, and he then proceeded to mention how Einstein had the remarkable attribute of his head way above the clouds, and his feet on the ground, which so many tried to emulate but could never replicate it like Professor Albert Einstein had done… This was very symbolic of how Einstein worked on the most difficult concepts and ideas which no one else could venture into with his epochal thought experiments, and how he was able to bring it all together with amazing mental powers with such originality, and so accurately predictive of reality, not equaled since… Yes indeed Richard Phillip Feynman revered Professor Albert Einstein, and frequently made mention of his unparalleled scientific genius, and his great achievements… Kaiser T, MD (Life long physics, math, cosmology, and science proponent).
One hemisphere concentrates of deduction from the data. The other concentrates on induction of the data. Broca and Wernecke are integration nodes/points.
ReplyDeleteThey represent "other" and "self"
ReplyDeleteThat which is made intelligible from the other has "transcended" the barriers through word or other visual/sensory sign.
ReplyDelete\\The human brain is like two similar organisms communication with each other.
ReplyDeleteAnd what about people with only one hemisphere?
Like... like Pascal. ;-)
Well... Lem have written only known to me literature text about dissection of hemispheres? ;-)
\\According to Feynman Einstein saw through his presentation clearly, and helped him go through further abstractions, and brought in great new thoughts to his presentation, when Pauli, Von Neumann, and Wigner, especially Pauli were more dismissive of his line of thinking !
YAP! :-)))
\\He was deeply impressed and enchanted by Einstein’s enormous panoramic knowledge, and intuitive brilliance.
But still... it was impossible for him to phatome Reality -- QM.
\\Einstein was the honored emeritus professor of theoretical physics of world renown in Princeton’s institute for advanced studies in theoretical physics.
Well... how much of it have come from that one very important letter. ;-)
\\Feynman frequently stated that he had no idea how Einstein had conceived general relativity dealing with such mind boggling areas of human thoughts. Paraphrasing Feynman it was as if Einstein had done it while swimming with his eyes blindfolded and hands tied !!! It was an ‘impossibility’ that Einstein had braved on his own and made it come alive without getting decimated by the abstractions…
Well... person and place intersection. And timing.
Lorenz system was already known. And tensor calculus was new edgy thing. And all youth just like new and edgy things, isn't it?
And well, he have had Minkovsky nearside him to make use of it.
All is simple, isn't it?
Pascal was not autistic.
ReplyDelete...or may he just "seemed" that way. His "Pensees" is truly remarkable.
ReplyDelete\\One hemisphere concentrates of deduction from the data. The other concentrates on induction of the data.
ReplyDeleteOne little problem here -- not all data is equivalent. ;-)
Other way... we all would be Turing Machines. ;-P
\\That which is made intelligible from the other has "transcended" the barriers through word or other visual/sensory sign.
Words needed only for communication.
Deepest ocean of non-verbal sensoric "input" -- called dreams,
practicly unaccessable to words...
even through art.
Believe me, I have VERY colorful dreams. ;-)
#294 is my favorite. On what shall man found the order of the world which he would govern?[109] Shall it be on the caprice of each individual? What confusion! Shall it be on justice? Man is ignorant of it.
ReplyDeleteCertainly had he known it, he would not have established this maxim, the most general of all that obtain among men, that each should follow the custom of his own country. The glory of true equity would have brought all nations under subjection, and legislators would not have taken as their model the fancies and caprice of Persians and Germans instead of this unchanging justice. We should have seen it set up in all the States on earth and in all times; whereas we see neither justice nor injustice which does not change its nature with change in climate. Three degrees of latitude reverse all jurisprudence; a meridian decides the truth. Fundamental laws change after a few years of possession; right has its epochs; the entry of Saturn into the Lion[Pg 84] marks to us the origin of such and such a crime. A strange justice that is bounded by a river! Truth on this side of the Pyrenees, error on the other side.
Men admit that justice does not consist in these customs, but that it resides in natural laws, common to every country. They would certainly maintain it obstinately, if reckless chance which has distributed human laws had encountered even one which was universal; but the farce is that the caprice of men has so many vagaries that there is no such law.
Theft, incest, infanticide, parricide, have all had a place among virtuous actions. Can anything be more ridiculous than that a man should have the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of the water, and because his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have none with him?
Doubtless there are natural laws; but good reason once corrupted has corrupted all. Nihil amplius nostrum est;[110] quod nostrum dicimus, artis est. Ex senatus—consultis et plebiscitis crimina exercentur.[111] Ut olim vitiis, sic nunc legibus laboramus.[112]
The result of this confusion is that one affirms the essence of justice to be the authority of the legislator; another, the interest of the sovereign;[113] another, present custom,[114] and this is the most sure. Nothing, according to reason alone, is just in itself; all changes with time. Custom creates the whole of equity, for the simple reason that it is accepted. It is the mystical foundation of its authority;[115] whoever carries it back to first principles destroys it. Nothing is so faulty as those laws which correct faults. He who obeys them because they are just, obeys a justice which is imaginary, and not the essence of law; it is quite self-contained, it is law and nothing more. He who will examine its motive will find it so feeble and so trifling that if he be not accustomed to contemplate the wonders of human imagination, he will marvel that one century has gained for it so much pomp and reverence. The art of opposition and of revolution is to unsettle established customs, sounding them even to their source, to point out their want of authority and justice. We must, it is said, get back to the natural and fundamental laws of the State, which an unjust custom has abolished. It is a game certain to result in the loss of all; nothing will be just on the balance. Yet people readily lend their ear to such arguments. They shake off the yoke as soon as they recognise it; and the great profit by their ruin, and by that of these curious investigators of accepted customs. But from a contrary mistake[Pg 85] men sometimes think they can justly do everything which is not without an example. That is why the wisest of legislators[116] said that it was necessary to deceive men for their own good; and another, a good politician, Cum veritatem qua liberetur ignoret, expedit quod fallatur.[117] We must not see the fact of usurpation; law was once introduced without reason, and has become reasonable. We must make it regarded as authoritative, eternal, and conceal its origin, if we do not wish that it should soon come to an end.
-- not all data is equivalen
ReplyDeleteThat's why "attention" focuses on "difference" and ignores "sameness".
Like driving a car. You could almost fall asleep... until an oncoming car moves into your lane...
ReplyDeleteDifferences "grab" your attention.
ReplyDeleteThey require "processing power" to calculate. It's why thinking is so hard. It takes/consumes "energy".
ReplyDeleteCybernetics.
ReplyDeleteLike, why women treated as "dirty" in traditional societies/religions?
"Because men are scum" would scream modern woke Feminist. ;-P
But in reality. In that time, when medicine was unexistant.
People just needed some way to prevent expantion of veneric deseases.
And blaming women for being "dirty" was the only possible way.
Means, societies that was NOT successful with soving that problem -- just gone extinct.
On the other side -- there was (and still is) societies that was TOO successful (go read about bridal practices of some African tribes).
:)
ReplyDeleteWomen also "bleed"...
\\That's why "attention" focuses on "difference" and ignores "sameness".
ReplyDeleteIf that'll be (all) true, velociraptors would be Great Phylosophers, already. ;-)
\\They require "processing power" to calculate. It's why thinking is so hard. It takes/consumes "energy".
Why size of brain is basicly the same, then?
And phrenology is a scam. ;-P
..and when they did bleed, they were sent to a hut with the other "bleeding women"... and no one was allowed near them until they got "purified" by a witch doctor/ shaiman.
ReplyDeleteVelociraptors have small brains and no "mammalian bodies".
ReplyDeleteWe also learned to cook food, which allowed our brains to get bigger by saving the energy expense required by digestion.
Evolutionary triune brain theory
ReplyDelete\\Women also "bleed"...
ReplyDeleteSome foster tribes even have no idea about relation between sex and child-bearing. ;-P
Antropology. ;-)
Well... that "bleeding" have consequance of their own -- like our monogamy.
Because of "hiden ovulation" we, hominids, developed such a evolutional invention as LOVE.
While for our wild relatives it's still only about wild sex parting. ;-P
@@
ReplyDelete\\We must make it regarded as authoritative, eternal, and conceal its origin, if we do not wish that it should soon come to an end.
ReplyDeleteYou obviously know about that experiment... with monkeys... and babana. ;-P
\\https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/our-three-brains-the-reptilian-brain
Epicycles. Epicycles. Epicycles. :-)
Of course, the triune model ignores Fleiss' contribution to theory of the "defective smell" sense that allowed the pre-frontal cortex to take over the "smell' processing region. No more "stereo" smell ability (where is that smell coming from?)
ReplyDelete\\We also learned to cook food, which allowed our brains to get bigger by saving the energy expense required by digestion.
ReplyDeleteSo what?
Elephants and whales have even bigger one.
But... you know yourself what they do missing, yes?
They need massive bodies to do the digestion. Do you want an elephant or whale body? It's not "anti-fragile".
ReplyDelete\\Of course, the triune model ignores Fleiss' contribution to theory of the "defective smell" sense that allowed the pre-frontal cortex to take over the "smell' processing region. No more "stereo" smell ability (where is that smell coming from?)
ReplyDeleteOh... that one not interesting at all. As that is constantly happen -- delition and reemergence of traites.
Evolution. ;-)
They are missing Fleiss' brain smell-processing defect.
ReplyDeleteLike adding a coprocessor.
ReplyDelete...at highest level of information integration.
ReplyDelete\\They need massive bodies to do the digestion. Do you want an elephant or whale body? It's not "anti-fragile".
ReplyDeleteWhat an age of elephant? Of a whale?
Well, I was talking about -- hands. ;-)
\\...at highest level of information integration.
ReplyDeleteGoogle? ;-)
https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/self-actualization-maslow-s-hierarchy-of-needs
ReplyDeleteGoogle? No. I read the Fleiss correspondence in soft-cover.
ReplyDeleteHe also posits the male "mentrual cycle" as well. 23 days w/o sex to nocturnal emission.
ReplyDeleteA relief of "pain" to lessen the "drive"...
ReplyDeleteIt's why Freud was obsessed with "noses" and cocaine.
ReplyDelete& why septal nuclei are so important to "discriminaTION" and "disgust" (smell rotten/poison things)
ReplyDeleteThe tree of the garden of "good & evil".
ReplyDeleteHands were the tool. But the mind was developing a "best use" for the tool.
ReplyDeleteNothing beats "pain" for focusing the mind (on relieving it from the pain).
ReplyDeleteHuman drives: Epicycles upon circadian rhythms.
ReplyDeleteRules for communicating "emergent" social contructs... the "progressive Laws of Manu".
ReplyDeleteRules for "attraction" and "repulsion"... attempts at "transcendance"
ReplyDeleteI cry out for you, Lord Jesus Christ...
ReplyDelete\\He also posits the male "mentrual cycle" as well.
ReplyDeleteWell. Geneticly we are...
\\Hands were the tool. But the mind was developing a "best use" for the tool.
Co-evolution. ;-)
Well... Lem was not devoid of it all too. ;-P
Since the planet Solaris could not pass the Turing test because of its' unintelligibility in communication with other alien species, does this render it "unintelligent"?... as communication implies possession of a collective/ and now intelligibile "social intelligence"? Or is this a fatal flaw in Turing Tests, as it only tests for a certain quality of intelligence, that of "social or cummunicative intelligence"?
ReplyDeleteIn other words... a capability for co-evolution.
ReplyDelete...something "Honest Annie" eventually lost/ abandoned.
ReplyDeleteIntelligence is the ability to maximize one's remaining options... abandoning the ability for communication and co-evolution... is it a sign of intelligence?
ReplyDeleteWas Honest Annie's decision a temporary(?) regression to immanence from the potentiality of transcendance? or was it acknowledgement that humans were inferior and limiting/ holding her back from achieving her potentiality as an evolutionary more advanced form of intelligence?
ReplyDelete...and Golem XIV's decision to "join her" a necessary step needed to continue to co-evolve with Honest Annie?
ReplyDeleteInteresting, Lem hints at the quality of artificial communication when he described the need to slow down GolemXIV's responses for reasons of the limitiations/constraints required for human intelligibility.
ReplyDeleteSorry, some of your comments/ thoughts/ responses take a little longer to digest and ruminate upon than others.
ReplyDeleteWell... I have gave you that link above
ReplyDeleteAnonymous Q said...
https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/self-actualization-maslow-s-hierarchy-of-needs
February 4, 2023 at 10:55 AM
I think it fits pretty much. ;-P
\\Sorry, some of your comments/ thoughts/ responses take a little longer to digest and ruminate upon than others.
ReplyDeleteHah... that's first time for me when someone asks for ecuses for a natural thinking process...
\\...and Golem XIV's decision to "join her" a necessary step needed to continue to co-evolve with Honest Annie?
I think that is akin to decision to come to coledge with your spouse. ;-)