The Teaching Machine.

vimothy

yurp
I'm just saying once you add feedback then thwres this thing that satisfies the algorithm, and once you iterate a few times whatever thing that's present that's satisfying the algorithm is going to be pushed further and further to the front
 

luka

Well-known member
Staff member
is it different from deers ending up with big antlers cos girls like big antlers?
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
"There is a possibility of ceasing to be a machine. It is of this we must think, and not about the different kinds of machines that exist."

-George Gurdjieff

How interesting is that.

Couldn't even tell which book of his it comes from, or if it even comes from a book. Might've just been from some overheard and recorded dialogue or something. Watching a series of lectures on him, which is where I found the quote.

The whole thing, according to this set of lecturers (who, I have the impression, might not be far along enough to do the kind of things that need to be done. But I think its still noteworthy in them, that they could all likely be referred to by their close acquaintances as "wise", perhaps even "inspiring".)

But I think the lectures so far are interesting, and seriously thought-over. I just doubt its intensity.

Don't know how much he pops up in conversation here though. Might be an elusive specimen. He seemed to closely incarnate a sort of psychic attracter for the high-minded. Tough for me to think of this as someone just harboring "subjective"/or non-absolute opinions, but rather just seems like someone who, from my perspective, is attempting to express an effectively higher-order ontology - in terms we can understand.

Regardless of what we think of Gurdjieff, the kind of "graduation" from our order to the "higher" order is operationally identical of a sort of fractal tournament of iterations. The winner in this pond is elevated to a pond ten times wider. Rather, the winner in tis pond then becomes the pond, and moves around as a pond within another pond, still administering the smaller pond from which it graduated.

Weird description, but it'll have to do. The point is that: the whole field of possible opinions is itself, just a single meta-opinion in a field of possible meta-opinions. We can preserve our ideological rivalries, and still progress rapidly. What matters is not which ideology wins out, but which balance of ideologies wins out.

Sometimes a higher-order operation requires, what appear to us as, a shortcoming here and an overshooting there. So long as we conserve our ideology, rather than orchestrate all ideologies to generate the higher harmony.

But in auditing this guy Gurdjieff, he seems legitimate. It really seems like he exhibits a certain possibility of overcoming "natural" and foundational aspects of Human subject. I suggest we nominate him for the pantheon - their lineup could always use some fresh blood, no? - and I will pass a vase around to collect your votes.

But, unless he continues to sustain the audit, which I am subjected to just as much as I subject him to it, let us not forget he would be but one aspect of the mission. How, say, could something like that be marketed, today? Totally have no idea.

Is there a crash course for religion building? (Kidding as I wrote that, but I guess not really)

(Edited this one a lot. Also, high.)

(edit: @shiels was spot on earlier about this seeming like I'm a theory bot trying out material on you. I hopped around all over the place in this post.)
 
Last edited:

constant escape

winter withered, warm
The Napoleon one I posted a while back is still the best.

Might have to co-sign this with my sober self, but this is very much the sort of imagery that would revolve around representing the higher order I have in mind. That's what it would look like to us.

Pretty sure I ranted about the text-to-image AttGAN (deeply foreign stuff to me) function here:


Signed and approved by sober self, later on:

________________________
 

version

Who loves ya, baby?
Weird description, but it'll have to do. The point is that: the whole field of possible opinions is itself, just a single meta-opinion in a field of possible meta-opinions. We can preserve our ideological rivalries, and still progress rapidly. What matters is not which ideology wins out, but which balance of ideologies wins out.

Sometimes a higher-order operation requires, what appear to us as, a shortcoming here and an overshooting there. So long as we conserve our ideology, rather than orchestrate all ideologies to generate the higher harmony.
This is what you were getting at when you were inquiring about fascism with a nested progressive component, right?
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
This is what you were getting at when you were inquiring about fascism with a nested progressive component, right?
I could've been talking about an attempt to smuggle one ideology into another, and that would fit into this - its just coming from a very different angle.

Yeah because the optimal meta-opinion, which we reach for but its always itself moving, will register to us as just an opinion, one that we must align ourself with. (edit: on second read, that sounds rather dogmatic. Also sounds ill-worded. We don't align with what registers to us as the winning opinion, but rather what seems to be upstream of all opinions, which is largely a matter of weighing weights.) But because it only registers as an opinion, it appears to take a position, rather than appeared to be the whole field of position, which is what it most optimally represents.

Like how the foul ball could've been yours if you were over there. And you try to imitate there.
 

constant escape

winter withered, warm
It involves measuring things according to an axis that has been invisible to us.

(edit: not an axis, technically, but it'll have to do)
 
Top